Food Safety and Inspection Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Census Bureau
Economic Development Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Justice Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
Surface Transportation Board
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.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule; withdrawal.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a direct final rule that would have added the Holtec International HI–STORM Underground Maximum Capacity (UMAX) Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1040, to the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” The NRC is taking this action because it has received at least one significant adverse comment in response to a companion proposed rule that was concurrently published with the direct final rule.
Effective November 19, 2014, the NRC withdraws the direct final rule published at 79 FR 53281 on September 9, 2014.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–0120 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Gregory R. Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–6445, email:
On September 9, 2014 (79 FR 53281), the NRC published in the
In the September 9, 2014, proposed rule, the NRC stated that if any significant adverse comments were received, then the NRC would withdraw the direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
As stated in the September 9, 2014, proposed rule, the NRC will address the comments in a subsequent final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final regulations, temporary regulations, and removal of temporary regulations.
This document contains final and temporary regulations relating to the consequences to U.S. and foreign persons for failing to file gain recognition agreements (GRAs) or related documents, or to satisfy other reporting obligations, associated with certain transfers of property to foreign corporations in nonrecognition exchanges. The regulations are necessary to update and clarify the rules that apply when a U.S. or foreign person fails to file a GRA or related documents or to satisfy other reporting obligations. These regulations affect U.S. and foreign persons that transfer property to foreign corporations in nonrecognition exchanges.
These regulations are effective on November 19, 2014.
Shane M. McCarrick, (202) 317–6937 (not a toll-free number).
The collections of information contained in the regulations have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545–1487.
The collections of information are in §§ 1.367(a)–2(f)(2), 1.367(a)–3(f)(2), 1.367(a)–7(e)(2), 1.367(a)–8(p)(2), 1.367(e)–2(f)(2), 1.6038B–1(c)(4)(ii), and 1.6038B–1(e)(4). The collections of information are mandatory. The likely respondents are domestic corporations.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
Books and records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents might become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1. On January 31, 2013, the IRS and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–140649–11) in the
The proposed regulations under section 6038B require a U.S. person that transfers property (U.S. transferor) to file a Form 926, Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation, with respect to a transfer of stock or securities in all cases in which a GRA is filed in order to avoid penalties under section 6038B. However, the proposed regulations do not require the U.S. transferor to report on the Form 926 any specific information regarding the transferred stock or securities. The IRS and the Treasury Department have determined that, similar to the information that must be provided for other types of transferred property, the U.S. transferor should report on the Form 926 the fair market value, adjusted tax basis, and gain recognized with respect to the transferred stock or securities, as well as any other information that Form 926, its accompanying instructions, or other applicable guidance require to be submitted with respect to the transfer of the stock or securities. Section 1.6038B–1(b)(2)(iv) of these final regulations is thus modified accordingly.
The proposed regulations under § 1.367(a)–8(p) only apply to requests for relief submitted on or after the date the proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations. One comment requested that these final regulations permit U.S. transferors to request relief under § 1.367(a)–8(p) of the proposed regulations for certain failures to file a GRA document or comply with the GRA provisions that are the subject of requests for relief submitted before the date the proposed regulations are finalized. According to the commentator, not permitting U.S. transferors to do so could result in disparate treatment for similarly situated U.S. transferors.
The IRS and the Treasury Department have determined that it is appropriate to provide relief for certain failures to file or to comply that were not willful and that were the subject of requests for relief submitted under § 1.367(a)–8(p) of the existing final regulations (or submitted under § 1.367(a)–8T(e)(10), as contained in 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2008, or § 1.367(a)–8(c)(2), as contained in 26 CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2006) before November 19, 2014 (previously filed requests). Accordingly, § 1.367(a)–8(r)(3) of these final regulations provides a procedure under which U.S. transferors may resubmit certain previously filed requests (including requests that were denied). By submitting a previously filed request under this procedure, a U.S. transferor agrees that these final regulations under § 1.6038B–1 will apply to any transfer that is the subject of the request. This is intended to provide parity between similarly situated U.S. transferors and promote the policies underlying the proposed regulations by ensuring that a U.S. transferor that establishes its failure was not willful under § 1.367(a)–8(p) is still subject to penalties under section 6038B if its failure was not due to reasonable cause.
One comment was received regarding the procedures described in § 1.367(a)–8(p)(2) of the proposed regulations for establishing that failures to file GRA documents, or failures to comply, were not willful. The comment requested that these final regulations excuse Coordinated Industry Case (CIC) taxpayers from the requirement under § 1.367(a)–8(p)(2) of filing an amended return promptly after discovering a failure to file or a failure to comply. Instead, the commentator suggested that these final regulations allow CIC taxpayers to submit the materials required under § 1.367(a)–8(p)(2) when the taxpayers effect a “qualified amended return” under Rev. Proc. 94–69, 1994–2 CB 804 (generally providing special procedures for certain taxpayers to show additional tax due or make adequate disclosure with respect to an item or position on a tax return prior to an audit).
According to the commentator, it is possible that an amended return filed to correct the failure to file or failure to comply will differ from the return that is ultimately audited when the taxpayer effects a qualified amended return under Rev. Proc. 94–69. The commentator stated that this could result in an inefficient use of resources in situations in which a CIC taxpayer, when preparing the amended return, includes not only adjustments related to the failure to file or failure to comply, but also all other adjustments as to which the taxpayer is aware.
The IRS and the Treasury Department decline to adopt this comment. The commentator's concerns exist in other international contexts (for example, § 1.1503(d)–1(c)(2)), and it would be inappropriate to create differing
One comment requested that these final regulations provide a mechanism under which taxpayers may modify the fair market value of transferred stock or securities reported on a previously filed GRA. According to the commentator, taxpayers often determine the fair market value of stock or securities before the date that the stock or securities are transferred to a foreign corporation; these determinations are based on projected financial information that may, in some cases, deviate from the actual financial information on the date of the transfer.
The IRS and the Treasury Department decline to adopt the comment. The IRS and the Treasury Department have determined that the proposed regulations adequately address the commentator's concerns. First, because a GRA is filed when a taxpayer files its tax return (rather than at the time of an outbound transfer of stock or securities), a taxpayer has, not including extensions, at least two and a half months following a transfer to reconcile projected financial information with actual financial information. Furthermore, a taxpayer may file an extension if it needs additional time to comply with the requirements of § 1.367(a)–8. Finally, a taxpayer that fails to materially comply with the requirements of § 1.367(a)–8, including the requirement to include the fair market value of the transferred stock or securities in the GRA pursuant to § 1.367(a)–8(c)(3)(i)(B), may be eligible to correct the GRA by seeking relief based on a claim that the failure was not willful.
The IRS and the Treasury Department have determined that it is appropriate to extend the relief for failures that are not willful to certain other reporting obligations under section 367(a) that were not covered by the proposed regulations. This Treasury decision therefore revises § 1.367(a)–2 (providing an exception to gain recognition under section 367(a)(1) for assets transferred outbound for use in the active conduct of a trade or business outside of the United States) and § 1.367(a)–7 (regarding application of section 367(a) to an outbound transfer of assets by a domestic target corporation in an exchange described in section 361) so that a taxpayer may, solely for purposes of section 367(a), be deemed not to have failed to comply with reporting obligations under §§ 1.367(a)–2 and 1.367(a)–7 by demonstrating that the failure was not willful. The temporary § 1.367(a)–7 regulations regarding reasonable cause relief are therefore removed. Because the cases in which relief is sought under § 1.367(a)–2 and many of the cases in which relief is sought under § 1.367(a)–7 are also subject to reporting under section 6038B and the regulations thereunder, the penalty imposed under section 6038B for failure to satisfy a reporting obligation should generally be sufficient to encourage proper reporting and compliance.
On July 26, 2010, the Deputy Commissioner International (LMSB) issued directive LMSB–4–0510–017 (Directive). The Directive permits taxpayers to remedy, without having to demonstrate reasonable cause, unfiled or deficient GRA documents associated with a timely filed initial GRA or a timely filed document purporting to be an initial GRA. The Directive explained that the means to best ensure compliance with the GRA provisions was under study and that, pending the study, the Directive would be effective “until further notice.” Because this Treasury decision provides comprehensive guidance that is designed to ensure compliance with the GRA provisions, the Deputy Commissioner (International), Large Business & International will revoke the Directive effective on November 19, 2014.
Under § 1.367(a)–8(p)(2)(i) of the proposed regulations, a U.S. transferor who seeks relief for a failure to file or failure to comply with the GRA rules must, among other requirements, file an original Form 8838, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax Under Section 367—Gain Recognition Agreement, with an amended return. The Form 8838 must, with respect to the gain realized but not recognized on the initial transfer, extend the period of limitations on the assessment of tax to the period specified in § 1.367(a)–8(p)(2)(i) of the proposed regulations. The IRS and the Treasury Department recognize that in certain cases (for example, certain cases in which a U.S. transferor seeks relief for an unfiled annual certification), the U.S. transferor will already have filed an original Form 8838 that extends the period of limitations through the required time period. These final regulations therefore provide that, in these cases, a U.S. transferor need not file another Form 8838 with the amended return; rather, the U.S. transferor must attach a copy of the previously filed Form 8838 to the amended return. A similar modification is made to these final regulations under § 1.367(e)–2 concerning outbound liquidations and certain foreign-to-foreign liquidations described in section 332.
Section 1.367(a)–8(j)(8) of the existing regulations provides that a failure to comply with the GRA provisions will extend the period of limitations on assessment of tax until the close of the third full taxable year ending after the date on which the Director of Field Operations or Area Director receives actual notice of the failure to comply from the U.S. transferor. The same provision is included in the proposed regulations. Section 1.367(e)–2(e)(4)(ii)(B) of the proposed regulations provides a similar rule with respect to a liquidation document.
The IRS and the Treasury Department have determined that the running of the extended period of limitations arising under §§ 1.367(a)–8(j)(8) and 1.367(e)–2(e)(4)(ii)(B) should be based on when the taxpayer furnishes to the Director of Field Operations International, Large Business & International (or any successor to the roles and responsibilities of such person) the information that should have been provided under the §§ 1.367(a)–8 or 1.367(e)–2 regulations, as applicable. Thus, in these final regulations, §§ 1.367(a)–8(j)(8) and 1.367(e)–2(e)(4)(ii)(B) are modified accordingly.
In addition, §§ 1.367(a)&8(c)(2)(iii), 1.367(e)–2(b)(2)(i)(C)(
Section 1.367(a)–3(a) of the existing final regulations provides the general rule that a U.S. person must recognize gain on certain transfers of stock or
Pursuant to the reporting requirement contained in § 1.367(a)–3(c)(6)(i)(F)(
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 also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations merely provide for a change in the standard, or clarify or provide the standard, that will be used to determine whether a taxpayer that has failed to file a GRA or satisfy other reporting obligations under section 367 will be entitled to avoid full gain recognition under section 367(a)(1) or 367(e)(2), as applicable. Accordingly a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business, and no comments were received.
The principal author of these regulations is Shane M. McCarrick of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(f)
(2)
(ii)
(B)
(3) For illustrations of the application of the willfulness standard of this paragraph (f), see the examples in § 1.367(a)–8(p)(3).
(4) Paragraph (f) applies to requests for relief submitted on or after November 19, 2014.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, for purposes of this paragraph (c)(6), a U.S. income tax return will be considered timely filed if it is filed on or before the last date prescribed for filing (taking into account any extensions of time therefor) for the taxable year in which the transfer occurs.
(f)
(2)
(ii)
(B)
(3) For illustrations of the application of the willfulness standard of this paragraph (f), see the examples in § 1.367(a)–8(p)(3).
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(x) Paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (f) of this section apply to statements that are required to be filed on or after November 19, 2014, as well as to requests for relief submitted on or after November 19, 2014.
The additions read as follows:
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix) * * * Paragraph (d)(2)(vi)(B)(
The revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(2)
(ii)
(B)
(iii) For illustrations of the application of the willfulness standard of this paragraph (e)(2), see the examples in § 1.367(a)–8(p)(3).
(j)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) A
(vi) An
(xiii) A
(xiv)
(xv)
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) A statement that the U.S. transferor agrees to comply with all the conditions and requirements of this section, including to recognize gain under the gain recognition agreement in accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, to extend the period of limitations on assessment of tax as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, to file the certification described in paragraph (g) of this section, and, as provided in paragraph (j)(8) of this section, to treat a failure to comply (as described in paragraph (j)(8) of this section) as extending the period of limitations on assessment of tax for the taxable year in which gain is required to be reported.
(d)
(i) The initial gain recognition agreement and any other gain recognition agreement document required to be filed with the initial gain recognition agreement are included with a timely filed return of the U.S. transferor for the taxable year during which the initial transfer occurs; and
(ii) Each gain recognition agreement document identified in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section is completed in all material respects.
(j) * * *
(8)
(i) If there is a gain recognition event in a taxable year, a failure to report gain or pay any additional tax or interest due under the terms of the gain recognition agreement; and
(ii) A failure to file a gain recognition agreement document, other than an initial gain recognition agreement or a document required to be filed with the initial gain recognition agreement. For this purpose, there is a failure to file a gain recognition agreement document if—
(A) The gain recognition agreement document is not timely filed as required under this section, or
(B) The gain recognition agreement document is not completed in all material respects.
(p)
(2)
(ii)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(r)
(3)
(i) The statute of limitations on the assessment of tax has not expired for any year to which the request relates; and
(ii) The U.S. transferor resubmits the request under paragraph (p) of this section, notes on the request that the request is being submitted pursuant to this paragraph (r)(3), and acknowledges on the request that the last sentence of § 1.6038B–1(g)(6) provides a special rule regarding the application of § 1.6038B–1 to any transfer that is the subject of the request.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(A) Section 337(a) and (b)(1) will not apply; and
(B) The domestic liquidating corporation will recognize gain or loss on the distribution of property to the foreign distributee corporation, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(iii) * * *
(D) * * * The required statement shall also state that the domestic liquidating corporation agrees, as provided in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(B) of this section, to treat a failure to comply (as described in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section) as extending the period of limitations on assessment of tax for the taxable year in which gain is required to be reported.
(e)
(2)
(i) An
(A) The statement and attachments described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of this section;
(B) The statement described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(D) of this section; and
(C) The statement and attachments described in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C) of this section.
(ii) A
(A) The schedule described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(E)(
(B) The schedule described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(E)(
(C) The statement and attachments described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(E)(
(iii) A
(3)
(A) An initial liquidation document is not filed with the timely filed U.S. income tax return specified under this section, or
(B) An initial liquidation document is not completed in all material respects.
(ii)
(4)
(A) A failure to report gain, or pay any additional tax or interest due, in accordance with the requirements under this section; and
(B) A failure to file a subsequent liquidation document, as determined by applying paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, but replacing the term “initial liquidation document” with the term “subsequent liquidation document.”
(ii)
(A) Any gain (but not loss) that was not previously recognized by the domestic liquidating corporation or foreign liquidating corporation, as applicable, under paragraph (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(iii), or (c)(2)(i)(B) of this section must be recognized; and
(B) The period of limitations on assessment of tax for the taxable year in which gain is required to be reported will be extended until the close of the third full taxable year ending after the date on which the domestic liquidating corporation, foreign distributee corporation, or foreign liquidating corporation, as applicable, furnishes to the Director of Field Operations International, Large Business & International (or any successor to the roles and responsibilities of such position, as appropriate) (Director) the information that should have been provided under this section.
(f)
(2)
(ii)
(3) For illustrations of the application of the willfulness standard of this paragraph (f), see the examples in § 1.367(a)–8(p)(3).
(g)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * * (1) * * * -(i) * * * In addition, if the U.S. person files a statement under § 1.367(a)–3(d)(2)(vi)(C), a gain recognition agreement under § 1.367(a)–8, or a liquidation document under § 1.367(e)–2(b), such person must comply in all material respects with the requirements of such section pursuant to the terms of the statement, gain recognition agreement, or liquidation document, as applicable, in order to satisfy a reporting obligation under section 6038B. * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(ii) * * *
(iii)
(iv)
(c) * * *
(1) through (4)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6038B–1T(c)(1) through (4)(i).
(ii)
(iii) through (5) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.6038B–1T(c)(4)(iii) through (5).
(e) * * *
(4)
(ii)
(iii)
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) With respect to an initial gain recognition agreement filed under § 1.367(a)–8, a failure to comply as determined under § 1.367(a)–8(j)(8), but for purposes of this section, determined without regard to the application of § 1.367(a)–8(p).
(iv) With respect to an initial liquidation document filed under § 1.367(e)–2(b)(2), a failure to comply as determined under § 1.367(e)–2(e)(4)(i), but for purposes of this section, determined without regard to the application of § 1.367(e)–2(f).
(g) * * *
(6) The second sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(i) and paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(B)(
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the operating regulation that governs the Conrail railroad bridge over Darby Creek at mile marker 0.25 in Essington, PA. The bridge owner, Conrail, is modifying the existing remote operating system which controls the bridge operations. Cameras will be installed and the remote operating site will move from its current location in Delair, NJ to Mt. Laurel, NJ. The train crew is no longer required to stop and check the waterway for approaching vessel traffic prior to initiating a bridge closure and mariners requesting an opening for the bridge will have to contact the new remote location.
This rule is effective December 19, 2014.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG–2014–0367. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mrs. Jessica Shea, Fifth Coast Guard District Bridge Administration Division, Coast Guard; telephone 757–398–6422, email
On August 1, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Darby Creek, Essington, PA in the
The bridge owner, Conrail, requested a change to 33 CFR 117.903 because they modified the sensor and visual equipment on site at their bridge across Darby Creek. They also relocated the remote operation station to a new location. The regulation is changing two aspects of the bridge operation. Specifically, the location of the remote operator and the installation of cameras to verify whether any vessels are transiting the waterway before a bridge closure is initiated. This rule does not change the operating schedule of the bridge.
The scope of the waterway inspection is different between the current on-site train crewmember inspection process and the range of the proposed camera installation. There is also a difference in the time it takes between the inspection and the initiation of the bridge closure operations. Currently, the regulation requires an on-site train crewmember to conduct an inspection of the waterway for vessels by stopping the train approximately 200 feet north of the bridge site when approached from the north and 300 feet south of the bridge site when approached from the south. Once the train is stopped, the train crewmember walks to the bridge site and physically looks up and down the channel. The time it takes to stop the
The closer the vessels are to the bridge, the more likely it is that the train crewmember will see them using the process required by the current regulation. Under the modified regulation, the camera inspection of the waterway has the capability to zoom up and down stream allowing for easier detection of a smaller vessel approaching the bridge. After inspection of the waterway, using the cameras, the bridge closing operations would then occur from a remote location at the Mt. Laurel remote operating station.
Currently, the bridge is in the open to navigation position between April 1 and October 31 and operated by the bridge controller at the remote operating station in Delair, NJ. The shift from the Delair, NJ to the Mt. Laurel, NJ operating station enables Conrail to consolidate its control of the train line and Darby Creek Bridge. By controlling the track as well as the bridge operating mechanism at the Mt. Laurel station, the remote operator has access to more information regarding the anticipated arrival time for when the trains will be at the bridge site. Information such as train speed and location directly contribute to when the bridge will need to be closed. The shift of the remote operating location to the Mt. Laurel location may shorten the duration of the bridge closures due to the higher accuracy of information on train speed and anticipated arrival time at the bridge site.
The average tidal range for Darby Creek is 5 feet. Currents run on average between 1–2 knots. The actual depth at the bridge ranges between 15 and 20 feet. Darby Creek is used by several recreational vessels during the summer boating season. There is no commercial vessel traffic on Darby Creek.
From April 1 to October 31, the bridge is left in the open to navigation position and will only be lowered for the passage of train and maintenance. Train activity in this location requires the bridge to close to navigation four times a day Monday thru Friday. On Saturday and Sunday, the bridge is used twice each day.
From November 1 through March 31, the bridge is in the closed to navigation position but will open if 24 hours notice is given.
The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 45 days and no comments were received therefore no changes were made. However, the Coast Guard is making non-substantive changes in the Final Rule that were not identified in the NPRM.
The mile marker listed in 33 CFR § 117.903 (a) describes the bridge as being located at mile marker 0.3. Upon further review, the description of the geographic location for this bridge is being revised to reflect its actual location at mile marker 0.25. The regulatory text has been updated to clarify (1) how the lights on the drawbridge actually operate when the span is in motion and (2) change the terminology channel traffic lights to center span lights. Also, the paragraphs under 33 CFR 117.903(a) have been reorganized for efficiency. None of these changes affect the intent of the NPRM or the operation of the bridge.
The drawbridge operating schedule will not change under the Final Rule. From April 1 to October 31, the bridge will continue to be left in the open to navigation position and will only be lowered for the passage of train and maintenance. From November 1 through March 31, the bridge is in the closed to navigation position but will open if 24 hours notice is given.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. There are no changes to the drawbridge operating schedule only to the methods used to operate the drawbridge.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. There are no changes to the drawbridge operating schedule. Vessels that can safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The draw of the Conrail automated railroad bridge, mile 0.25, at Essington, shall operate as follows:
(1) The bridge will be operated remotely by the South Jersey Train Dispatcher located in Mt. Laurel, NJ. Operational information will be provided 24 hours a day by telephone at (856) 231–2282.
(2) From April 1 through October 31, the draw shall be left in the open position and will only be lowered for the passage of trains and to perform periodic maintenance authorized in accordance with subpart A of this part.
(3) From November 1 through March 31, the draw shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given by telephone at (856) 231–2282. Operational information will be provided 24 hours a day by telephone at (856) 231–2282.
(4) The timeframe to initiate the bridge closure will be not more than 10 minutes before a train will arrive at the bridge location. If a train, moving toward the bridge has crossed the home signal for the bridge, the train may continue across the bridge and must clear the bridge prior to stopping for any reason. Trains shall be controlled so that any delay in opening of the draw shall not exceed fifteen minutes except as provided in § 117.31(b).
(5) The bridge will be equipped with cameras and channel sensors to visually and electronically ensure the waterway is clear before the bridge closes. The video and sensors are located and monitored at the remote operating location in Mt. Laurel, NJ. The channel sensors signal will be a direct input to the bridge control system. In the event of failure or obstruction of the infrared channel sensors, the bridge will automatically stop closing and the South Jersey Train Dispatcher will return the bridge to the open position. In the event of video failure the bridge will remain in the full open position.
(6) The Conrail Railroad center span light will change from fixed green to flashing red anytime the bridge is not in the full open position.
(7) Prior to downward movement of the span, the horn will sound two prolonged blasts, followed by a pause, and then two short blasts until the bridge is seated and locked down. At the time of movement, the center span light will change from fixed green to flashing red and remain flashing until the bridge has returned to its full open position.
(8) When the train controller at Mt. Laurel has verified that rail traffic has cleared, they will sound the horn five times to signal the draw is about to return to its full open position.
(9) During upward movement of the span, the horn will sound two prolonged blasts, followed by a pause, and then sound two short blasts until the bridge is in the full open position. The center span light will continue to flash red until the bridge is in the fully open position.
(10) When the draw cannot be operated from the remote site, a bridge tender must be called to operate the bridge in the traditional manner. Personnel shall be dispatched to arrive
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule; notice of final action on reconsideration.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action on its reconsideration of the startup and shutdown provisions in the final rules titled, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units.” The national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) issued pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112 are referred to as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and the new source performance standards (NSPS) issued pursuant to CAA section 111 are referred to as the Utility NSPS.
On November 30, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted reconsideration of, proposed, and requested comment on a limited set of issues in the February 16, 2012, final MATS and Utility NSPS, including certain issues related to the final work practice standards applicable during startup periods and shutdown periods. On June 25, 2013, the EPA reopened the public comment period for the reconsideration issues related to the startup and shutdown provisions of MATS and the startup and shutdown provisions related to the particulate matter (PM) standard in the Utility NSPS. The EPA is now taking final action on the standards applicable during startup periods and shutdown periods in MATS and on startup and shutdown provisions related to the PM standard in the Utility NSPS.
The effective date of the rule is November 19, 2014.
For the MATS NESHAP action: Mr. William Maxwell, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 541–5430; Fax number (919) 541–5450; Email address:
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.40, 60.40Da, or 60.40c or in 40 CFR 63.9982. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 60.4 or 40 CFR 63.13 (General Provisions).
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final rule will be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address:
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 20, 2015. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
On February 16, 2012, the final MATS and the Utility NSPS rules were published in the
This final action includes final amendments to the startup and shutdown provisions of the final MATS and Utility NSPS issued by the EPA on February 16, 2012. This action does not alter or reopen any other MATS or Utility NSPS provisions, including those provisions recently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Court) in
The November 30, 2012, proposed reconsideration rule reopened, among other things: (1) The requirements applicable during startup periods and shutdown periods in MATS, and (2) the startup and shutdown provisions related to the PM standard in the Utility NSPS. We are taking final action today on the requirements for startup periods and shutdown periods contained in 40 CFR Part 63, subpart UUUUU, and 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Da.
As noted above, in the proposed reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed revisions to, and took comment on, the definitions of “startup” and “shutdown” and the work practice requirements associated with those periods in the final MATS rule. The EPA also took comment on the startup and shutdown provisions relating to the PM standard in the Utility NSPS. The EPA received a number of comments regarding the proposed startup and shutdown provisions, including data and information relevant to the proposed work practice standard that applies during such periods, and the agency also reviewed EGU nitrogen oxides (NO
Because this final rule is very similar to the February 2012 final rule, the impacts of these revisions on the costs and the benefits of the final rule are minor.
After consideration of the public comments received and other information, the EPA is finalizing the startup and shutdown provisions contained in the final MATS rule and we are also finalizing an alternative compliance option for startup periods and shutdown periods.
As discussed in more detail below, the alternative work practice standard for startup periods and shutdown periods requires coal- and oil-fired EGUs to initiate startup using only clean fuels and to continue combusting the maximum amount of clean fuels possible at the facility throughout the entire startup period. EGUs that chose to comply with the alternative work practice will be required to have sufficient clean fuel capacity to startup and warm the facility to the point where the primary PM controls (e.g., fabric filters (FFs) and electrostatic precipitators (ESPs)) can be brought on line at the same time as, or within 1 hour of, the addition of the primary fuel (i.e., coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel) to the EGU. If a facility does not have sufficient clean fuel capacity to enable initiation and operation of the PM controls within 1 hour of addition of primary fuel, then the source will have to increase its clean fuel capacity or take other action to comply with the work practice requirements in this final rule.
The EPA has established these final alternative requirements after determining what the best performing EGUs do during startup periods and shutdown periods. The EPA used several different metrics to determine the best performing sources for various aspects of the work practice requirements and definitions. Specifically, concerning the use of clean fuels, the comments received and the Acid Rain data in the record indicate that most EGU operations start using clean fuels and that many of those EGUs generate electricity while using clean fuels and/or routinely engage their PM controls before or within 1 hour of beginning to combust coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel. The clean fuels identified by the commenters and included in the final rule are inherently cleaner from a HAP emissions perspective than coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel, and, for this reason, maximizing the use of clean fuels during startup will greatly limit the emissions of HAP while EGUs are warming up to temperatures sufficient to engage the air pollution control devices (APCDs). Thus, we considered those EGUs that use clean fuels for the longest period of time before the introduction of coal and the generation of electricity to be the best performing EGUs because they are likely to have the lowest amount of HAP emissions during the startup period. In addition, the best performing EGUs were also determined to be those with the ability to engage PM control devices at the time (i.e., within 1 hour) of introduction of primary fuel. Further, we believe all of the concerns raised by commenters about the ability to engage the PM controls can be safely resolved to allow compliance with the final work practice, as explained in the RTC.
For determining the appropriate time after generation to define the end of startup (i.e., the time when the numerical standards apply), the EPA conducted an analysis of continuous emission monitor system (CEMS) data for NO
We used this approach to determine the end of startup because it is reasonable to expect the EGUs that are able to most quickly and efficiently engage their controls after the generation of electricity to be the best performing sources and to have the lowest HAP emissions during and directly after the startup period, and because we are confident that EGUs will be able to accurately measure HAP emissions with CEMS at this time. The requirement to maximize the use of clean fuels (with inherently low HAP emissions) during the startup period ensures that HAP emissions are minimized during that time. Because EGUs subject to Acid Rain Program requirements are required to submit continuous NO
For shutdown periods, the EPA determined that sources could cease adding coal or oil to the EGU prior to shutting down the APCDs. We determined that sources able to run their control devices even after coal or oil is added to the EGU for the last time before shutdown were the best performing sources because HAP emissions would be minimized as the EGU combusts the remaining coal or oil in the boiler.
The final work practice standard, when applied across the industry, will greatly reduce HAP emissions during startup periods and shutdown periods. The requirement to maximize clean fuel use throughout the startup period will significantly limit HAP emissions because of the inherently low HAP emissions associated with the clean fuels identified in 40 CFR 63.10042.
The specific provisions of the alternative startup and shutdown requirements and our rationales for those provisions are discussed in more detail below and in the RTC document in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234.
In the November 2012 reconsideration proposal, we proposed revisions to the definitions of startup and shutdown contained in the final MATS rule and set forth in 40 CFR 63.10042, after receiving petitions for reconsideration of the startup and shutdown provisions in the final MATS rule. Petitioners asserted, among other things, that the final rule's definitions of startup and shutdown were not sufficiently clear, should accommodate operation of cogeneration units, and did not accurately reflect startup conditions for all affected units. We received additional comments on these issues during the public comment periods. For more discussion of the petitions for reconsideration and the comments on the definitions in the final rule, see the RTC in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234.
As a result of comments received on the November 2012 proposal and the June 2013 reopening of the public comment period, we have further revised the proposed definitions as follows.
a. Startup. The definition of startup in the November 2012 reconsideration proposed rule was similar to the definition the EPA finalized in MATS in February 2012. In this final reconsideration rule, we have maintained the final MATS definition of startup and, in addition, are finalizing an alternative definition of startup based on the November 2012 proposal and the analysis in the startup and shutdown TSD. Sources may choose to use either definition of startup when complying with the startup and shutdown requirements. We are finalizing both definitions because we believe that they both meet the requirements of CAA section 112 to reduce HAP emissions during this time period and will provide operators with flexibility, even though we question the ability to accurately measure HAP emissions at the start of electricity generation. A discussion of the comments and analyses that led to inclusion of the alternative startup definition is provided below.
In the November 2012 reconsideration proposal, the EPA proposed that startup be defined as the period in which operation of an EGU is initiated for any purpose. The proposed definition indicated that startup begins with either the first-ever firing of fuel in an EGU for the purpose of producing electricity or useful thermal energy (such as heat or steam) for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes or the firing of fuel in an EGU for any purpose after a shutdown event. The proposed
The EPA disagrees with the commenters to the extent they maintain that a work practice is required after emissions can be accurately measured or that the agency is bound to the time contained in the final rule where, as here, we conclude that the HAP measurement methodologies are not capable of accurately measuring HAP emissions during the defined startup period. The EPA did, however, conduct an additional technical analysis after its initial review of the comments and in June 2013 published a document reopening the public comment period. The document specifically requested comment on the additional technical analysis the EPA had conducted in response to comments received concerning the end of startup. See “Assessment of startup period at coal-fired electric generating units” (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20378). In the analysis, the EPA examined several indicators that allowed the agency to assess the time required to engage APCDs at affected EGUs. Using these indicators, we found no significant difference in performance related to startup between the different groups or types of EGUs assessed in the analysis (e.g., circulating fluidized bed (CFB), stoker, subcritical, supercritical). We further indicated that the results of our analysis supported defining the end of startup at coal- and oil-fired EGUs as occurring at the time to achieve 25 percent of the EGU's nameplate generating capacity (megawatts, MW) plus 3 hours, or the start of electricity generation plus 6 hours, whichever comes first.
The EPA has reviewed all of the comments received on the proposed definition of startup in response to these two opportunities for public comment and has revised the June 2013 analysis. Based on this review, we are finalizing a revised definition of “startup” that uses the approach outlined in the June 2013 assessment with revisions as discussed below.
The June 2013 analysis suggested a potential end time for startup of 6 hours after the start of electricity generation or 3 hours after a coal- or oil-fired EGU reaches 25 percent of nameplate capacity, whichever occurs first. In other words, 6 hours after the start of generation or 3 hours after reaching electricity generation equal to 25 percent of nameplate capacity, whichever comes first, an EGU would have to start monitoring and reporting its emissions for the purpose of complying with the numeric emissions standards contained in MATS.
The EPA took this approach because we determined that flue gas conditions will be adequate to accurately measure HAP emissions with CEMS 4 hours after the generation of electricity. The approach evaluated the time for all APCDs to be functioning because we determined that stack conditions will be stable at this point. The analysis was based on our review of hourly SO
The EPA received detailed comments on the June 2013 analysis and the proposed rule. Although commenters' opinions varied, the EPA identified three distinct groups of comments. The first group agreed with the EPA's approach to define a time limit following the start of generation, but many commenters suggested that more time was necessary to safely and/or fully engage APCDs. The second group commented that CAA section 112 requires the EPA to establish standards based on the average of the best performing 12 percent of EGUs, not the average of the fleet. The third group disagreed with the EPA's approach, stating that many APCDs could not be fully functional within the time limits specified by the EPA, and citing the need for greater flexibility.
The EPA evaluated the information provided by commenters and considered the different approaches to define the end of startup.
The EPA analysis of startup events at coal-fired EGUs indicates that the best performing EGUs can, on average, initiate operation of their SO
b. Shutdown. The EPA is maintaining the definition of “shutdown” proposed in the November 2012 action, and further requiring that all APCDs must be operated as long as coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel is being fired in the EGU and as long thereafter as possible, considering safety and system integrity.
The RTC contains a summary of the comments received on this topic and the EPA's response to those comments.
The final work practice for startup periods requires EGUs to initiate startup using clean fuels and to combust only clean fuels until primary fuel (e.g., coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel) is fed into the EGU, at which time the EGU must engage and operate its PM controls as soon as possible and no later than 1 hour thereafter. After engagement of PM controls, EGUs are required to maintain maximum clean fuel use until the end of startup (i.e., 4 hours after the start of generation of electricity or useful thermal energy). The maximization of clean fuel use after addition of primary fuel to the EGU assures that the least amount of HAP possible will be emitted from the units during the startup period. The final rule also includes more fuels on the list of clean fuels that may be combusted during startup periods and shutdown periods, as discussed below.
The EPA is finalizing a requirement in the work practice that PM controls be engaged and operated within 1 hour of coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel being fired. In the November 2012 proposal, the EPA proposed to require that once an EGU starts firing coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel, all of the applicable control devices had to be engaged, with certain listed exceptions. PM-specific control devices were not included in that list of excepted controls because the EPA believed that PM controls on EGUs could be engaged (i.e., operational) at the best performing EGUs at the time the primary fuel (i.e., coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel) is fired. The EPA has reviewed both the record and the comments received, and we have determined that the EGUs that are able to engage PM controls (through either use of PM-specific controls (e.g., ESP, FF) or wet FGD scrubber system alone or in conjunction with PM controls) within 1 hour following the initiation of firing of coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel are the best performing sources for purposes of minimizing particulate HAP emissions during startup periods.
Moreover, in order to demonstrate an EGU's capacity to maximize the use of clean fuels during startup periods and its ability to bring PM control devices online in an expeditious manner following first firing of coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel, the rule now requires EGU owners or operators to determine and report each EGU's maximum storage capacity for clean fuels and maximum capacity for heat input while combusting clean fuels alone. The rule also requires EGU owners or operators to identify, record, and report semiannually each instance of startup or shutdown, specifying the dates and times that clean fuel use begins and ends; the dates and times that primary (i.e., coal or oil) fuel use starts or ends; and the hourly clean fuel usage, heat input, and electrical output.
In addition, for those non-liquid oil-fired EGUs not using PM CEMS, HAP metals CEMS, or PM continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) as a compliance determination method or not meeting low emitting EGU (LEE) status
Upon initiation of first use of coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel, EGUs not using PM CEMS or PM CPMS as a compliance determination method or not meeting LEE status for PM or non-mercury HAP metals emissions for non-liquid oil-fired EGUs (or HAP metals emissions for liquid oil-fired EGUs) are also required to record hourly and report semi-annually the pre- and post-PM control device flow rates and temperatures, as well as fan amps. Moreover, the PM control device-specific parameters are required to be recorded hourly and reported semi-annually. The EGUs with ESPs are required to record the number of fields in service and the secondary current and voltage for each hour of startup and shutdown. The EGUs with FFs are required to record the number of compartments in service and the differential pressure across the baghouse. Finally, the EGUs with wet scrubbers that are necessary for filterable PM emission control will record scrubber liquid-to-flue gas ratios and scrubber liquid differential pressure for each hour of startup and shutdown.
Given that we do not have much information concerning continuous PM emissions or PM emission control devices during periods of startup, the final rule requires owners or operators of EGUs that choose to use definition (2) of “startup” contained in 40 CFR 63.10042 to provide a report prepared by an independent professional engineer that describes the EGU, PM emissions, and PM emissions control devices both as designed and in their current form. This information will show how each EGU is able, or has been modified, to meet the requirements of this rule. In addition, the information will specify the time needed to engage PM emission control devices from initial fuel combustion in the EGU; the effectiveness of each PM emission control device, both upon control device startup and at normal operation; the PM emission rate; and the uncontrolled PM emissions rate. The report will be submitted as part of the EGU's Notification of Compliance Status, and the information contained in the report will aid us in determining whether or not additional work practice requirements may be needed during startup periods to minimize HAP emissions.
Finally, the EPA acknowledges the comments asserting safety issues that must be considered during startup of PM controls (e.g., carbon monoxide buildup, fabric blinding). We believe that almost all EGUs will be able to alter their source through any number of means, including increasing clean fuel capacity and modifying APCD operation, and comply with the final work practice requirements; however, we recognize that there may be rare occasions that preclude a viable compliance option consistent with the final rule. Therefore, we are finalizing that an owner/operator may submit to the Administrator a request for an EGU-specific case-by-case emission standard consistent with 40 CFR 63.6(g). Such a request requires notice-and-comment rulemaking. Approval or disapproval authority for this type of request is delegated to the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, and, for purposes of this rule, will be delegated no further.
We also proposed several revisions to the work practice standards issued in the final MATS rule in response to petitions on the final rule. Petitioners asserted that the final rule's work practice standards should include additional fuels as “clean fuels” and recognize operating limitations of certain EGU types and APCDs. Specifically, petitioners contended that the list of clean fuels required for use during startup in order to minimize emissions should include, among others, synthetic natural gas, synthesis gas (syngas), biodiesel, and ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD). The EPA has also been informed that propane is used to startup some EGUs.
In this final action, we are adding certain synthetic natural gas (that meets the specification necessary for that gas to be transported on a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulated pipeline), synthesis gas that has been processed through a gas clean-up train such that it is suitable for use in the system's combustion turbine, and ULSD to the list of clean fuels. In addition, the EPA does see merit, as suggested by some commenters, of further broadening the definition of “clean fuels.” After reviewing other rules that use or require clean fuels, we believe that inclusion of those fuels meeting the requirements of 40 CFR Part 80, subpart I (“Subpart I—Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel; Nonroad, Locomotive, and Marine Diesel Fuel; and ECA Marine Fuel”) is appropriate. Specifically, the definitions and provisions of 40 CFR 80.2, 80.501, 80.510, and 80.520 address sulfur content restrictions relating to distillate, diesel (including ULSD), and biodiesel fuels. The EPA believes that requiring use of clean fuels, including those we are adding in this final rule, for EGUs will significantly limit the HAP emissions from these sources during startup periods and shutdown periods. For example, information provided to the EPA on another rulemaking (found in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0708–1459)
We are maintaining the work practice requirement in the final MATS that requires EGU source owners and operators, when firing coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel in the EGU during startup or shutdown, to vent emissions to the main stack(s) and operate all control devices necessary to meet all operating and emissions standards that are applicable to the source pursuant to other CAA or state requirements. In addition, any partial (fractional) operating hour that may occur at the beginning of a startup period or at the end of a shutdown period is to be flagged in reports as an hour of startup or shutdown.
For more discussion of each of these issues, please refer to the RTC, the TSD, and the memo “Startup and shutdown provisions” (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234–20224) in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234.
The EPA is finalizing both the use of flares and the use of duct burners for integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units to handle syngas not combusted in the turbine during startup periods and shutdown periods.
An IGCC EGU includes both a gasification unit and a combustion unit and syngas is generated in the gasifier for the primary purpose of being combusted in the associated combustion turbine. The EPA understands that, in some cases, the gasified fuel can be used for other purposes such as the production of chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, methanol) if the facility has been designed to do so. During the startup periods and shutdown periods, some or all of the syngas produced for the purpose of power production may not be combusted in the turbine. We proposed two options for IGCC EGUs for handling syngas not fired in the combustion turbine: (1) Syngas must be flared, not vented, or (2) syngas must be routed to duct burners, which may need to be installed, and the flue gas from the duct burners must be routed to the heat recovery steam generator. We solicited comments on the need to flare the unfired syngas, if it is more appropriate to require routing of the unfired syngas back into the system for all IGCC EGUs, and on the costs of adding duct burners, should they be required.
Industry commenters stated that it is important that flaring remain an option for routine startups and shutdowns for safety reasons and as a viable option for non-routine events such as EGU “trips” when the combustion turbine cannot combust syngas. Commenters noted that the flaring option is especially critical as the re-routing option can only be used by IGCC EGUs under limited circumstances as the syngas may lack sufficient pressure for re-injection and gasifiers are often once-through systems that do not support re-routing of the syngas. Commenters indicated that the actual flaring step of an IGCC startup is relatively short and ordinarily lasts less than 2 hours and that only clean syngas is flared during a routine startup.
The EPA is finalizing both options, use of flaring or duct burners, for handling of syngas not combusted in the turbine during startup periods and shutdown periods.
The final MATS rule at 40 CFR 63.10010(a)(1), (2), and (3) required owners or operators of EGUs with common stacks to either monitor the EGUs separately or monitor the common stack and assign the same emissions value to each EGU. No specific requirements concerning monitoring during startup periods or shutdown periods were given because the EPA believed the provisions as finalized were sufficient. Consistent with the monitoring provisions in the final rule, owners or operators of EGUs with common stacks are required to monitor and report emissions for compliance purposes at all times when any EGU using a common stack is operating in a non-startup/shutdown mode, even if another EGU using that common stack is in startup/shutdown mode. 40 CFR 63.10005(a)(2)(iii) reinforces and clarifies this requirement. Also, consistent with the final rule, work practice standards, rather than numeric emissions limits, apply during startup periods or shutdown periods, but only to EGUs in startup or shutdown mode. Today's reconsidered rule maintains the approach of the final rule. Owners or operators of EGUs with common stacks may either monitor each EGU separately upstream of the common stack or from the common stack. Monitoring must be operational (except for periods of monitor malfunction and during required quality assurance (QA) and maintenance activities) at all times that any fuel is being combusted, and compliance with numeric emission limits is required except for periods when all EGUs sharing the common stack are in startup or shutdown mode. Should an owner or operator choose to monitor the common stack, then emissions obtained from the monitoring will be applied to each EGU that shares the stack. This approach remains consistent with the final rule, and is not expected to be problematic emissions-wise for any EGU using a common stack, because the EGUs in startup periods or shutdown periods are required to use clean fuels and comply with the other work practice requirements. In addition, the EGUs sharing the common stack and operating in a mode other than startup or shutdown are required to operate such that they meet their emissions limits. We believe, based on evaluation of source compliance for many years, that sources generally operate in a manner to ensure a compliance margin to avoid potential exceedances.
As discussed below, the EPA is also establishing a default electrical load of 5 percent of the maximum sustainable electrical load of the EGU. This default value will be allowed to be used during periods of startup or periods of shutdown when the electrical load is zero. For EGUs sharing a common stack with just one common monitoring system, this default value will be available only when the electrical load is zero for an EGU sharing the common stack that is in a period of startup or shutdown. As soon as a non-zero electrical load is produced, that non-zero load must be used in electrical output-based emission rate calculations for each EGU in a startup or shutdown period, even if the load is less than 5 percent of capacity. Note that the electrical load of all EGUs in operation and sharing a common stack with just
Section 1.2.5 of the RTC contains both a summary of comments received on this topic and the EPA's response to those comments.
Apart from allowing use of a diluent cap when calculating Hg emissions during startup periods or shutdown periods, the final rule contained no allowance for use of a diluent cap. The November 2012 proposal sought comment on the need for a diluent cap for other HAP emissions during startup periods and shutdown periods. Use of a diluent cap can be important during startup periods and shutdown periods because CEMS values can approach infinity because the denominator in the calculations for CEMS values can approach zero during those periods. Moreover, use of a diluent cap becomes a common stack issue when one or more of the EGUs is in a startup or shutdown mode and just one monitoring instrument is used in the stack.
The EPA considered each comment and decided to allow use of default carbon dioxide (CO
The rule retains the requirement for EGU owners or operators to report instrumental CEMS, PM CPMS, and sorbent trap information, as well as flow rate information during startup periods or shutdown periods. Such information may prove useful in assessing potential emissions or operational limits in future rulemaking activities. Finally, the rule requires EGU owners or operators to identify each hour of startup or shutdown in which a diluent cap value is used.
Section 5.1 of the RTC contains both a summary of comments received on this topic and the EPA's response.
The final rule provided no allowance regarding default electrical output. The November 2012 proposal sought comment on the need for a default electrical output for those owners or operators who choose to comply with a mass per electrical output standard. Use of a default electrical output cap can be important during startup periods and shutdown periods because the calculated mass per electrical output values can approach infinity when the electrical output is zero during those periods.
Upon consideration of the comments, the rule will provide a default electrical load value that EGU owners or operators will be allowed to use during startup periods or shutdown periods to calculate emissions rates for an EGU, as long as the electrical load for the EGU is zero. Once the EGU begins generating electricity, the source must use the actual electrical output in compliance calculations, even if the output is below the 5 percent default value. Moreover, use of a default electrical load is not allowed during periods other than startup or shutdown. As suggested by one commenter, the default electrical load will be equivalent to 5 percent of the maximum sustainable electrical output in megawatts of an EGU, as defined in section 6.5.2.1(a)(1) of appendix A to part 75, and included in an EGU's Part 75 electronic monitoring plan. This maximum sustainable load is either the nameplate capacity of the EGU or the highest electrical load observed in at least four representative quarters of EGU operation. When used in a common stack application, the default electrical load is 5 percent of the combined maximum sustainable electrical load of the EGUs that are in startup or shutdown mode during an hour in which the electrical load is zero. The default electrical load is allowed to be used in electrical output-based emission rate calculations (either pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) or pounds per gigawatt-hour (lb/GWh)) for any hour in which the actual electrical load for a single EGU or for every EGU venting to a common stack is zero. The EPA considered, but decided against, requiring measurement of thermal heat output and conversion back into equivalent electrical output; instead, the EPA decided to use a simpler approach based on already-existing requirements of the Acid Rain Program that we believe are most appropriate considering CAA section 112 and in light of the available data. Finally, the rule requires EGU owners or operators to identify each hour of startup or shutdown in which a default electrical load value is used.
Section 5.2 of the RTC contains both a summary of comments received on this topic and the EPA's response to significant comments.
The final rule required continuous Hg data collection using sorbent traps or Hg CEMS under all process operating conditions, including, but not limited to, startup periods and shutdown periods, over the entire 30 boiler operating day LEE qualification testing period. For sorbent traps, the EPA allowed use of redundant backup sorbent trap monitoring systems during startup periods and shutdown periods; and required operation of sorbent trap monitoring systems and collection of Hg data at all times EGUs operate, but did not allow use of Hg data collected during startup or shutdown periods to be included in compliance calculations.
After consideration of comments received on Hg monitoring during startup or shutdown periods using sorbent trap monitoring systems, the EPA decided that the final reconsidered rule will contain three alternative approaches for measuring Hg emissions during startup periods or shutdown periods. In the first approach, EGU owners or operators will continue to be able to use Hg CEMS for measuring Hg emissions.
The second approach relies on at least two separate sorbent monitoring systems. Although the rule has no prohibition against an EGU owner or operator using one sorbent trap monitoring system for compliance purposes during periods other than startup or shutdown and one (or more) sorbent trap monitoring systems for
The third approach, relying on just one sorbent trap monitoring system for all periods of operation (startup, shutdown, and normal), will be identified in the rule as a viable option for Hg monitoring, and, for EGU owners or operators who choose this option, the rule will allow data collected during startup or shutdown periods to be used for compliance purposes. The EPA expects little impact on Hg emissions during startup or shutdown periods, because, as explained above, we believe the rule contains sufficient variability to include startup and shutdown periods; clean fuels will be used during those periods; default diluent and electrical output values, which tend to constrain emissions, will be available for use; and emissions occurring during those periods will be included in a 30- (or 90-) boiler operating day rolling average. EGU owners or operators may find that this third approach would work well for those instances in which sudden and unpredictable shutdown events occur, for there would be no need to swap sorbent trap monitoring systems to capture shutdown emissions.
Finally, the EPA disagrees with commenters who claim that collecting data during startup and shutdown will serve no purpose relative to compliance with MATS and indicated that if the EPA needs to collect startup and shutdown data to better understand performance for a future rulemaking, that can be addressed through the information collection request (ICR) process where the EPA demonstrates the need and identifies a systematic plan to gather the data. As explained in the final rule preamble,
Section 5.3 of the RTC contains both a summary of comments received on this topic and the EPA's response to significant comments.
The current PM startup and shutdown requirements in the Utility NSPS are included in 40 CFR 60.42Da(e)(2) and require the owner/operator of an affected EGU to meet the work practice standards specified in Table 3 of 40 CFR Part 63, subpart UUUUU (i.e., the MATS rule). The Utility NSPS docket received a total of 23 public comments on the startup/shutdown reconsideration proposal. One of these comments was a duplicate. Of the remaining 22 comments, 15 were received in both dockets, and 7 were received in the Utility NSPS docket alone. Of the seven comments received in the Utility NSPS docket alone, four were said to be sent to the MATS docket, but no documents that matched the ones in the Utility NSPS docket were found in the MATS docket. However, the majority of the comments overlap with issues raised as part of the startup and shutdown provision included in MATS. The EPA responses to these issues are discussed in the MATS portion of the preamble and docket and have not been repeated here or in the Utility NSPS docket.
The sole NSPS-specific comment we received was that the Utility NSPS should include a definition of startup and shutdown that is consistent with the MATS definition and that the definitions of startup and shutdown in the Utility NSPS, MATS, and Industrial Boiler NESHAP (subpart DDDDD) rules should be consistent. There are situations where a facility is subject to the PM standard under 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Da, but is not subject to MATS (e.g., a biomass-fired EGU with natural gas burners >250 million British thermal units per hour). This facility would, therefore, be subject to the Industrial Boiler NESHAP. We have concluded that it is appropriate for industrial boilers and EGUs to have the same PM startup and shutdown work practice standards for both the NSPS and MATS. Therefore, we are amending 40 CFR 60.42Da(e)(2) so that owners or operators of facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 63, subpart UUUUU, shall meet the work practice standards specified in Table 3 to Subpart UUUUU of Part 63, and owners or operators of facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 63, subpart DDDDD, shall meet the work practice standards specified in Table 3 to Subpart DDDDD of Part 63.
We are also amending the regulatory text in the Utility NSPS to incorporate the relevant startup and shutdown definitions. We have concluded that the amended regulatory text is sufficient, and adding definitions of startup and shutdown are not necessary for the Utility NSPS. Using this approach is beneficial because any future amendments to the MATS startup and shutdown provisions will automatically be incorporated into the Utility NSPS.
Because this final rule is no more stringent than the February 2012 final rule, we expect no additional costs or benefits associated with these revisions.
This final rule is no more stringent than the February 2012 final rule. Accordingly, we believe that this final action will not result in significant changes in emissions of any of the regulated pollutants.
This final action is not anticipated to have an effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. As previously stated, this final rule is no more stringent than the February 2012 final rule.
We believe there will be no significant change in compliance costs as a result of this final action because electric power companies would take the same or similar actions (e.g., operating control devices, recording clean fuel use, etc.) as they would have to comply with the previously finalized MATS standards. Moreover, we find no additional monitoring costs are necessary to comply with this final action because EGU owners or operators could continue to use the startup and shutdown provisions of the promulgated rule to demonstrate compliance; however, as in any other rule, EGU owners or operators may choose to conduct additional monitoring (and incur its expense) for their own purposes.
Because we expect that electric power companies would take the same or similar actions to meet the requirements finalized in this action as they would have chosen to comply with the previously finalized MATS standards, we do not anticipate that this final action will result in significant changes in emissions, energy impacts, costs, benefits, or economic impacts. Likewise, we believe this action will not have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets, or the U.S. economy.
As previously stated, we do not anticipate any significant emission changes resulting from this action. Therefore, there are no direct monetized benefits or disbenefits associated with this action.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) and is, therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821; January 21, 2011).
Because this final rule is no more stringent than the February 2012 final rule, we do not expect any additional costs, benefits, or economic impacts associated with these revisions. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with the 2012 final rule. This analysis is contained in the “Economic Impact Analysis for the Final Reconsideration of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards” found in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This action clarifies but does not change the information collection requirements previously finalized and, as a result, does not impose any additional burden on industry. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (see 77 FR 9304) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less that 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Categories and entities potentially regulated by the final rule with applicable NAICS codes are provided in section I.A of this preamble.
According to the SBA size standards for NAICS code 221122, Utilities—Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation, a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million MWh.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The EPA has determined that none of the small entities will experience a significant impact because the action imposes no additional regulatory requirements on owners or operators of affected sources.
This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202 or 205.
This action is also not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203 because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No affected facilities are owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus,
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. The EPA has evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of the final MATS on children. The results of the evaluation are discussed in that final rule (77 FR 9304; February 16, 2012) and are contained in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA); Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA requires the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
This action does not involve VCS. Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The EPA has evaluated the environmental health or environmental effects of the final MATS on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. The results of the evaluation are discussed in that final rule (77 FR 9304; February 16, 2012) and are contained in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0234.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(2) During startup periods and shutdown periods, owners or operators of facilities subject to subpart UUUUU of part 63 of this chapter shall meet the work practice standards specified in Table 3 to subpart UUUUU of part 63 and use the relevant definitions in § 63.10042, and owners or operators of facilities subject to subpart DDDDD of part 63 shall meet the work practice standards specified in Table 3 to subpart DDDDD of part 63 and use the relevant definition used in § 63.7575.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c)(1) * * *
(vi) If your coal-fired or solid oil-derived fuel-fired EGU does not qualify as a LEE for Hg, you must demonstrate initial and continuous compliance through use of a Hg CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring system, in accordance with appendix A to this subpart.
(A) You may choose to use separate sorbent trap monitoring systems to comply with this subpart: One sorbent trap monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the numeric mercury emissions limit during periods other than startup or shutdown and the other sorbent trap monitoring system to report average mercury concentration during startup periods or shutdown periods.
(B) You may choose to use one sorbent trap monitoring system to demonstrate compliance with the mercury emissions limit at all times
(l) On or before the date an EGU is subject to this subpart, you must install, certify, operate, maintain, and quality assure each monitoring system necessary for demonstrating compliance with the work practice standards for PM or non-mercury HAP metals during startup periods and shutdown periods. You must collect, record, report, and maintain data obtained from these monitoring systems during startup periods and shutdown periods.
(a) * * *
(2) To demonstrate initial compliance using either a CMS that measures HAP concentrations directly (
(i) The 30- (or, if applicable, 90-) boiler operating day CMS performance test must demonstrate compliance with the applicable Hg, HCl, HF, PM, or SO
(ii) You must collect hourly data from auxiliary monitoring systems (i.e., stack gas flow rate, CO
(iii) For a group of affected units that are in the same subcategory, are subject to the same emission standards, and share a common stack, if you elect to demonstrate compliance by monitoring emissions at the common stack, startup and shutdown emissions (if any) that occur during the 30-(or, if applicable, 90-) boiler operating day performance test must either be excluded from or included in the compliance demonstration as follows:
(A) If one of the units that shares the stack either starts up or shuts down at a time when none of the other units is operating, you must exclude all pollutant emission rates measured during the startup or shutdown period, unless you are using a sorbent trap monitoring system to measure Hg emissions and have elected to include startup and shutdown emissions in the compliance demonstrations;
(B) If all units that are currently operating are in the startup or shutdown mode, you must exclude all pollutant emission rates measured during the startup or shutdown period, unless you are using a sorbent trap monitoring system to measure Hg emissions and have elected to include startup and shutdown emissions in the compliance demonstrations; or
(C) If any unit starts up or shuts down at a time when another unit is operating, and the other unit is not in the startup or shutdown mode, you must include all pollutant emission rates measured during the startup or shutdown period in the compliance demonstrations.
(a) * * *
(1) If you use CEMS (Hg, HCl, SO
(f) If you elect to (or are required to) use CEMS to continuously monitor Hg, HCl, HF, SO
(1)
(i) For an IGCC EGU, you may use 1% for CO
(ii) For all other EGUs, you may use 5% for CO
(2)
(f) * * *
(4) Use only unadjusted, quality-assured SO
(l) You must install, certify, operate, maintain, and quality assure each monitoring system necessary for demonstrating compliance with the PM or non-mercury metals work practice standards for startup periods.
(1) You shall develop a site-specific monitoring plan for PM or non-mercury metals work practice monitoring during startup periods.
(2) You shall submit the site-specific monitoring plan upon request by the Administrator.
(3) The provisions of the monitoring plan must address the following items:
(i) Monitoring system installation;
(ii) Performance and equipment specifications;
(iii) Schedule for initial and periodic performance evaluations;
(iv) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria;
(v) On-going operation and maintenance procedures; and
(vi) On-going recordkeeping and reporting procedures.
(4) You may rely on monitoring system specifications or instructions to address paragraphs (l)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(5) You must operate and maintain the monitoring system according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(g) You must follow the startup or shutdown requirements as given in Table 3 to this subpart for each coal-fired, liquid oil-fired, or solid oil-derived fuel-fired EGU.
(1) You may use the diluent cap and default electrical load values, as described in § 63.10007(f), during startup periods or shutdown periods.
(2) You must operate all CMS, collect data, calculate pollutant emission rates, and record data during startup periods or shutdown periods.
(3) You must report the information as required in § 63.10031.
(4) If you choose to use paragraph (2) of the definition of “startup” in § 63.10042 and you find that you are unable to safely engage and operate your particulate matter (PM) control(s) within 1 hour of first firing of coal, residual oil, or solid oil-derived fuel, you may choose to rely on paragraph (1) of definition of “startup” in § 63.10042 or you may submit a request to use an alternative non-opacity emissions standard, as described below.
(i) As mentioned in § 63.6(g)(1), the request will be published in the
(ii) The request need not address the items contained in § 63.6(g)(2).
(iii) The request shall provide evidence of a documented manufacturer-identified safely issue.
(iv) The request shall provide information to document that the PM control device is adequately designed and sized to meet the PM emission limit applicable to the EGU.
(v) In addition, the request shall contain documentation that:
(A) The EGU is using clean fuels to the maximum extent possible to bring the EGU and PM control device up to the temperature necessary to alleviate or prevent the identified safety issues prior to the combustion of primary fuel in the EGU;
(B) The EGU has explicitly followed the manufacturer's procedures to alleviate or prevent the identified safety issue; and
(C) Identifies with specificity the details of the manufacturer's statement of concern.
(vi) The request shall specify the other work practice standards the EGU owner or operator will take to limit HAP emissions during startup periods and shutdown periods to ensure a control level consistent with the work practice standards of the final rule.
(vii) You must comply with all other work practice requirements, including but not limited to data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
(c) You may not use data recorded during EGU startup or shutdown in calculations used to report emissions, except as otherwise provided in §§ 63.10000(c)(1)(vi)(B) and 63.10005(a)(2)(iii). In addition, data recorded during monitoring system malfunctions or monitoring system out-of-control periods, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions or monitoring system out-of-control periods, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities may not be used in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. You must use all of the quality-assured data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system.
(e) Additional requirements during startup periods or shutdown periods.
(1) During each period of startup, you must record for each EGU:
(i) The date and time that clean fuels being combusted for the purpose of startup begins;
(ii) The quantity and heat input of clean fuel for each hour of startup;
(iii) The electrical load for each hour of startup;
(iv) The date and time that non-clean fuel combustion begins; and
(v) The date and time that clean fuels being combusted for the purpose of startup ends.
(2) During each period of shutdown, you must record for each EGU:
(i) The date and time that clean fuels being combusted for the purpose of shutdown begins;
(ii) The quantity and heat input of clean fuel for each hour of shutdown;
(iii) The electrical load for each hour of shutdown;
(iv) The date and time that non-clean fuel combustion ends; and
(v) The date and time that clean fuels being combusted for the purpose of shutdown ends.
(3) For PM or non-mercury HAP metals work practice monitoring during startup periods, you must monitor and collect data according to this section and the site-specific monitoring plan required by § 63.10011(l).
(i) Except for an EGU that uses PM CEMS or PM CPMS to demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions limit or that has LEE status for filterable PM or total non-Hg HAP metals for non-
(A) Record temperature and flow rate of post-combustion (exhaust) gas and amperage of forced draft fan(s) upstream of each filterable PM control device during each hour of startup.
(B) Record temperature and flow rate of exhaust gas and amperage of induced draft fan(s) downstream of each filterable control device during each hour of startup.
(C) For an EGU with an electrostatic precipitator, record the number of fields in service, as well as each field's secondary voltage and secondary current during each hour of startup.
(D) For an EGU with a fabric filter, record the number of compartments in service, as well as the differential pressure across the baghouse during each hour of startup.
(E) For an EGU with a wet scrubber needed for filterable PM control, record the scrubber liquid to fuel ratio and the differential pressure of the liquid during each hour of startup.
(ii) [Reserved]
(h) You must follow the startup or shutdown requirements as given in Table 3 to this subpart for each coal-fired, liquid oil-fired, or solid oil-derived fuel-fired EGU.
(1) You may use the diluent cap and default electrical load values, as described in § 63.10007(f), during startup periods or shutdown periods.
(2) You must operate all CMS, collect data, calculate pollutant emission rates, and record data during startup periods or shutdown periods.
(3) You must report the information as required in § 63.10031.
(4) You may choose to submit an alternative non-opacity emission standard, in accordance with the requirements contained in § 63.10011(g)(4). Until promulgation in the
(a) Following the compliance date, the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with this subpart on a continuous basis by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(4) For each existing EGU participating in the emissions averaging option, operate in accordance with the startup or shutdown work practice requirements given in Table 3 to this subpart.
(e) When you are required to conduct an initial compliance demonstration as specified in § 63.10011(a), you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to § 63.9(h)(2)(ii). The Notification of Compliance Status report must contain all the information specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of this section, as applicable.
(8) Identification of whether you plan to rely on paragraph (1) or (2) of the definition of “startup” in § 63.10042.
(i) Should you choose to rely on paragraph (2) of the definition of “startup” in § 63.10042 for your EGU, you shall include a report that identifies:
(A) The original EGU installation date;
(B) The original EGU design characteristics, including, but not limited to, fuel and PM controls;
(C) Each design PM control device efficiency;
(D) The design PM emission rate from the EGU in terms of pounds PM per MMBtu and pounds PM per hour;
(E) The design time from start of fuel combustion to necessary conditions for each PM control device startup;
(F) Each design PM control device efficiency upon startup of the PM control device;
(G) The design EGU uncontrolled PM emission rate in terms of pounds PM per hour;
(H) Each change from the original design that did or could have changed PM emissions, including, but not limited to, each different fuel mix, each revision to each PM control device, and each EGU revision, along with the month and year that the change occurred;
(I) Current EGU PM producing characteristics, including, but not limited to, fuel mix and PM controls;
(J) Current PM emission rate from the EGU in terms of pounds PM per MMBtu and pounds per hour;
(K) Current PM control device efficiency from each PM control device;
(L) Current time from start of fuel combustion to conditions necessary for each PM control device startup;
(M) Current PM control device efficiency upon startup of each PM control device; and
(N) Current EGU uncontrolled PM emission rate in terms of pounds PM per hour.
(ii) The report shall be prepared, signed, and sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the state where your EGU is located. Apart from preparing, signing, and sealing this report, the professional engineer shall be independent and not otherwise employed by your company, any parent company of your company, or any subsidiary of your company.
(c) The compliance report must contain the information required in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
(5) For each instance of startup or shutdown:
(i) Include the maximum clean fuel storage capacity and the maximum hourly heat input that can be provided for each clean fuel determined according to the requirements of § 63.10032(f).
(ii) Include the information required to be monitored, collected, or recorded according to the requirements of § 63.10020(e).
(iii) If you choose to use CEMS for compliance purposes, include hourly average CEMS values and hourly average flow rates. Use units of milligrams per cubic meter for PM CEMS, micrograms per cubic meter for Hg CEMS, and ppmv for HCl, HF, or SO
(iv) If you choose to use a separate sorbent trap measurement system for startup or shutdown reporting periods, include hourly average mercury
(v) If you choose to use a PM CPMS, include hourly average operating parameter values in terms of the operating limit, as well as the operating parameter to PM correlation equation.
(f) Regarding startup periods or shutdown periods:
(1) You must keep records of the occurrence and duration of each startup or shutdown;
(2) You must keep records of the determination of the maximum clean fuel capacity for each EGU;
(3) You must keep records of the determination of the maximum hourly clean fuel heat input and of the hourly clean fuel heat input for each EGU; and
(4) You must keep records of the information required in § 63.10020(e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(1) Either the first-ever firing of fuel in a boiler for the purpose of producing electricity, or the firing of fuel in a boiler after a shutdown event for any purpose. Startup ends when any of the steam from the boiler is used to generate electricity for sale over the grid or for any other purpose (including on-site use). Any fraction of an hour in which startup occurs constitutes a full hour of startup; or
(2) The period in which operation of an EGU is initiated for any purpose. Startup begins with either the firing of any fuel in an EGU for the purpose of producing electricity or useful thermal energy (such as heat or steam) for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes (other than the first-ever firing of fuel in a boiler following construction of the boiler) or for any other purpose after a shutdown event. Startup ends 4 hours after the EGU generates electricity that is sold or used for any other purpose (including on site use), or 4 hours after the EGU makes useful thermal energy (such as heat or steam) for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes (16 U.S.C. 796(18)(A) and 18 CFR 292.202(c)), whichever is earlier. Any fraction of an hour in which startup occurs constitutes a full hour of startup.
7. Recordkeeping and Reporting
7.1.2
7.1.2.5 If applicable, a flag to indicate that the hour is a startup or shutdown hour (as defined in § 63.10042).
7.1.8
7.1.8.5 If applicable, a code to indicate that the default electrical load (as defined in § 63.10042) was used to calculate the Hg emission rate.
7.1.8.6 If applicable, a code to indicate that the diluent cap (as defined in § 63.10042) was used to calculate the Hg emission rate.
9. Data Reduction and Calculations
9.3.1 For heat input-based emission rates, select an appropriate emission rate equation from among Equations 19–1 through 19–9 in EPA Method 19 in Appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter, to calculate the HCl or HF emission rate in lb/MMBtu. Multiply the HCl concentration value (ppm) by 9.43 × 10
10. Recordkeeping Requirements
10.1.2
10.1.2.5 If applicable, a flag to indicate that the hour is a startup or shutdown hour (as defined in § 63.10042).
10.1.7
10.1.7.5 If applicable, a code to indicate that the default electrical load (as defined in § 63.10042) was used to calculate the HCl or HF emission rate.
10.1.7.6 If applicable, a code to indicate that the diluent cap (as defined in § 63.10042) was used to calculate the HCl or HF emission rate.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)). This direct final rule amends the reporting requirements in the MATS rule by temporarily requiring affected sources to submit all required emissions and compliance reports to the EPA through the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) Client Tool and temporarily suspending the requirement for affected sources to submit certain reports using the Electronic Reporting Tool and the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
This rule is effective on January 5, 2015 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by December 19, 2014. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
•
•
•
•
•
We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to the contact person listed below (see
Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–5635; fax number: (919) 541–3207; and email address:
The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this direct final rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this direct final rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.9981. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
This direct final rule amends the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.10031(f) of the MATS regulation. Currently the rule requires affected sources to submit certain MATS emissions and compliance information electronically, using either the CEDRI or the ECMPS Client Tool. The EPA has developed these two systems for the electronic submittal of emissions data. Historically, CEDRI has been used by sources regulated under 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 to submit performance test reports and other air emissions reports. Historically, ECMPS has been used to report emissions data under the EPA's
Subsequent to publication of MATS, stakeholders commented that the EPA could improve the reporting efficiency of the rule by requiring all data to be reported to one system instead of two. Stakeholders also commented that one system could benefit the EPA and the public in the review of data submitted by setting one consistent format for all data reported through MATS. Further, because the vast majority of sources covered under the MATS rule have been using the ECMPS Client Tool since 2009, the stakeholders have encouraged the EPA to seriously consider consolidating the electronic reporting under ECMPS.
The EPA agrees with the stakeholders that taking an action to increase the efficiency of reporting is not only a plausible path forward, but also a priority of the agency. As a result, the EPA plans to start the process of converting all electronic reporting in the rule to be facilitated by the ECMPS Client Tool with the first step of conversion being this direct final rulemaking. However, because the EPA cannot create a detailed set of reporting instructions and design, develop, beta-test and implement the necessary modifications to the ECMPS Client Tool prior to April 16, 2015, the compliance deadline for the MATS rule, the EPA is implementing a phased approach to completing the modifications to the ECMPS Client Tool.
The first part of the phased approach the EPA plans to take is this direct final rulemaking. This direct final rule requires sources to temporarily use the ECMPS Client Tool to submit Portable Document Format (PDF) versions of the reports that the current MATS rule requires to be submitted using CEDRI. The specific reports that must be submitted in PDF format include: Quarterly and annual performance stack test reports; 30 operating day Hg LEE test reports; Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATA) reports for Sulfur Dioxide (SO
The EPA realizes that submitting electronic PDF reports is not as desirable as reporting the data in extensible markup language (XML) format, because the information in a PDF report cannot easily be extracted and put in a database format. In view of this, the EPA intends to promulgate an additional data reporting revision to the MATS rule in the second phase of this approach. In the second phase the EPA plans to develop another direct final rulemaking that requires affected sources to submit the data elements required in the rule in a structured XML format using the ECMPS Client Tool, already in use. The second phase will complete the process of conversion of the electronic reporting of data using the ECMPS Client Tool and the MATS rule will be revised to specify all of the required XML data elements for each type of report. The EPA will also develop a detailed set of reporting instructions for each report and modify ECMPS accordingly, in order to be able to receive and process the data submitted.
In the event the EPA is unable to finalize the rulemaking for the second phase of the electronic reporting conversion by April 16, 2017, in accordance with the revisions to the reporting requirements contained in this rulemaking, the reporting requirements will automatically revert to the original requirements set forth in the original MATS rulemaking in the
Comments on this direct final rule are to be limited to issues directly associated with the electronic reporting changes covered in 40 CFR 63.10031.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose any new information collection burden because it does not change the information collection requirements. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU) under the provisions of the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of this final action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is an electric utility producing 4 billion kilowatt-hours or less as defined by NAICS codes 221122 (fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units) and 921150 (fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units in Indian country); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
This rule will not impose any requirements on small entities, and no small entities are expected to incur annualized costs as a result of the amendments. We have determined that the amendments will not result in any “significant” adverse economic impact for small entities. This amendment does not create any new requirements or burdens, and no costs are associated with this amendment.
This rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The costs of the final amendments would not increase costs associated with the final rule. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The final amendments contain no requirements that apply to such governments and impose no obligations upon them.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action does not modify existing responsibilities or create new responsibilities among the EPA Regional offices, states or local enforcement agencies. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The final amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
The EPA has determined that this direct final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The final amendments are either clarifications or compliance alternatives which will neither increase or decrease environmental protection.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801,
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(f) On or after April 16, 2017, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test, you must submit the results of the performance tests required by this subpart to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
(1) On or after April 16, 2017, within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS (SO
(2) On or after April 16, 2017, for a PM CEMS, PM CPMS, or approved alternative monitoring using a HAP metals CEMS, within 60 days after the reporting periods ending on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st, you must submit quarterly reports to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the CEDRI that is accessed through EPA's CDX (
(4) On or after April 16, 2017, submit the compliance reports required under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section and the notification of compliance status required under § 63.10030(e) to EPA's WebFIRE database by using the CEDRI that is accessed through EPA's CDX (
(5) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(1) through (4) of this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If acceptable to both the Administrator and the owner or operator of a source, these reports may be submitted on electronic media. The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(1) through (4) of this section in paper format.
(6) Prior to April 16, 2017, all reports subject to electronic submittal in paragraphs (f) introductory text, (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(4) of this section shall be submitted to the EPA in electronic portable document format (PDF) using the ECMPS Client Tool. The following data elements must be entered into the ECMPS Client Tool at the time of submission of the PDF file:
(i) The facility name, physical address, mailing address (if different from the physical address), and county;
(ii) The ORIS code (or equivalent ID number assigned by EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD)) and the Facility Registry System (FRS) ID;
(iii) The EGU (or EGUs) to which the report applies. Report the EGU IDs as they appear in the CAMD Business System;
(iv) If any of the EGUs in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section share a common stack, indicate which EGUs share the stack. If emissions data are monitored and reported at the common stack according to part 75 of this chapter, report the ID number of the common stack as it is represented in the electronic monitoring plan required under § 75.53 of this chapter;
(v) If any of the EGUs described in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section are in an averaging plan under § 63.10009, indicate which EGUs are in the plan and whether it is a 30- or 90-day averaging plan;
(vi) The identification of each emission point to which the report applies. An “emission point” is a point at which source effluent is released to the atmosphere, and is either a dedicated stack that serves one of the EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(6)(iii) of this section or a common stack that serves two or more of those EGUs. To identify an emission point, associate it with the EGU or stack ID in the CAMD Business system or the electronic monitoring plan (e.g., “Unit 2 stack,” “common stack CS001,” or “multiple stack MS001”);
(vii) The rule citation (e.g., § 63.10031(f)(1), § 63.10031(f)(2), etc.) for which the report is showing compliance;
(viii) The pollutant(s) being addressed in the report;
(ix) The reporting period being covered by the report (if applicable);
(x) The relevant test method that was performed for a performance test (if applicable);
(xi) The date the performance test was conducted (if applicable); and
(xii) The responsible official's name, title, and phone number.
Department of the Interior.
Final rule.
The Department of the Interior is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to exempt certain records in the Insider Threat Program from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative law enforcement requirements.
This final rule is effective December 19, 2014.
Teri Barnett, Department of the Interior Privacy Act Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 5547 MIB, Washington, DC 20240. Email at
The Department of the Interior (DOI) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or on the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule makes only minor changes to 43 CFR part 2. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. This rule makes only minor changes to 43 CFR part 2. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have any federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The rule is not associated with, nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. A Federalism Assessment is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) Does not unduly burden the judicial system.
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and
(c) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the Department of the Interior has evaluated this rule and determined that it would have no substantial effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes.
This rule does not require an information collection from 10 or more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required.
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action and would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, this rule does not require the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by Executive Order 12866 and 12988, the Plain Writing Act of 2010 (H.R. 946), and the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means each rule we publish must:
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential information, Courts, Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 43 CFR part 2 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 31 U.S.C. 3717; 43 U.S.C. 1460, 1461.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(6) Insider Threat Program, DOI–50.
(b)
(16) Insider Threat Program, DOI–50.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2953.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR Part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to implement management measures described in a framework action to the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP) (Framework Action), as prepared by the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils (Councils). This final rule allows transfer of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel caught in excess of the trip limit with gillnet gear from one vessel with a Federal Spanish mackerel commercial permit to another vessel
This rule is effective December 19, 2014.
Electronic copies of the Framework Action, which includes an environmental assessment and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Kate Michie, telephone: 727–824–5305, or email:
The coastal migratory pelagic (CMP) fishery of the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf), which includes Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, and cobia, is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Councils and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
On March 19, 2014, NMFS published a proposed rule for the Framework Action and requested public comment (79 FR 15293). The proposed rule and Framework Action outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by this final rule is provided below.
This final rule allows transfer-at-sea of Spanish mackerel in gillnets between vessels with Federal Spanish mackerel commercial permits that are using gillnet gear and allows vessels engaged in this transfer activity to have three gillnets onboard. The transfer-at-sea of harvested fish is only allowed if all the following conditions are met: (1) The owner or operator of both vessels involved in the transfer reports the transfer by telephone to the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement in Port Orange, Florida, prior to the transfer; (2) harvesting gear must be allowable gillnet gear, as specified in 50 CFR 622.377(b); (3) the transfer can only take place in Federal waters between two vessels with valid commercial permits for Spanish mackerel; (4) the receiving vessel must possess no more than three gillnets after the transfer is completed; (5) all Spanish mackerel exceeding the applicable daily vessel limit shall remain in the gillnet until transferred; (6) the quantity of Spanish mackerel transferred to any single vessel shall not exceed the applicable daily trip limit; and (7) transfers of Spanish mackerel may only occur once per vessel per trip. This final rule also modifies the two gillnet possession restriction in order to account for the portion of a third net that is present onboard a vessel that receives Spanish mackerel transferred at sea. Only vessels engaged in this transfer activity will be allowed to have three gillnets onboard.
This final rule modifies the Atlantic king mackerel Florida east coast subzone trip limit so that during March 1 through March 31, if 70 percent or more of the quota has been harvested, the trip limit will remain at 50 fish per vessel per trip; however, if less than 70 percent of the quota has been harvested during that time, the trip limit will increase to 75 fish per vessel per trip until March 31. From April 1 through October 31, the Florida east coast subzone is not part of the Gulf migratory group king mackerel area; it is part of the Atlantic migratory group king mackerel area.
Drift gillnets for all CMP species were prohibited in the South Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) through the final rule implementing Amendment 3 to the FMP (54 FR 29561, July 13, 1989) and through the final rule implementing the Resubmission of Disapproved Measures in Amendment 3 to the FMP (55 FR 14833, April 19, 1990). Run-around gillnets for king mackerel were prohibited in the South Atlantic EEZ through the final rule implementing Amendment 8 to the FMP (63 FR 10561, March 4, 1998). However, the regulations currently at 50 CFR 622.387, which address prevention of gear conflicts between hook-and-line and gillnet vessels in the South Atlantic EEZ, were inadvertently not removed at the time when the final rule for Amendment 8 was implemented. This rule corrects this mistake by removing the regulations at § 622.387. This revision is unrelated to the Framework Action.
NMFS received two comment submissions on the Framework Action and the proposed rule. One comment was from a government organization that stated it had no comment. One comment was from a commercial fishing organization that stated it was in support of the Framework Action and the proposed rule. NMFS received no other comments related to the Framework Action or the proposed rule. Therefore, no changes were made to the final rule in response to public comments.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of CMP species and is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this action. An FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant economic issues raised by public comment, NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. The FRFA uses updated information to produce more current estimates of numbers of small entities and impacts; however, its conclusions are consistent with the IRFA. The FRFA also includes an administrative action to remove regulatory text that was not included in the IRFA. The FRFA follows.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule and the preamble to this final rule provides a statement of the need for and objectives of this rule.
No public comments specific to the IRFA were received and, therefore, no public comments are addressed in this FRFA. Moreover, there were no comments pertaining to the economic impacts.
The final rule allows the transfer of Spanish mackerel by gillnet in the Atlantic EEZ, modifies existing trip limits for king mackerel in the Florida east coast subzone, and removes regulatory text concerning prevention of conflicts between hook-and-line and gillnet fishermen that is no longer necessary.
NMFS expects the final rule to directly affect commercial fishermen in the CMP fishery, and these fishermen represent businesses in the finfish
Presently, there are 1,759 commercial fishing vessels with a valid commercial Spanish mackerel permit (as of April 21, 2014). It is unknown how many of those 1,759 vessels may volunteer to participate in a transfer by gillnet. Consequently, all of the businesses that hold at least one of the 1,736 commercial vessel permits for Spanish mackerel (as of November 5, 2013) are presumed to be small businesses. However, 22 vessels with a valid commercial Spanish mackerel gillnet permit have a valid or renewable king mackerel gillnet permit. Hence, it is estimated that at least 22 vessels that harvest Spanish mackerel will be directly affected by the rule. The above 22 gillnet fishing vessels are owned and/or operated by 18 businesses in the finfish fishing industry and each of these businesses is expected to be small.
In the proposed rule, NMFS estimated that there were 1,658 commercial fishing vessels with a valid or renewable permit for king mackerel, all of which were presumed to be small businesses. This number was updated on April 21, 2014, at which time we estimated that there were 1,483 commercial fishing vessels with a valid or renewable king mackerel permit. From this number, NMFS narrowed the number of impacted entities to those permit holders who reside in Florida in Miami/Dade County up through Volusia County, as these entities are the most likely to fish in the Florida east coast subzone. NMFS estimated that those residents totaled approximately 55 percent of all permit holders. Some number of additional entities living outside Miami/Dade County through Volusia County may also travel to and harvest from the Florida east coast subzone, but the inclusion of these entities in the analysis would not likely materially affect the assessment of the expected economic effects. Based on the 55 percent calculated above, we estimate that 816 of the 1,483 vessels with a valid or renewable permit will be directly affected by the action to modify trip limits in the Florida east coast subzone. Although commercial vessels that land king mackerel harvest other species, it is presumed that all of the businesses that own and/or operate one or more of the above 816 vessels are small.
Since implementation of the gillnet prohibitions, the relevance of regulations at 50 CFR 622.387, which address prevention of gear conflicts between hook-and-line and gillnet vessels in the South Atlantic EEZ, has been zero. This is because the regulations implementing Amendment 3 and Amendment 8 to the FMP prohibited drift gillnets and run-around gillnets in the South Atlantic EEZ, respectively; however, the regulations implementing Amendment 8 inadvertently did not remove the provision at 50 CFR 622.387 at that time.
This final rule will end the prohibition on gillnet transfers of Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel in the EEZ, allow a vessel with a commercial Spanish mackerel permit to possess three gillnets in the Atlantic EEZ, and establish a new reporting requirement. The operator(s) of the two vessels engaged in a transfer will be required to report the transfer by telephone to the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement in Port Orange, Florida, prior to the transfer. Because any transfer would be voluntary, any of the 18 or more small businesses that own and/or operate gillnet fishing vessels would likely participate in a transfer only if it has a net economic benefit. Because transfers would allow at least 22 vessels to catch more than the trip limit if they transfer the amount of catch in excess of the trip limit to another permitted vessel, up to the trip limit, this action may increase the rate of landings. Vessels may engage in such transfers especially along Florida's east coast after the trip limit is reduced, as vessels that would not have previously reached the trip limit may now receive additional fish, up to the trip limit. NMFS considered one alternative, the no action alternative, to the proposed action of eliminating the prohibition on the transfer of Spanish mackerel by gillnet. The status quo alternative was rejected because it would not provide the potential economic benefit to small businesses as described above.
This final rule will change the commercial trip limit for king mackerel in the Florida east coast subzone without changing any current reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Under this final rule, any vessel that currently lands up to 50 fish per trip in February would experience no loss of landings or ex-vessel (dockside) revenues. For trips that have historically harvested more than 50 fish per trip in February, this final rule is expected to reduce the king mackerel harvest by as much as 25 fish weighing 375 lb (170 kg) and with a dockside value of $829 per trip per vessel in February of each year. Any vessel that currently lands up to 50 fish in March would experience no loss of landings and dockside revenues. Those that currently land more than 50 fish per trip in March are expected to reduce the king mackerel harvest by as much as 25 fish weighing 375 kg and with a dockside value of $829 per trip per vessel in March. Consequently, vessels that have consistently landed less than 50 fish per trip in February and March would experience no adverse economic impact. Those vessels that have landed more than 50 fish per trip during those months would experience losses of dockside revenue up to $829 per trip. If the rate of landings in the first 3 months of the 5-month season were such that the quota could be reached weeks before March 31, the lower trip limit in February could increase both the length of the open season and number of trips when ex-vessel price of king mackerel is typically at its highest in March. However, since the 2012–2013 season, there have been no early closures despite increases in the trip limit in February and March, and the final rule's lower expected trip limits in February and March could result in lower annual landings.
This rule also modifies the commercial trip limit for king mackerel in the Florida east coast subzone. Among the actions in this rule, only this action is expected to potentially result in any adverse economic effect on any small entities. NMFS considered three alternatives, including the status quo alternative, to this action. The status quo commercial trip limit in the Florida east coast subzone is 50 fish from November 1 through January 31 each year. Then, beginning on February 1, and continuing through March 31, if 75 percent or more of the Florida east coast subzone quota has been taken by January 31, the trip limit remains 50 fish. However, if less than 75 percent of the quota has been taken by January 31, the trip limit increases to 75 fish. This alternative was not selected because it could result in a season that closes while the increased demand for king mackerel that occurs during the Lenten season is still high.
The second alternative would set the king mackerel commercial trip limit in the Florida east coast subzone at 50 fish for the entire fishing season. This alternative was not adopted because it would not provide the flexibility to allow small businesses to increase landings of king mackerel when demand increases during the Lenten season.
The third alternative would set the king mackerel trip limit in the Florida east coast subzone at 75 fish for the entire fishing season. This alternative was not adopted because it would likely increase the king mackerel harvest prior to the Lenten season, reduce landings of king mackerel and associated revenues when demand is high during the Lenten season, and result in earlier closure, potentially even before the period of heightened demand.
Finally, this rule also removes language in the codified text regarding prevention of gear conflicts between hook-and-line and gillnet vessels in the South Atlantic EEZ. This change corrects an inadvertent error in the text, as discussed in the preamble. The regulation contained in § 622.387 was necessary before separate quotas, trip limits, and gillnet permits were implemented for the harvest of king mackerel off Florida. Since implementation of those management measures, the impact and relevance of § 622.387 have been zero. Consequently, its removal would have no impact on small businesses.
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. As part of the rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. The fishery bulletin will be sent to all CMP vessel permit holders in the Atlantic region.
Fisheries, Fishing, Gillnet, Mackerel, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, South Atlantic, Trip limits.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) No more than two gillnets, including any net in use, may be possessed at any one time, except for a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for Spanish mackerel engaged in a transfer as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section. If two gillnets, including any net in use, are possessed at any one time, they must have stretched mesh sizes (as allowed under the regulations) that differ by at least .25 inch (.64 cm), except for a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for Spanish mackerel engaged in a transfer as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section, in which case the vessel may possess two gillnets of the same mesh size provided that one of the nets is transferred to that vessel.
(vi) A portion of a gillnet may be transferred at sea only in the EEZ and only from a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for Spanish mackerel that has exceeded a trip limit specified in § 622.385 (b) to another vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for Spanish mackerel that has not yet reached the trip limit (the receiving vessel). Only one such transfer is allowed per vessel per day. In addition, to complete a legal transfer at sea, all of the following must apply:
(A) All fish exceeding the applicable commercial trip limit may not be removed from the gillnet until the transfer is complete (
(B) The receiving vessel may possess no more than three gillnets on board after the transfer is complete.
(C) Prior to cutting the gillnet and prior to any transfer of Spanish mackerel from one vessel to another, the owner or operator of both vessels must contact NMFS Office for Law Enforcement, Port Orange, Florida, phone: 1–386–492–6686.
* * * Except for Atlantic migratory group Spanish mackerel harvested by gillnet, as specified in § 622.377(b)(2)(vi), a species subject to a trip limit specified in this section taken in the EEZ may not be transferred at sea, regardless of where such transfer takes place, and such species may not be transferred in the EEZ. * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i)
(A) From November 1 through the end of February—not to exceed 50 fish.
(B) Beginning on March 1 and continuing through March 31—
(
(
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.
NMFS is adjusting the 2014 seasonal apportionments of the total allowable catch (TAC) in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) by re-apportioning unharvested pollock TAC from Statistical Areas 610 to Statistical Areas 620 and 630 of the GOA. This action is necessary to provide opportunity for harvest of the 2014 pollock TAC, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), November 14, 2014, until 2400 hours A.l.t., December 31, 2014.
Obren Davis, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The annual pollock TACs in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA are apportioned among four seasons, in accordance with § 679.23(d)(2). Regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B) allow the underharvest of a seasonal apportionment to be added to subsequent seasonal apportionments, provided that any revised seasonal apportionment does not exceed 20 percent of the seasonal apportionment for a given statistical area. Therefore, NMFS is increasing the D season apportionment of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA to reflect the underharvest of pollock in that area during the A, B, and C seasons. In addition, any underharvest remaining beyond 20 percent of the originally specified seasonal apportionment in a particular area may be further apportioned to other statistical areas. Therefore, NMFS also is increasing the D season apportionments of pollock to Statistical Areas 620 and 630 based on the underharvest of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. These adjustments are described below.
The D season apportionment of the 2014 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 13,235 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), hereby increases the D season apportionment for Statistical Area 610 by 2,647 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Area 610 in the C season. Therefore, the revised D season apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 is 15,882 mt (13,235 mt plus 2,647 mt).
The pollock D season apportionment in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 12,448 mt as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the D season apportionment for Statistical Area 620 by 2,490 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Area 610. This increase is in proportion to the estimated pollock biomass and is not greater than 20 percent of the seasonal TAC apportionment in Statistical Area 620. Therefore, the revised D season apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 is 14,938 mt (12,448 mt plus 2,490 mt).
The pollock D season apportionment in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 13,720 mt as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the D season apportionment for Statistical Area 630 by 2,696 mt to reflect the total underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Area 610. This increase is in proportion to the estimated pollock biomass and is not greater than 20 percent of the seasonal TAC apportionment in Statistical Area 630. Therefore, the revised D season apportionment of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 is 16,416 mt (13,720 mt plus 2,696 mt).
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 provide opportunity to harvest increased pollock seasonal apportionments. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 13, 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
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Seattle, WA, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).
Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2015.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2014–0466; Airspace Docket No. 14–ANM–6, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4563.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2014–0466 and Airspace Docket No. 14–ANM–6) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA–2014–0466 and Airspace Docket No. 14–ANM–6”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Seattle, WA. This action would contain aircraft while in IFR conditions under control of Seattle ARTCC by vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas, therefore enhancing the safety and management of IFR operations within the NAS.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 49°20′00″ N., long. 120°00′00″ W.; to lat. 49°00′00″ N., long. 123°00′00″ W.; to lat. 48°30′00″ N., long. 123°00′00″ W.; to lat. 48°17′08″ N., long. 123°15′16″ W.; to lat. 48°13′28″ N., long. 123°32′45″ W.; to lat. 48°17′50″ N., long. 124°00′40″ W.; to lat. 48°26′30″ N., long. 124°32′40″ W.; to lat. 48°30′00″ N., long. 124°45′00″ W.; to lat. 48°30′00″ N., long. 125°00′00″ W.; to lat. 46°15′00″ N., long. 124°30′00″ W.; to lat. 46°23′19″ N., long. 121°07′50″ W.; thence to the point of beginning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Bend, OR, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations within the National Airspace System.
Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2015.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2014–0468; Airspace Docket No. 14–ANM–8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4563.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2014–0468 and Airspace Docket No. 14–ANM–8) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA–2014–0468 and Airspace Docket No. 14–ANM–8”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Spokane, WA. This action would contain aircraft while in IFR conditions under control of Seattle ARTCC by vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas, therefore enhancing the safety and management of IFR operations within the NAS.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish controlled airspace at Bend, OR.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 45°09′13″ N., long. 119°01′43″ W.; to lat. 43°41′51″ N., long. 120°00′19″ W.; to lat. 43°27′19″ N., long. 119°56′31″ W.; to lat. 42°50′00″ N., long. 124°50′00″ W.; to lat. 46°15′00″ N., long. 124°30′00″ W.; to lat. 46°23′19″ N., long. 121°07′50″ W.; thence to the point of beginning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Spokane, WA, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).
Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2015.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2014–0467; Airspace Docket No. 14–ANM–7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Steve Haga, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203–4563.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2014–0467 and Airspace Docket No. 14–ANM–7) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA–2014–0467 and Airspace Docket No. 14–ANM–7”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Spokane, WA. This action would contain aircraft while in IFR conditions under control of Seattle ARTCC by vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas, therefore enhancing the safety and management of IFR operations within the NAS.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish controlled airspace at Spokane, WA.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 45°49′52″ N., long. 118°02′34″ W.; to lat. 44°50′06″ N., long. 117°05′33″ W.; to lat. 45°50′00″ N., long. 115°45′00″ W.; to lat. 46°02′00″ N., long. 115°45′00″ W.; to lat. 48°24′00″ N., long. 115°44′57″ W.; to lat. 49°00′00″ N., long. 115°30′00″ W.; to lat. 49°00′00″ N., long. 120°00′00″ W.; to lat. 46°23′19″ N., long. 121°07′50″ W.; to lat. 45°09′13″ N., long. 119°01′43″ W.; thence to the point of beginning.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Questions and Answers Regarding Food Facility Registration (Sixth Edition).” The guidance includes one additional question and answer regarding FDA's policy regarding food facility registration for farms that also pack or hold raw agricultural commodities grown on a farm under different ownership in light of other ongoing FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) rulemakings.
Submit either electronic or written comments on FDA guidances at any time.
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Amy Barringer, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–615), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–1988.
We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Questions and Answers Regarding Food Facility Registration (Sixth Edition) available on FDA's Web site at
Section 102 of FSMA (Pub. L. 111–353), signed into law on January 4, 2011, amends section 415 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350d) (the FD&C Act) regarding requirements for food facility registration. Further, section 102(a)(3) of FSMA amends section 415 of the FD&C Act to provide that food facilities required to register with FDA must renew their registrations with FDA every 2 years, between October 1 and December 31 of each even-numbered year, by submitting registrations renewals to FDA.
In addition to amending section 415 of the FD&C Act, FSMA also amended the FD&C Act such that section 415 functions in connection with other food safety provisions. For instance, FSMA added section 418 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350g), which establishes certain preventive control requirements for food facilities that are required to register under section 415 of the FD&C Act. In general, section 418(a) of the FD&C Act requires the owner, operator, or agent in charge of a “facility” to evaluate the hazards that could affect food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by such facility, identify and implement preventive controls, monitor the performance of those controls, and maintain records of the monitoring. The term “facility” is defined in section 418(
As part of the rulemaking to implement section 418 of the FD&C Act, on September 29, 2014 (79 FR 58524), we published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in the
In light of this ongoing rulemaking, we are announcing our policy regarding food facility registration for farms that also pack or hold raw agricultural commodities grown on a farm under different ownership and that would no longer be required to register if the proposed amendments to the “farm” definition are finalized as proposed. Under this policy, as discussed in the guidance, FDA does not intend to prioritize enforcing the registration requirement for such establishments. This policy is a less burdensome policy consistent with the public health. FDA intends to make further updates to this guidance once certain FSMA rulemakings are final in order to make sure questions and answers, key terms, and definitions are consistent and accurate with regard to the registration of food facility requirements.
The guidance represents our current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations and section 415 of the FD&C Act. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in §§ 1.230 through 1.235 and section 415 of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0502.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this guidance to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State educational agencies (SEAs). The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We take this action in order to support the development of
We must receive your comments on or before January 5, 2015.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Jonathan Bettis, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W242, Washington, DC 20202–5970. Telephone: (202) 453–6533 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.
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for CSP Grants to SEAs. The Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in FY 2015 and later years. We take this action in order to support the development of
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: As noted above, the Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes this regulatory action to achieve three main goals.
The first goal is greater accountability for SEAs' use of CSP funds; the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would increase the likelihood that CSP funds are directed toward the creation of
The second goal of this proposed regulatory action is to strengthen public accountability and oversight for authorized public chartering agencies. The proposed regulations would help ensure that SEAs implement program requirements, as well as State policies and supports, in a manner that enables authorized public chartering agencies to be keenly focused on school quality through rigorous and transparent charter school authorization processes. Furthermore, it would increase the likelihood that CSP funds are directed toward the creation of
The following proposed priorities and selection criteria support this second goal. Proposed priorities 1 (“Periodic Review and Evaluation”) and 2 (“Charter School Oversight”) would clarify existing statutory priorities in these areas. Proposed priority 3 (“High-Quality Authorizing and Monitoring Processes”) would encourage authorized public chartering agencies in States applying for this grant to adopt key authorizing and monitoring processes that are identified as best practices in the field. Proposed selection criterion (g) (“Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies”) would request that SEAs explain, in detail, their State's plan for holding authorized public chartering agencies accountable for the quality of the charter schools they approve.
The third goal of this proposed regulatory action is to encourage a stronger focus on supporting and improving academic outcomes for
The following proposed priorities and selection criteria support this third goal. Proposed selection criterion (d) (“Quality of Plan to Support Educationally Disadvantaged Students”) would allow SEAs to highlight specific actions they would take to support
In addition to the three goals outlined above, the Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in order to clarify certain statutory requirements and to streamline the CSP application process, thereby decreasing the burden on the applicant.
The Department believes that the benefits of this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs, which we believe would be minimal. This action would not impose cost-bearing requirements on participating SEAs apart from those related to preparing an application for a CSP grant and would strengthen accountability for the use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department awards CSP grants to SEAs that are most capable of expanding the number of
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W259 Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
(1) Providing financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools;
(2) Evaluating the effects of charter schools, including the effects on students, student achievement, student growth, staff, and parents;
(3) Expanding the number of
(4) Encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools for facilities financing in an amount more nearly commensurate to the amount the States have typically provided for traditional public schools.
The purpose of the CSP Grants to SEAs is to enable SEAs to provide financial assistance, through subgrants to eligible applicants, for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools and for the dissemination of information about successful charter schools, including practices that existing charter schools have demonstrated are successful.
Title V, Part B, Subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7221–7221j); and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113–76).
The language in this proposed priority is identical to the language in the statute, except that this proposed priority would clarify that periodic review and evaluation should provide an opportunity for the authorized public chartering agency to take appropriate action or impose meaningful consequences on the charter school, if necessary. The proposed priority would also clarify that the student academic achievement requirements and goals may be established in a State regulation or State policy that meets or exceeds such requirements in the State law or regulation.
In the past, these two requirements were incorporated into an assurance document that SEA grantees signed to affirm compliance. These requirements are important characteristics of high-quality authorizing practices and are essential to holding charter schools accountable. Incorporating the language for these requirements into a priority would strengthen the Department's ability to hold SEAs accountable for meeting these requirements at the time the award is made and throughout the grant period.
(a) That each charter school in the State—
(1) Operates under a legally binding charter or performance contract between itself and the school's authorized public chartering agency that describes the rights and responsibilities of the school and the public chartering agency;
(2) Conducts annual, timely, and independent audits of the school's financial statements that are filed with the school's authorized public chartering agency; and
(3) Demonstrates improved student academic achievement; and
(b) That all authorized public chartering agencies in the State use increases in student academic achievement for all groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)) as the most important factor when determining whether to renew or revoke a school's charter.
High-quality authorizing processes can influence the quality of charter schools through the authorization process and beyond. Expedited charter approval for operators with exemplary track records helps increase the number of
Strong performance monitoring mechanisms can increase the speed of
(a) Frameworks and processes to evaluate the performance of charter schools on a regular basis that include—
(1) Rigorous academic and operational performance expectations (including performance expectations related to financial management and equitable treatment of all students and applicants);
(2) School-specific performance objectives aligned to those expectations;
(3) Clear criteria for renewing the charter of a school based on an objective body of evidence, including the performance objectives outlined in the charter contract, demonstration of organizational and fiscal viability, and demonstration of fidelity to the terms of the charter contract and applicable law;
(4) Clear criteria for revoking the charter of a school if there is violation of law or public trust regarding student safety or public funds, or evidence of poor student academic achievement; and
(5) Annual reporting by authorized public chartering agencies to each of their authorized charter schools that summarizes the individual school's performance and compliance, based on this framework, and identifies any areas needing improvement.
(b) Standardized systems that measure and benchmark the performance of the authorized public chartering agency, including the performance of its portfolio of charter schools, and provide for the annual dissemination of information on such performance;
(c) Authorizing processes that establish clear criteria for evaluation of charter applications and include a multi-tiered clearance or review of a charter school, including a final review immediately before the school opens for its first operational year; or
(d) Authorizing processes that include differentiated review of charter petitions based on whether, and the extent to which, the charter school developer has been successful (as determined by the authorized public chartering agency) in establishing and operating one or more high-quality charter schools.
(a) Written certification that, for the purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses the term
(b) If the State proposes to use an alternative definition of
(a) Written verification that, for purposes of the CSP grant, the SEA uses the term
(b) If the State proposes to use an alternative definition of
The proposed definitions of
Although we propose minor revisions to these definitions to capture the meaning of these terms from a State perspective, the substance of the definitions remains unchanged.
(a) A charter school that has been in operation for at least three years and that—
(1) Has been identified as being in the lowest-performing five percent of all schools in the State and has failed to improve school performance (based on the SEA's accountability system under the ESEA) over the past three years; and
(2) Has failed to demonstrate student academic growth (at least an average of one grade level of growth for each cohort of students) in each of the past three years, as demonstrated by statewide or other assessments approved by the authorized public chartering agency; or
(b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for
(a) A charter school that shows evidence of strong academic results for the past three years (or over the life of the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three years), based on the following factors:
(1) Increased student academic achievement and attainment (including, if applicable, high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) for all students, including, as applicable,
(2) Either—
(i) Demonstrated success in closing historic achievement gaps for subgroups of students described in section 1111 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311) at the charter school; or
(ii) No significant achievement gaps between any of the subgroups of students described in section 1111 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311) at the charter school and significant gains in student academic achievement for all populations of students served by the charter school;
(3) Results (including, if applicable and available, performance on statewide tests, annual student attendance and retention rates, high school graduation rates, college and other postsecondary education attendance rates, and college and other postsecondary education persistence rates) for low-income and other
(4) Results on a performance framework established by the State or authorized public chartering agency for purposes of evaluating charter school quality; and
(5) No
(b) An SEA may use an alternative definition for
Proposed selection criteria (a) (“State-Level Strategy”), (b) (“Policy Context for Charter Schools”), and (c) (“Past Performance”) would request that the SEA describe its vision and the policy context for charter schools in the State and provide evidence of the past performance of charter schools in the State. These criteria are intended to encourage an SEA to consider charter schools as a key part of its overall efforts to improve public education and allow reviewers to evaluate the context in which a grant might be awarded.
Proposed selection criteria (d) (“Quality of Plan to Support Educationally Disadvantaged Students”), (e) (“Vision for Growth and Accountability”), (f) (“Dissemination of Information and Best Practices”), and (g) (“Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies”) would allow an SEA to focus on specific areas of importance for charter schools in its State. As noted in the
Proposed selection criterion (e) (“Vision for Growth and Accountability”) would ask an SEA to describe its vision for cultivating high-performing charter schools generally, while proposed selection criteria (f) (“Dissemination of Information and Best Practices”) and (g) (“Oversight of Authorized Public Chartering Agencies”) would ask an SEA to describe how it plans to disseminate best or promising practices of charter schools to each local educational agency (LEA) in the State. In addition, these criteria would ask an SEA to describe its efforts to strengthen authorized public chartering agencies' oversight and approval processes for charter schools (including any efforts by the SEA to encourage authorized public chartering agencies to create a robust portfolio of
Proposed selection criteria (h) (“Management Plan and Theory of Action”) and (i) (“Project Design”) would require an SEA to describe, in detail, the key elements of its proposed project in the form of a logic model that includes relevant program and project-specific performance measures and the mechanics of the SEA's planned subgrant competitions, including how such competitions would create a portfolio of subgrantees that focus on areas of need within the State.
(a)
(1) The extent to which the SEA's CSP activities, including the subgrant program, are integrated into the State's overall strategy for improving student academic achievement and attainment (including high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates), and closing achievement and attainment gaps, and complement or leverage other statewide education reform efforts (
(2) The extent to which funding equity for charter schools (including equitable funding for charter school facilities) is incorporated into the SEA's State-level strategy; and
(3) The extent to which the State encourages local strategies for improving student academic achievement and attainment that involve charter schools, including but not limited to the following:
(i) Collaboration, including the sharing of data and promising instructional and other practices, between charter schools and other public schools or providers of early learning and development programs or alternative education programs; and
(ii) The creation of charter schools that would serve as viable options for students who currently attend, or would otherwise attend, the State's lowest-performing schools.
(b)
(1) The degree of flexibility afforded to charter schools under the State's charter school law, including:
(i) The extent to which charter schools in the State are exempt from State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools; and
(ii) The extent to which charter schools in the State have a high degree of autonomy, including autonomy over the charter school's budget, expenditures, staffing, procurement, and curriculum;
(2) The quality of the SEA's process for:
(i) Annually informing each charter school in the State about Federal funds the charter school is eligible to receive and about Federal programs in which the charter school may participate; and
(ii) Annually ensuring that each charter school in the State receives, in a timely fashion, the school's commensurate share of Federal funds that are allocated by formula each year, particularly during the first year of operation of the school and during a year in which the school's enrollment expands significantly; and
(3) The quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools that are considered to be LEAs under State law and that LEAs in which charter schools are located will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).
(c)
(1) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated increase, for each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of
(2) The extent to which there has been a demonstrated reduction, for each of the past five years, in the number and percentage of
(3) Whether, and the extent to which, the academic achievement and academic attainment (including high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates) of charter school students equal or exceed the academic achievement and academic attainment of similar students in other public schools in the State over the past five years.
(d)
(1) The extent to which the SEA's charter school subgrant program would—
(i) Assist students, particularly
(ii) Reduce or eliminate achievement gaps for
(2) The quality of the SEA's plan to ensure that charter schools attract, recruit, admit, enroll, serve, and retain
(3) The extent to which the SEA will encourage innovations in charter schools, such as models, policies, supports, or structures, that are designed to improve the academic achievement of
(4) The quality of the SEA's plan for monitoring all charter schools to ensure compliance with Federal and State laws, particularly laws related to educational equity, nondiscrimination, and access to public schools for
(e)
(1) The quality of the SEA's systems for collecting, analyzing, and publicly reporting data on charter school performance, including data on student academic achievement, attainment (including high school graduation rates and college and other postsecondary education enrollment rates), retention, and discipline for all students and disaggregated by student subgroup;
(2) The ambition, vision, and feasibility of the SEA's plan (including key actions) to support the creation of
(3) The ambition, vision, and feasibility of the SEA's plan (including key actions) to support the closure of
(f)
(1) The extent to which the SEA will serve as a leader in the State for identifying and disseminating information (which may include, but is not limited to, providing technical assistance) about best or promising practices in successful charter schools, including how the SEA will use measures of efficacy and data in identifying such practices and assessing the impact of its dissemination activities;
(2) The quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and research on best or promising practices used and benefits of charter schools that effectively incorporate student body diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity and diversity with respect to
(3) The quality of the SEA's plan for disseminating information and research on best or promising practices in charter schools related to student discipline and school climate; and
(4) For an SEA that proposes to use a portion of its grant funds to award dissemination subgrants under section 5204(f)(6)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221a), the quality of the subgrant award process and the likelihood that such dissemination activities will increase the number of
(g)
(1) Seeking and approving charter school petitions from developers with the capacity to create
(2) Approving charter school petitions with design elements that incorporate evidence-based school models and practices, including, but not limited to, school models and practices that focus on racial and ethnic diversity in student bodies and diversity in student bodies with respect to
(3) Establishing measureable academic and operational performance expectations for all charter schools (including alternative charter schools, virtual charter schools, and charter schools that include pre-kindergarten, if such schools exist in the State) that include, but are not limited to, the elements of
(4) Monitoring their charter schools on at least an annual basis, including conducting an in-depth review of each charter school at least once every five years, to ensure that charter schools are meeting the terms of their charters and complying with applicable State and Federal laws;
(5) Using increases in student academic achievement as the most important factor in renewal decisions; basing renewal decisions on a comprehensive set of criteria, which are set forth in the charter contract; and revoking, not renewing, or encouraging the voluntary termination of charters held by
(6) Providing, on an annual basis, public reports on the performance of their portfolios of charter schools, including the performance of each individual charter school with respect to meeting the terms of, and expectations set forth in, the school's charter contract.
(7) Supporting charter school autonomy while holding charter schools accountable for results and meeting the terms of their charters and performance agreements; and
(8) Ensuring the continued accountability of charter schools during any transition to new State assessments or accountability systems, including those based on college- and career-ready standards.
(h)
(1) The quality, cohesion, and reasoning of the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1 (c)), including the extent to which it addresses the role of the grant in promoting the State-level strategy for using charter schools to improve educational outcomes for students through CSP subgrants for planning, program design, and initial implementation; optional dissemination subgrants; optional revolving loan funds; and other strategies;
(2) The extent to which the SEA's project-specific performance measures, including any measures required by the Department, support the logic model; and
(3) The adequacy of the management plan to—
(i) Achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including the existence of clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks; and
(ii) Address any compliance issues or findings related to the CSP that are identified in an audit or other monitoring review.
(i)
(1) The quality of the SEA's charter school subgrant awards process, and the dissemination subgrant awards process, if applicable, including:
(i) The subgrant application and peer review process, timelines for these processes, and how the SEA intends to ensure that subgrants will be awarded to applicants demonstrating the capacity to create
(ii) A reasonable year-by-year estimate, with supporting evidence, of the number of subgrants the SEA expects to award during the project period and the average size of those subgrants, including an explanation of any assumptions upon which the estimates are based, and if the SEA has previously received a CSP grant, the percentage of eligible applicants that were awarded subgrants and how this percentage related to the overall quality of the applicant pool;
(2) The process for monitoring CSP subgrantees;
(3) How the SEA will create a portfolio of subgrantees that focuses on areas of need within the State, such as increasing student body diversity, and how this prioritization aligns with the State-level strategy;
(4) The steps the SEA will take to inform teachers, parents, and communities of the SEA's charter school subgrant program; and
(5) A description of any requested waivers of statutory or regulatory provisions over which the Secretary exercises administrative authority and the extent to which those waivers will, if granted, further the objectives of the project.
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action would have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million because we anticipate awarding more than $100 million in grants to SEAs in FY 2015. Therefore, this proposed action is “economically significant” and subject to review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this proposed regulatory action and have determined that the benefits would justify the costs.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this proposed regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the potential costs and benefits of this action as well as regulatory alternatives we considered.
The Department believes that this regulatory action would not impose significant costs on eligible SEAs, whose participation in this program is voluntary. This action would not impose requirements on participating SEAs apart from those related to preparing an application for a CSP grant. The costs associated with meeting these requirements are, in the Department's estimation, minimal.
This regulatory action would strengthen accountability for the use of Federal funds by helping to ensure that the Department selects for CSP grants the SEAs that are most capable of expanding the number of
The Department believes that the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria proposed in this notice are needed to administer the program effectively. As an alternative to promulgating the proposed selection criteria, the Department could choose from among the selection factors authorized for CSP grants to SEAs in section 5204(a) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7221c) and the general selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210. We do not believe that these factors and criteria provide a sufficient basis on which to evaluate the quality of applications. In particular, the factors and criteria would not sufficiently enable the Department to assess an applicant's past performance with respect to the operation of
We note that several of the priorities, requirements, and selection criteria proposed in this notice are based on priorities, requirements, selection criteria, and other provisions in the authorizing statute for this program.
As required by OMB Circular A–4 (available at
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
On February 12, 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized amendments to the national emission standards for the control of hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) from the new and existing Portland cement manufacturing industry at major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Subsequently, the EPA has become aware of certain minor technical errors in those amendments, and is, accordingly, proposing amendments and technical corrections to the final rule. In addition, the EPA plans to remove rule provisions establishing an affirmative defense in the final technical correction rule.
•
•
•
•
•
The hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because this hearing is being held at a U.S. government facility, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing. Commenters should notify Ms. Garrett if they will need specific equipment, or if there are other special needs related to providing comments at the hearings. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Again, a hearing will only be held if requested by November 24, 2014. Please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541–7966 or at
Ms. Sharon Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–04), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–2825; facsimile number: (919) 541–5450; email address:
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 111, 112 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7412 and 7601(a)).
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule include:
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility could be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.60 (subpart F) or in 40 CFR 63.1340 (subpart LLL). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding
In 2010, the EPA established NESHAP for the Portland Cement source category. 75 FR 54970 (September 9, 2010). Specifically, the EPA established emission standards for mercury (Hg), hydrogen chloride (HCl), total hydrocarbons (THC) (or in the alternative, organic HAP (oHAP), and particulate matter (PM). These standards, established pursuant to section 112 (d) of the Act (CAA), reflected performance of maximum available control technology. Following court remand,
The EPA also adopted standards of performance for new Portland cement sources as part of the same regulatory action establishing the 2010 NESHAP. 75 FR 54970(Sept. 9, 2010); see also
The EPA is proposing certain clarifying changes and corrections to the 2013 final rule. Specifically, these amendments would: (1) Clarify the definition of rolling average, operating day and run average; (2) restore the table of emission limits which apply until the September 9, 2015, compliance date; (3) correct equation 8 regarding sources with an alkali bypass or inline coal mill that include a separate stack; (4) provide a scaling alternative for sources that have a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber relative to the HCl compliance demonstration; (5) add a temperature parameter to the startup and shutdown requirements; (6) clarify language related to span values for both Hg and HCl measurements; and (7) correct inadvertent typographical errors. The EPA also proposes to clarify and correct certain inadvertent inconsistencies in the final rule regulatory text, such as correction of the compliance date for new sources and correction to the compliance date regarding monitoring and recordkeeping requirements to reflect the effective date of the final rule for the NSPS.
In both the NSPS and the NESHAP, we are proposing language to clarify the existing definitions of Operating Day, Rolling Average and Run Average to promote consistent and clear monitoring data recording and emissions reporting. The clarifications below are in response to industry questions and neither is intended to change the meaning of the final rule. We propose to clarify that “Operating Day” is any 24-hour period where clinker is produced. This clarification is necessary to specify that during any day with both operations and emissions, an emissions value or an average of emissions values representing those operations is included in the 30-day rolling average calculation. We also propose to clarify that “Rolling Average” means a weighted average of all monitoring data collected during a specified time period divided by all production of clinker during those same hours of operation. This clarification is necessary to specify the way a long term rolling average value is calculated such that different facilities are not using different approaches to demonstrate compliance with the rule. In addition, we propose to revise the definition of “Run Average” to clarify that the run average means the average of the recorded parameter values, not the 1-minute parameter values, for a run.
We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(8)(vii) that includes a provision describing performance testing requirements when a source demonstrates compliance with the emissions standard using a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for sulfur dioxide (SO
We are proposing to add a scaling alternative whereby if a source uses a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, and where the test run average of the three HCl compliance tests demonstrates compliance below 2.25 parts per million by volume (ppmv) (which is 75 percent of the HCl emission limit), the source may calculate an operating limit by establishing a relationship of the average SO
We also propose, under 40 CFR 63.1346(g)(3), to revise language related to the use of air pollution control devices (APCD). During startup, fuel feed is increased over time until normal operating temperatures are achieved. According to industry, during both startup and shutdown, the gas stream to the APCD will be above 12-percent oxygen because the system is being operated at reduced fuel combustion rates. The minimal temperature at which oxygen content is below 12 percent and thereby assuring the stream is nonexplosive, is 300 degrees Fahrenheit. There are also issues with activated carbon and hydrated lime being injected into large ducts with low gas flows. With low gas flows, these materials fall out of the stream and accumulate in the duct work. In addition, lime affected by water vapor condensation present during startup and shutdown conditions will cause the lime to harden and reduce the efficiency
We propose to modify the measurement span criteria for HCl CEMS to include better quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) for measurements of elevated HCl emissions that may result from “mill off” operations. This slight increase in measurement span (from 5 parts per million (ppm) to 10 ppm) provides for an improved balance between accurately quantifying measurements at low emissions levels (the majority of operating time) and improving QA/QC for brief periods of elevated emissions observed during “mill off” operation (the majority of HCl mass emissions).
We propose to remove 40 CFR 60.64(c)(2), which applied when sources did not have valid 15-minute CEMS data. This provision allowed for inclusion of the average emission rate from the previous hour for which data were available. This provision was inadvertently added to the final rule, but this substitution is not an allowable action. We solicit comment on removal of this subsection.
We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.1350(o) (Alternative Monitoring Requirements Approval), since language in this section, which does not allow an operator to apply for alternative THC monitoring, is now obsolete. Since there is now alternative monitoring allowed in 40 CFR 63.1350(j) due to the 2013 amendments (see 78 FR 10015), the exception is largely no longer needed. A source that emits a high amount of THC due to methane emissions, for example, can follow the alternative oHAP monitoring requirements. For any other reason that an alternative THC monitoring protocol is warranted, we are proposing the source be allowed to submit an application to the Administrator subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 63.1350(o)(1) through (6).
As noted above, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the affirmative defense provisions contained in the Portland Cement NESHAP rule. (
Further, to the extent the EPA files an enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission standard, the source can raise any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
At this time, the EPA is only proposing specific technical corrections and clarifications to the final rule's requirements, and is seeking comment on these corrections and clarifications. The EPA is not proposing any other revisions to the final rule. The EPA is seeking comment only on the specific proposed technical corrections proposed in this document. The EPA will not respond to any comments addressing any other issues or any other provisions of the final rule or any other rule. The EPA is not seeking comment on its plan to remove the affirmative defense regulatory text. The removal of the affirmative defense merely corrects the regulation to reflect that the provisions have no legal effect in light of the court's vacatur and, thus, notice and comment is not required (See 5 U.S.C 553(b)(B)).
These technical corrections and clarifications are being proposed to correct inaccuracies and oversights that were promulgated in the final rule and to make the rule language consistent with provisions addressed through this reconsideration. We are soliciting comment only on whether the proposed changes provide the intended accuracy, clarity and consistency. These proposed changes are described in Tables 2 and 3 of this preamble. We request comment on all of these proposed changes.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. The EPA is not proposing any new information collection activities (e.g., monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping) as part of this action. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will not impose any new requirements on small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
This action does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. This action proposes minor changes to the rule to correct and clarify technical issues raised by stakeholders and, thus, does not exceed estimated costs developed for the final rule (refer to final Technical Support Document EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817–0845). Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no obligations upon them and will not result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any one year or incur any disproportionate impacts on them.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action seeks comment on proposed technical corrections to the NESHAP for Portland Cement Manufacturing sources located at major sources of HAP without proposing any changes to the rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from state and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104–113, 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
An analysis of demographic data was prepared for the 2010 final rule and can be found in the docket for that rulemaking (See docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0817). The impacts of the 2010 rule, which assumed full compliance, are expected to be unchanged as a result of this action. Therefore, beginning from the date of full compliance, the EPA has determined that the proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income populations. In addition, the full benefits of this final rule will not result until 2015 due to the final amended compliance date but the demographic analysis showed that the average of populations in close proximity to the sources, and thus most likely to be affected by the sources, were similar in demographic composition to national averages.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(f)
(g)
(h)
The additions and revision read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of:
(i) 0.30 pounds per ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln for kilns constructed, reconstructed, or modified after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
(2) Exhibit greater than 20 percent opacity for kilns constructed, reconstructed, or modified after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008, except that this opacity limit does not apply to any kiln subject to a PM limit in paragraph (a)(1) of this section that uses a PM continuous parametric monitoring system (CPMS).
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) 0.10 lb per ton of feed (dry basis) for clinker coolers constructed, reconstructed, or modified after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
(iv) 10 percent opacity for clinker coolers constructed, reconstructed, or modified after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
(d) If you have an affected source subject to this subpart with a different emissions limit or requirement for the same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, once you are in compliance with the most stringent emissions limit or requirement, you are not subject to the less stringent requirement. Until you are in compliance with the more stringent limit, the less stringent limit continues to apply.
(e) The compliance date for all revised monitoring and recordkeeping requirements contained in this rule will be the same as listed in 63.1351(c) unless you commenced construction as of June 16, 2008, at which time the compliance date is November 8, 2010 or upon startup, whichever is later.
(c)
(2) * * *
(i) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4–20 milliamp or digital signal output and the establishment of its relationship to manual reference method measurements must be determined in units of milliamps or the monitors digital equivalent.
(iii) During the initial performance test or any such subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record and average all milliamp or digital output values from the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to the compliance test runs (e.g., average all your PM CPMS output values for three corresponding 2-hour Method 5I test runs).
(3) Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(5) of this section. If your PM performance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be below 75 percent of your emission limit, you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test, the milliamp or digital equivalent of zero output from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your compliance test to establish your operating limit. If your PM compliance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission limit, you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test to establish your operating limit. You must verify an existing or establish a new operating limit after each repeated performance test. You must repeat the performance test at least annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test.
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(iii) With your PM CPMS instrument zero expressed in milliamps or a digital value, your three run average PM CPMS milliamp or digital signal value, and your three run average PM concentration from your three PM performance test runs, determine a relationship of lb/ton-clinker per milliamp with equation 2.
(iv) Determine your source specific 30-day rolling average operating limit using the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp or digital signal value from Equation 2 above in Equation 3, below. This sets your operating limit at the PM CPMS output value corresponding to 75 percent of your emission limit.
(5) If the average of your three PM compliance test runs is at or above 75 percent of your PM emission limit, you must determine your operating limit by averaging the PM CPMS milliamp output corresponding to your three PM performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with the emission limit using Equation 4.
(6) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating, and use all the PM CPMS data for calculations when the source is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (milliamps or the digital equivalent) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 5 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
(7) Use EPA Method 5 or Method 5I of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter to determine PM emissions. For each performance test, conduct at least three separate runs each while the mill is on and the mill is off under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur. Conduct each test run to collect a minimum sample volume of 2 dscm for determining compliance with a new source limit and 1 dscm for determining compliance with an existing source limit. Calculate the time weighted average of the results from three consecutive runs to determine compliance. You need not determine the particulate matter collected in the impingers (“back half”) of the Method 5 or Method 5I particulate sampling train to demonstrate compliance with the PM standards of this subpart. This shall not preclude the permitting authority from requiring a determination of the “back half” for other purposes.
(8) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
42 U.S.C. 7401,
(a)
(b)(1) * * *
(2) When there is an alkali bypass and/or an inline coal mill with a separate stack associated with a kiln, the combined PM emissions from the kiln and the alkali bypass stack and/or the inline coal mill stack are subject to the PM emissions limit. Existing kilns that combine the clinker cooler exhaust and/or coal mill exhaust with the kiln exhaust and send the combined exhaust to the PM control device as a single stream may meet an alternative PM emissions limit. This limit is calculated using Equation 1 of this section:
For new kilns that combine kiln exhaust, clinker cooler gas and/or coal mill and alkali bypass exhaust, the limit is calculated using the Equation 2 of this section:
(d) Emission limits in effect prior to September 9, 2010. Any source defined as an existing source in § 63.1351, and that was subject to a PM, mercury, THC, D/F, or opacity emissions limit prior to September 9, 2010, must continue to meet the limits as shown in 76 FR 2836 until September 9, 2015.
(g) * * *
(3) All air pollution control devices that control hazardous air pollutants must be turned on and operating at the time the gas stream to the air pollution control device reaches 300 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperature content to be measured at the inlet of the baghouse or ESP every fifteen minutes during startup until all HAP control devices are operating, and every fifteen minutes during shutdown until any activated carbon or lime injection systems are not operating.
(iv) The time weighted average total organic HAP concentration measured during the separate initial performance test specified by § 63.1349(b)(7) must be used to determine initial compliance.
(v) The time weighted average THC concentration measured during the initial performance test specified by § 63.1349(b)(4) must be used to determine the site-specific THC limit. Using the fraction of time the inline kiln/raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the inline kiln/raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a time weighted average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off testing using one of the two approaches in § 63.1349(b)(7)(vii) or (viii) depending on the level of organic HAP measured during the compliance test.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system malfunctions or repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system.
(b)(1)
(i) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a site-specific operating limit. If your PM performance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be below 75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test, the milliamp equivalent of zero output from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your compliance test to establish your operating limit. If your PM compliance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test to establish your operating limit. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with your operating limit. You must repeat the performance test annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test.
(A) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4–20 milliamp or digital signal output and
(B) Your PM CPMS operating range must be capable of reading PM concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to three times your allowable emission limit. If your PM CPMS is an auto-ranging instrument capable of multiple scales, the primary range of the instrument must be capable of reading PM concentration from zero to a level equivalent to three times your allowable emission limit.
(C) During the initial performance test or any such subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record and average all milliamp or digital output values from the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to the compliance test runs (e.g., average all your PM CPMS output values for three corresponding Method 5I test runs).
(ii) Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) through (iv) of this section. If your PM performance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be below 75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test, the milliamp or digital equivalent of zero output from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your compliance test to establish your operating limit. If your PM compliance test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test to establish your operating limit. You must verify an existing or establish a new operating limit after each repeated performance test. You must repeat the performance test at least annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test.
(iii) If the average of your three Method 5 or 5I compliance test runs is below 75 percent of your PM emission limit, you must calculate an operating limit by establishing a relationship of PM CPMS signal to PM concentration using the PM CPMS instrument zero, the average PM CPMS values corresponding to the three compliance test runs, and the average PM concentration from the Method 5 or 5I compliance test with the procedures in (a)(1)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Determine your PM CPMS instrument zero output with one of the following procedures.
(1) Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be obtained by removing the instrument from the stack and monitoring ambient air on a test bench.
(2) Zero point data for extractive instruments should be obtained by removing the extractive probe from the stack and drawing in clean ambient air.
(3) The zero point may also be established by performing manual reference method measurements when the flue gas is free of PM emissions or contains very low PM concentrations (e.g., when your process is not operating, but the fans are operating or your source is combusting only natural gas) and plotting these with the compliance data to find the zero intercept.
(4) If none of the steps in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A)(
(B) Determine your PM CPMS instrument average in milliamps, and the average of your corresponding three PM compliance test runs, using equation 3.
(C) With your instrument zero expressed in milliamps or a digital value, your three run average PM CPMS milliamp or digital signal value, and your three run PM compliance test average, determine a relationship of lb/ton-clinker per milliamp with Equation 4.
(D) Determine your source specific 30-day rolling average operating limit using the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp or digital signal value from Equation 4 in Equation 5, below. This sets your operating limit at the PM CPMS output value corresponding to 75 percent of your emission limit.
(iv) If the average of your three PM compliance test runs is at or above 75 percent of your PM emission limit you must determine your operating limit by averaging the PM CPMS milliamp output corresponding to your three PM performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with the emission limit using Equation 6.
(v) To determine continuous operating compliance, you must record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating, and use all the PM CPMS data for calculations when the source is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (milliamps or the digital equivalent) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 7 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
(vi) For each performance test, conduct at least three separate test runs each while the mill is on and the mill is off, under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur. Conduct each test run to collect a minimum sample volume of 2 dscm for determining compliance with a new source limit and 1 dscm for determining compliance with an existing source limit. Calculate the time weighted average of the results from three consecutive runs, including applicable sources as required by (D)(viii), to determine compliance. You need not determine the particulate matter collected in the impingers (“back half”) of the Method 5 or Method 5I particulate sampling train to demonstrate compliance with the PM standards of this subpart. This shall not preclude the permitting authority from requiring a determination of the “back half” for other purposes.
(vii) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating limit, the electronic submission of the test report must also include the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, serial number of the instrument, analytical principle of the instrument (e.g. beta attenuation), span of the instruments primary analytical range, milliamp value equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by which this zero value was determined, and the average milliamp signals corresponding to each PM compliance test run.
(viii) When there is an alkali bypass and/or an inline coal mill with a separate stack associated with a kiln, the main exhaust and alkali bypass and/or inline coal mill must be tested simultaneously and the combined emission rate of PM from the kiln and alkali bypass and/or inline coal mill must be computed for each run using Equation 8 of this section.
(ix) The owner or operator of a kiln with an in-line raw mill and subject to limitations on PM emissions shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill is under normal operating conditions and while the raw mill is not operating, and calculate the time weighted average emissions using 63.1349(b)(1)(i) of this section.
(2)
(i) There are no individual readings greater than 10 percent opacity;
(ii) There are no more than three readings of 10 percent for the first 1-hour period.
(3)
(i) Each performance test must consist of three separate runs conducted under representative conditions. The duration of each run must be at least 3 hours, and the sample volume for each run must be at least 2.5 dscm (90 dscf).
(ii) The temperature at the inlet to the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill PMCD, and, where applicable, the temperature at the inlet to the alkali bypass PMCD must be continuously recorded during the period of the Method 23 test, and the continuous temperature record(s) must be included in the performance test report.
(iii) Average temperatures must be calculated for each run of the performance test.
(iv) The run average temperature must be calculated for each run, and the average of the run average temperatures must be determined and included in the performance test report and will determine the applicable temperature limit in accordance with § 63.1344(b).
(v)(A) If sorbent injection is used for D/F control, you must record the rate of sorbent injection to the kiln exhaust, and where applicable, the rate of sorbent injection to the alkali bypass exhaust, continuously during the period of the Method 23 test in accordance with the conditions in § 63.1350(m)(9), and include the continuous injection rate record(s) in the performance test report. Determine the sorbent injection rate parameters in accordance with paragraphs (b)(3)(vi) of this section.
(B) Include the brand and type of sorbent used during the performance test in the performance test report.
(C) Maintain a continuous record of either the carrier gas flow rate or the carrier gas pressure drop for the duration of the performance test. If the carrier gas flow rate is used, determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas flow rate monitoring system according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. If the carrier gas pressure drop is used, determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the carrier gas pressure drop monitoring system according to the procedures in § 63.1350(m)(6).
(vi) Calculate the run average sorbent injection rate for each run and determine and include the average of the run average injection rates in the performance test report and determine the applicable injection rate limit in accordance with § 63.1346(c)(1).
(4)
(ii) Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test for the first 30 kiln operating days of kiln operation after the compliance date of the rule. See 63.1348(a).
(iii) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a kiln-specific THC limit using Equation 9:
(iv) THC must be measured either upstream of the coal mill or the coal mill stack.
(v) Instead of conducting the performance test specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, you may conduct a performance test to determine emissions of total organic HAP by following the procedures in paragraphs (b)(7) of this section.
(5)
(i) If you are using a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in § 63.1350(k)(5).
(ii) Calculate the emission rate using Equation 10 of this section:
(6)
(i)(A) If the source is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must conduct performance testing using Method 321 of appendix A to this part unless you have installed a CEMS that meets the requirements § 63.1350(l)(1). For kilns with inline raw mills, testing should be conducted for the raw mill on and raw mill off conditions.
(B) You must establish site specific parameter limits by using the CPMS required in § 63.1350(l)(1). For a wet scrubber or tray tower, measure and record the pressure drop across the scrubber and/or liquid flow rate and pH in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the HCl test. Compute and record the 24-hour average pressure drop, pH, and average scrubber water flow rate for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met. For a dry scrubber, measure and record the sorbent injection rate in intervals of no more than 15 minutes during the HCl test. Compute and record the 24-hour average sorbent injection rate and average sorbent injection rate for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit is met.
(ii)(A) If the source is not controlled by a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry sorbent injection system, you must operate a CEMS in accordance with the requirements of § 63.1350(l)(1). See § 63.1348(a).
(B) The initial compliance test must be based on the 30 kiln operating days that occur after the compliance date of this rule in which the affected source operates using a HCl CEMS. Hourly HCl concentration data must be obtained according to § 63.1350(l).
(iii) As an alternative to paragraph (b)(6)(i)(B) of this section, you may choose to monitor SO
(iv) If kiln gases are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a kiln-specific HCl limit using Equation 11:
(7)
(i) Use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, Method 18 of Appendix A of part 60, ASTM D6348–03 or a combination to determine emissions of total organic HAP. Each performance test must consist of three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the representative performance conditions in accordance with § 63.7(e). Each run must be conducted for at least 1 hour.
(ii) At the same time that you are conducting the performance test for total organic HAP, you must also determine a site-specific THC emissions limit by operating a THC CEMS in accordance with the requirements of § 63.1350(j). The duration of the performance test must be at least 3 hours and the average THC concentration (as calculated from the recorded output) during the 3-hour test must be calculated. You must establish your THC operating limit and determine compliance with it according to paragraphs (a)(7)(vii) through (viii) of this section. It is permissible to extend the testing time of the organic HAP performance test if you believe extended testing is required to adequately capture organic HAP and/or THC variability over time.
(iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must use the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the raw mill is off and calculate this limit as a weighted average of the THC levels measured during three raw mill on and three raw mill off tests.
(iv) If your organic HAP emissions are below 75 percent of the organic HAP standard and you determine your operating limit with paragraph (b)(7)(vii) of this section your THC CEMS must be calibrated and operated on a measurement scale no greater than 180 ppmvw, as carbon, or 60 ppmvw as propane.
(v) If your kiln has an inline coal mill, and you are required to measure at the coal mill inlet, you must also measure oHAP at the coal mil inlet and calculate a weighted average for all emission sources including the inline coal mill and the alkali bypass.
(vi) Your THC CEMS measurement scale must be capable of reading THC concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to two times your highest THC emissions average determined during your performance test, including mill on or mill off operation.
This may require the use of a dual range instrument to meet this requirement and paragraph (b)(7)(iv) of this section.
(vii) Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(vii) and (viii) of this section. If your organic HAP performance test demonstrates your average organic HAP emission levels are below 75 percent of your emission limit (9 ppmv) you will use the average THC value recorded during the organic HAP performance test, and the average total organic HAP result of your performance test to establish your operating limit. If your organic HAP compliance test results demonstrate that your average organic HAP emission levels are at or above 75 percent of your emission limit, your operating limit is established as the average THC value recorded during the organic HAP performance test. You must establish a new operating limit after each performance test. You must repeat the performance test no later than 30 months following your last performance test and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test.
(viii) If the average organic HAP results for your three Method 18 and/or Method 320 performance test runs are below 75 percent of your organic HAP emission limit, you must calculate an operating limit by establishing a relationship of THC CEMS signal to the organic HAP concentration using the average THC CEMS value corresponding to the three organic HAP compliance test runs and the average organic HAP total concentration from the Method 18 and/or Method 320 performance test runs with the procedures in (a)(7)(vii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) Determine the THC CEMS average values in ppmvw, and the average of your corresponding three total organic HAP compliance test runs, using Equation 12.
(B) You must use your three run average THC CEMS value and your three run average organic HAP concentration from your three Method 18 and/or Method 320 compliance tests to determine the operating limit. Use equation 13 to determine your operating limit in units of ppmvw THC, as propane.
(ix) If the average of your three organic HAP performance test runs is at or above 75 percent of your organic HAP emission limit, you must determine your operating limit using Equation 14 by averaging the THC CEMS output values corresponding to your three organic HAP performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with the emission limit. If your new THC CEMS value is below your current operating limit, you may opt to retain your current operating limit, but you must still submit all performance test and THC CEMS data according to the reporting requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(x) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must conduct separate performance tests while the raw mill is operating (“mill on”) and while the raw mill is not operating (“mill off”). Using the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off compliance testing with Equation 15.
(xi) To determine continuous compliance with the THC operating limit, you must record the THC CEMS output data for all periods when the process is operating and the THC CEMS is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the THC CEMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (ppmvw) on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 16 to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.
(xii) Use EPA Method 18 or Method 320 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter to determine organic HAP emissions. For each performance test, conduct at least three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the level reasonably expected to occur. If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must conduct three separate test runs with the raw mill on, and three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the level reasonably expected to occur with the mill off. Conduct each Method 18 test run to collect a minimum target sample equivalent to three times the method detection limit. Calculate the average of the results from three runs to determine compliance.
(xiii) If the THC level exceeds by 10 percent or more your site-specific THC emissions limit, you must
(A) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to return the THC CEMS measurements to within the established value; and
(B) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the 30 month compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another performance test to determine compliance with the organic HAP limit and to verify or re-establish your site-specific THC emissions limit.
(8) HCl Emissions Tests with SO
(i) Use Method 321 of appendix A to this part to determine emissions of HCl. Each performance test must consist of three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the representative performance conditions in accordance with § 63.7(e). Each run must be conducted for at least one hour.
(ii) At the same time that you are conducting the performance test for HCl, you must also determine a site-specific SO
(iii) If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must use the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the raw mill is off and calculate this limit as a weighted average of the SO
(iv) Your SO
(v) Your SO
(vi) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must conduct separate performance tests while the raw mill is operating (“mill on”) and while the raw mill is not operating (“mill off”). Using the fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the HCl levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off compliance testing with Equation 17.
(vii) If the average of your three HCl compliance test runs is below 75 percent of your HCl emission limit, you must calculate an operating limit by establishing a relationship of SO
(A) Determine your SO
(1) Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be obtained by removing the instrument from the stack and monitoring ambient air on a test bench.
(2) Zero point data for extractive instruments may be obtained by removing the extractive probe from the stack and drawing in clean ambient air.
(3) The zero point may also be established by performing probe-flood introduction of high purity nitrogen or certified zero air free of SO
(4) If none of the steps in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A)(
(B) Determine your SO
(C) With your instrument zero expressed in ppmv, your three run average SO
(D) Determine your source specific 30-day rolling average operating limit using ppm HCl corrected to 7% O
(viii) To determine continuous compliance with the SO
(ix) Use EPA Method 321 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter to determine HCl emissions. For each performance test, conduct at least three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur. If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must conduct three separate test runs with the raw mill on, and three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur with the mill off.
(x) If the SO
(A) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to return the SO
(B) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the periodic compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another performance test to determine compliance with the HCl limit and to verify or re-establish your site-specific SO
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) [Reserved]
(i) * * *
(1) You must install, operate, and maintain a THC continuous emission monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification 8 or Performance Specification 8A of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter and comply with all of the requirements for continuous monitoring systems found in the general provisions, subpart A of this part. The owner or operator must operate and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F in part 60 of this chapter.
(2) Performance tests on alkali bypass and coal mill stacks must be conducted using Method 25A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and repeated every 30 months.
(j)
(k) * * *
(2) In order to quality assure data measured above the span value, you must use one of the three options in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(ii) Quality assure any data above the span value by proving instrument linearity beyond the span value established in paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the following procedure. Conduct a weekly “above span linearity” calibration challenge of the monitoring system using a reference gas with a certified value greater than your highest expected hourly concentration. The “above span” reference gas must meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1 and must be introduced to the measurement system at the probe. Record and report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily
(iii) Quality assure any data above the span value established in paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the following procedure. Any time two consecutive one-hour average measured concentration of Hg exceeds the span value you must, within 24 hours before or after, introduce a higher, “above span” Hg reference gas standard to the Hg CEMS. The “above span” reference gas must meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1, must target a concentration level between 50 and 150 percent of the highest expected hourly concentration measured during the period of measurements above span, and must be introduced at the probe. Record and report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The “above span” calibration is successful if the value measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas. If the value measured by the Hg CEMS exceeds 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas, then you must normalize the one-hour average stack gas values measured above the span during the 24-hour period preceding or following the “above span” calibration for reporting based on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as shown in equation 22:
(iv) If mercury emissions from the coal mill and alkali bypass are below the method detection limit for two consecutive annual performance tests, you may reduce the frequency of the performance tests of coal mills and alkali bypasses to once every 30 months. If the measured mercury concentration exceeds the method detection limit, you must revert to testing annually until two consecutive annual tests are below the method detection limit.
(l)
(1) If you monitor compliance with the HCl emissions limit by operating an HCl CEMS, you must do so in accordance with Performance Specification 15 (PS 15) of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, or, upon promulgation, in accordance with any other performance specification for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. You must operate, maintain, and quality assure a HCl CEMS installed and certified under PS 15 according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure 1 must be replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of PS 15. If you install and operate an HCl CEMS in accordance with any other performance specification for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, you must operate, maintain and quality assure the HCl CEMS using the procedure of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter applicable to the performance specification. You must use Method 321 of appendix A to part 63 of this chapter as the reference test method for conducting relative accuracy testing. The span value and calibration requirements in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section apply to HCl CEMS other than those installed and certified under PS 15.
(i) You must use a measurement span value for any HCl CEMS of 0–10 ppmvw. The HCl CEMS data recorder output range must include the full range of expected HCl concentration values which would include those expected during “mill off” conditions. The corresponding data recorder range shall be documented in the site-specific monitoring plan and associated records.
(ii) In order to quality assure data measured above the span value, you must use one of the three options in paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) Include a second span that encompasses the HCl emission concentrations expected to be encountered during “mill off” conditions. This second span may be rounded to a multiple of 5 μg/m
(B) Quality assure any data above the span value by proving instrument linearity beyond the span value established in paragraph (I)(1)(i) of this section using the following procedure. Conduct a weekly “above span linearity” calibration challenge of the monitoring system using a reference gas with a certified value greater than your highest expected hourly concentration. The “above span” reference gas must meet the requirements of the applicable performance specification and must be introduced to the measurement system at the probe. Record and report the results of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The “above span linearity” challenge is successful if the value measured by the HCl CEMS falls within 10 percent of the certified value of the reference gas. If the value measured by the HCl CEMS during the above span linearity challenge exceeds 10 percent of the certified value of the reference gas, the monitoring system must be evaluated and repaired and a new “above span linearity” challenge met before returning the HCl CEMS to service, or data above span from the HCl CEMS must be quality assured using the procedure established in (I)(1)(C).
(C) Quality assure any data above the span value established in paragraph (1)(1)(i) of this section using the following procedure. Any time the average measured concentration of HCl
(D) In the event that the `above span' calibration is not successful (i.e., the HCl CEMS measured value is not within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas), then you must normalize the one-hour average stack gas values measured above the span during the 24-hour period preceding or following the `above span' calibration for reporting based on the HCl CEMS response to the reference gas as shown in Equation 23:
(2) Install, operate, and maintain a CMS to monitor wet scrubber or tray tower parameters, as specified in paragraphs (m)(5) and (7) of this section, and dry scrubber, as specified in paragraph (m)(9) of this section.
(3) If the source is equipped with a wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, and you choose to monitor SO
(i) As soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after you exceed the established SO
(ii) Within 60 days of the exceedance or at the time of the next compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl emissions limit and to verify or re-establish the SO
(n)
(1) You must install each sensor of the flow rate monitoring system in a location that provides representative measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling location of the mercury CEMS, taking into account the manufacturer's recommendations. The flow rate sensor is that portion of the system that senses the volumetric flow rate and generates an output proportional to that flow rate.
(o)
(3) You must submit the application for approval of alternate monitoring requirements no later than the notification of performance test. The application must contain the information specified in paragraphs (o)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section:
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(9) The owner or operator shall submit a summary report semiannually to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (
The report must contain the information specified in § 63.10(e)(3)(vi). In addition, the summary report shall include:
(i) All exceedances of maximum control device inlet gas temperature limits specified in § 63.1346(a) and (b);
(ii) Notification of any failure to calibrate thermocouples and other temperature sensors as required under § 63.1350(g)(1)(iii) of this subpart; and
(iii) Notification of any failure to maintain the activated carbon injection rate, and the activated carbon injection carrier gas flow rate or pressure drop, as
(iv) Notification of failure to conduct any combustion system component inspections conducted within the reporting period as required under § 63.1347(a)(3).
(v) Any and all failures to comply with any provision of the operation and maintenance plan developed in accordance with § 63.1347(a).
(vi) For each PM CPMS, HCl, Hg, and THC CEMS, D/F temperature monitoring system, or Hg sorbent trap monitoring system, within 60 days after the reporting periods, you must report all of the calculated 30-operating day rolling average values derived from the CPMS, CEMS, CMS, or Hg sorbent trap monitoring systems.
(viii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS performance evaluation test as defined in § 63.2, you must submit relative accuracy test audit (RATA) data to the EPA's CDX by using CEDRI in accordance with paragraph (9) of this section. Only RATA pollutants that can be documented with the ERT (as listed on the ERT Web site) are subject to this requirement. For any performance evaluations with no corresponding RATA pollutants listed on the ERT Web site, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13.
(ix) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating limit, the electronic submission of the test report must also include the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, serial number of the instrument, analytical principle of the instrument (e.g. beta attenuation), span of the instruments primary analytical range, milliamp value equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by which this zero value was determined, and the average milliamp signals corresponding to each PM compliance test run.
(x) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(9)(viii) of this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (b)(9) and (b)(9)(viii) of this section in paper format.
If you have an affected source subject to this subpart with a different emissions limit or requirement for the same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, once you are in compliance with the most stringent emissions limit or requirement, you are not subject to the less stringent requirement. Until you are in compliance with the more stringent limit, the less stringent limit continues to apply.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)). In addition to this proposed rule the EPA is publishing a direct final rule that amends the reporting requirements of the MATS rule by temporarily requiring affected sources to submit all required emissions and compliance reports to the EPA through the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System Client Tool and temporarily suspending the requirement for affected sources to submit certain reports using the Electronic Reporting Tool and the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.
Written comments must be received by December 19, 2014.
•
•
•
•
•
We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to the contact person listed below (see
Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243–05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–5635; fax number: (919) 541–3207; and email address:
The EPA is proposing this rule to take action on amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Steam Generating Units (40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU; MATS). In addition, the EPA has published a direct final rule revising the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.10031 in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on a distinct portion of the direct final rule, we will withdraw that portion of the rule and it will not take effect. In this instance, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
If we receive adverse comment on a distinct provision of the direct final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
The regulatory text for this proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this direct final rule. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this direct final rule, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.9981. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.
For a complete discussion of all of the administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) are sponsoring a public meeting on January 13, 2015. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions that will be discussed at the 24th session of the Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (CCFO) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Malaysia, February 9–13, 2015. The Under Secretary for Food Safety and the FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 24th session of the CCFO and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for January 13, 2015 from 10:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m.
The public meeting will take place at the Harvey Wiley Building, United States Food and Drug Administration, CFSAN, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, Room number TBA, College Park, MD 20740.
Documents related to the 24th session of the CCFO will be accessible via the World Wide Web at the following address:
Paul South, U.S. Delegate to the 24th session of CCFO, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 24th session of CCFO by conference call, please use the call in number and participant code listed below:
Paul South, Review Chemist, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: (240) 402–1640, Fax: (301) 436–2632, Email:
Marie Maratos, U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Ave SW., Room 4861, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 205–7760, Fax: (202) 720–3157, Email:
Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure that fair practices are used in the food trade.
The CCFO is responsible for elaborating worldwide standards for fats and oils of animal, vegetable and marine origin including margarine and olive oil. The Committee is hosted by Malaysia.
The following items on the Agenda for the 24th session of CCFO will be discussed during the public meeting:
• Matters Referred by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and Other Codex Committees
• Proposed draft Standard for Fish Oils
• Review of the Lists of acceptable previous cargoes
• Discussion Paper on the Amendment of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: Sunflower Seed Oils
• Discussion Paper on Cold Pressed Oils
• Discussion Paper on the Amendment of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils: High Oleic Soybean Oil
• Discussion Paper on the Amendment of the Standard for Named Vegetable Oils for the Addition of Palm Oil with High Oleic Acid OxG
• Other Business and Future Work
Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat prior to the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see
At the January 13, 2015 public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed. Attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 24th session of CCFO, Paul South (see
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS also will make copies of this
Options range from recalls to export information to regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves and have the option to password protect their account.
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability and response to comments.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing that it has completed and is making available its analysis on the estimated costs and benefits associated with the implementation of its non-O157 STEC testing on beef manufacturing trimmings and the costs and benefits associated with the potential expansion of its non-O157 STEC testing to ground beef and ground beef components other than beef manufacturing trimmings. In addition, FSIS is responding to comments that it received on the previous cost benefits analysis.
To receive full consideration, comments should be received by January 20, 2015.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this notice and the cost benefit analysis. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Daniel L. Engeljohn, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Telephone: (202) 205–0495.
On September 20, 2011, FSIS announced in the
In this 2011
FSIS implemented a verification sampling and testing program for the six adulterant non-O157 STEC in raw beef manufacturing trimmings on June 4, 2012, as announced in a 2012
FSIS has estimated the cost to the regulated industry and FSIS associated with the implementation of its non-O157 STEC testing on beef manufacturing trimmings since June 2012, based on Agency testing data and information collected through the FSIS 2013 Pathogen Controls in Beef Operations Survey. This survey is available at: [
FSIS also assessed the benefits associated with the new testing. Benefits would accrue from reduced illnesses and deaths, reduced outbreak-related recalls, and improved business practices. FSIS has concluded that the benefits accruing to industry, Government, and consumers from this new testing policy will result in net economic benefits. However, FSIS was not able to quantify the benefits of expanding the testing.
In May–July 2013, FSIS conducted the checklist survey entitled, “The Pathogen Controls in Beef Operations Survey.” The purpose of the survey was to gather information on the controls that beef slaughtering and processing establishments have in place to reduce STEC and
FSIS also estimated the benefits associated with the new testing policy. Benefits would accrue from reduced illnesses and deaths, reduced outbreak-related recalls, and improved business practices. The Agency still concludes that the costs are low for new testing that is warranted, and that the benefits justify the costs.
Therefore, establishments' choice of action with regard to product that screened positive will be based on particular circumstances, and whatever actions an establishment takes, the incentive is to avoid recalls and potential outbreaks at the minimum cost. Furthermore, if industry focused more on using the data from the verification testing conducted by the establishment and FSIS to improve the prevention efforts at slaughter, there would be even less contaminated product to be diverted.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's Target Center at 202–720–2600 (voice and TTY).
To file a written complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call 202–720–5964 (voice and TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at:
FSIS also will make copies of this
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice and solicitation for nominations.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is soliciting nominations of veterinary service shortage situations for the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP) for fiscal year (FY) 2015, as authorized under the National Veterinary Medical Services Act (NVMSA), 7 U.S.C. 3151a. This notice initiates a 60-day nomination period and prescribes the procedures and criteria to be used by State, Insular Area, DC and Federal Lands to nominate veterinary shortage situations. Each year all eligible nominating entities may submit nominations, up to the maximum indicated for each entity in this notice. NIFA is conducting this solicitation of veterinary shortage situation nominations under a previously approved information collection (OMB Control Number 0524–0046).
Shortage situation nominations, both new and carry over, must be submitted on or before January 20, 2015.
Submissions must be made by email at
Gary Sherman; National Program Leader, Veterinary Science; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250–2220; Voice: 202–401–4952; Fax: 202–401–6156; Email:
A series of three peer-reviewed studies published in 2007 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA), and sponsored by the Food Supply Veterinary Medicine Coalition (
Food supply veterinary medicine embraces a broad array of veterinary professional activities, specialties and responsibilities, and is defined as the full range of veterinary medical practices contributing to the production of a safe and wholesome food supply and to animal, human, and environmental health. The privately
Among the most alarming findings of the Coalition-sponsored studies was that insufficient numbers of veterinary students are selecting food supply veterinary medical careers. This development has led both to current workforce imbalances and to projections for worsening localized shortages over the next 10 years. Burdensome educational debt was the leading concern students listed for opting not to choose a career in food animal practice or other food supply veterinary sectors. According to a survey of veterinary medical graduates conducted by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) in 2014, the average educational debt for students graduating from veterinary school is approximately $162,000. Such debt loads incentivize students to select other veterinary careers, such as companion animal medicine, which tend to be more financially lucrative and, therefore, enable students to more quickly repay their outstanding educational loans. Furthermore, when this issue was studied in the Coalition report from the perspective of identifying solutions to this workforce imbalance, panelists were asked to rate 18 different strategies for addressing shortages. Responses from the panelists overwhelmingly showed that student debt repayment and scholarship programs were the most important strategies in addressing future shortages (JAVMA 229:57–69). When the VMLRP was first authorized in 2005, the average graduating educational debt of veterinarians was approximately $75,000. Since that time average educational debt burden has more than doubled thereby greatly exacerbating the leading factor promoting the workforce imbalance this program seeks to mitigate.
The VMLRP is aligned with the USDA Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2014–2018, particularly with the following strategic goals and objectives: Goal 1—Assist Rural Communities to Create Prosperity so They Are Self-Sustaining, Repopulating, and Economically Thriving, Goal 3—Help America Promote Agricultural Production and Biotechnology Exports as America Works to Increase Food Security, Objective 4.3—Protect Public Health by Ensuring Food is Safe, and Objective 4.4—Protect Agricultural Health by Minimizing Major Diseases and Pests to Ensure Access to Safe, Plentiful, and Nutritious Food. A copy of the USDA Strategic Plan is available at
In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements imposed by the implementation of these guidelines have been approved by OMB Control Number 0524–0046.
In January 2003, the National Veterinary Medical Service Act (NVMSA) was passed into law adding section 1415A to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1997 (NARETPA). This law established a new Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (7 U.S.C. 3151a) authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a program of entering into agreements with veterinarians under which they agree to provide veterinary services in veterinarian shortage situations.
In FY 2010, NIFA announced the first funding opportunity for the VMLRP. From FY 2010 through FY 2014, NIFA received 858 applications from which 291 VMLRP awards totaling $25,292,341 were issued. Funding for FY 2015 and future years are based on annual appropriations and balances, if any, carried forward from prior years, and may vary from year to year.
Section 7105 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110–246 (FCEA), amended section 1415A to revise the determination of veterinarian shortage situations to consider (1) geographical areas that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians; and (2) areas of veterinary practice that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians, such as food animal medicine, public health, epidemiology, and food safety. This section also added that priority should be given to agreements with veterinarians for the practice of food animal medicine in veterinarian shortage situations.
NARETPA section 1415A requires the Secretary, when determining the amount of repayment for a year of service by a veterinarian to consider the ability of USDA to maximize the number of agreements from the amounts appropriated and to provide an incentive to serve in veterinary service shortage areas with the greatest need.
The Secretary delegated the authority to carry out this program to NIFA pursuant to 7 CFR 2.66(a)(141).
Pursuant to the requirements enacted in the NVMSA of 2004 (as revised), and the implementing regulation for this Act, Part 3431 Subpart A of the VMLRP Final Rule [75 FR 20239–20248], NIFA hereby implements guidelines for authorized State Animal Health Officials (SAHO) to nominate veterinary shortage situations for the FY 2015 program cycle:
Section 1415A of NARETPA, as amended and revised by Section 7105 of FCEA directs determination of veterinarian shortage situations to consider (1) geographical areas that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians; and (2) areas of veterinary practice that the Secretary determines have a shortage of veterinarians, such as
While the NVMSA (as amended) specifies priority be given to food animal medicine shortage situations, and that consideration also be given to specialty areas such as public health, epidemiology and food safety, the Act does not identify any areas of veterinary practice as ineligible. Accordingly, all nominated veterinary shortage situations will be considered eligible for submission. However, assessment of submitted nominations by the external review panel convened by NIFA will reflect the intent of Congress that priority be given to certain types of veterinary service shortage situations. NIFA therefore anticipates that the stronger nominations will be those directly addressing food supply veterinary medicine shortage situations.
NIFA has adopted definitions of the practice of veterinary medicine and the practice of food supply medicine that are broadly inclusive of the critical roles veterinarians serve in both public practice and private practice situations. Nominations describing either public or private practice veterinary shortage situations will therefore be eligible for submission.
The only authorized respondent on behalf of each State is the chief State Animal Health Official (SAHO), as duly authorized by the Governor or the Governor's designee in each State. The chief SAHO must submit nominations to
In its consideration of fair, transparent and objective approaches to solicitation of shortage area nominations, NIFA evaluated three alternative strategies before deciding on the appropriate strategy. The first option considered was to impose no limits on the number of nominations submitted. The second was to allow each state the same number of nominations. The third (eventually selected) was to differentially cap the number of nominations per state based on defensible and intuitive criteria.
The first option, providing no limits to the number of nominations per state, is fair to the extent that each state and insular area has equal opportunity to nominate as many situations as desired. However, funding for the VMLRP is limited (relative to anticipated demand), so allowing potentially high and disproportionate submission rates of nominations could both unnecessarily burden the nominators and the reviewers with a potential avalanche of nominations and dilute highest need situations with lower need situations. Moreover, NIFA believes that the distribution of opportunity under this program (i.e., distribution of mapped shortage situations resulting from the nomination solicitation and review process) should roughly reflect the national distribution of food supply veterinary service demand. By not capping nominations based on some objective criteria, it is likely there would be no correlation between the mapped pattern and density of certified shortage situations and the actual pattern and density of need. This in turn could undermine confidence in the program with Congress, the public, and other stakeholders.
The second option, limiting all states and insular areas to the same number of nominations suffers from some of the same disadvantages as option one. It has the benefit of limiting administrative burden on both the SAHO and the nomination review process. However, like option one, there would be no correlation between the mapped pattern of certified shortage situations and the actual pattern of need. For example, Guam and Rhode Island would be allowed to submit the same number of nominations as Texas and Nebraska, despite the large difference in the sizes of their respective animal agriculture industries and rural land areas requiring veterinary service coverage.
The third option, to cap the number of nominations in relation to major parameters correlating with veterinary service demand, achieves the goals both of practical control over the administrative burden to the states and NIFA, and of achieving a mapped pattern of certified nominations that approximates the theoretical actual shortage distribution. In addition, this method limits dilution of highest need areas with lower need areas. The disadvantage of this strategy is that there is no validated, unbiased, direct measure of veterinary shortage, and so it is necessary to employ parameters that correlate with the hypothetical cumulative relative need for each state in comparison to other states.
In the absence of a validated unbiased direct measure of relative veterinary service need or risk for each state and insular area, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) provided NIFA with reliable and public data that correlate with demand for food supply veterinary service. NIFA consulted with NASS and determined that the NASS variables most strongly correlated with state-level food supply veterinary service need are “Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)” and “Land Area” (acres). The “Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)” variable broadly predicts veterinary service need in a State because this is a normalized (to cash value) estimate of the extent of (live) animal agriculture in the state. The State “land area” variable predicts veterinary service need because there is positive correlation between state land area, percent of state area classified as rural and the percent of land devoted to actual or potential livestock production. Importantly, land area is also directly correlated with the number of veterinarians needed to provide veterinary services in a state because of the practical limitations relating to the maximum radius of a standard veterinary service area. Due to fuel and other cost factors, the maximum radius a veterinarian operating a mobile veterinary service can cover is approximately 60 miles, which roughly corresponds to two or three contiguous counties of average size.
Although these two NASS variables are not perfect predictors of veterinary service demand, NIFA believes they account for a significant proportion of several of the most relevant factors influencing veterinary service need and risk for the purpose of fairly and transparently estimating veterinary service demand. To further ensure fairness and equitability, NIFA is employing these variables in a straightforward and transparent manner that ensures every state and insular area is eligible for at least one nomination and that all States receive an apportionment of nominations, relative to their geographic size and size of agricultural animal industries.
Following this rationale, the Secretary is specifying the maximum number of nominations per state in order to (1) assure distribution of designated shortage areas in a manner generally reflective of the differential overall demand for food supply veterinary
Furthermore, instituting a limit on the number of nominations is consistent with language in the Final Rule stating, “The solicitation may specify the maximum number of nominations that may be submitted by each State animal health official.”
The number of designated shortage situations per state will be limited by NIFA, and this has an impact on the number of new nominations a state may submit each time NIFA solicits shortage nominations. In the 2015 cycle, NIFA is again accepting the number of nominations equivalent to the allowable number of designated shortage areas for each state. All eligible submitting entities will, for the 2015 cycle, have an opportunity to do the following: (1) Retain designated status for any shortage situation successfully designated in 2014 (if there is no change to any information, the nomination will be approved for 2015 without the need for re-review by the merit panel), (2) rescind any nomination officially designated in 2014, and (3) submit new nominations. The total of the number of new nominations plus designated nominations retained (carried over) may not exceed the maximum number of nominations each entity is permitted. Any amendment to an existing shortage nomination is presumed to constitute a significant change. Therefore, an amended nomination must be rescinded and resubmitted to NIFA as a new nomination and it will be evaluated by the 2015 review panel.
The maximum number of nominations (and potential designations) will remain the same in 2015 as they were for the previous five years. Thus, all states have the opportunity to re-establish the maximum number of designated shortage situations. Awards from previous years have no bearing on a state's maximum number of allowable shortage nomination submissions or number of designations for subsequent years. NIFA reserves the right in the future to proportionally adjust the maximum number of designated shortage situations per state to ensure a balance between available funds and the requirement to ensure priority is given to mitigating veterinary shortages corresponding to situations of greatest need. Nomination Allocation tables for FY 2015 are available under the State Animal Health Officials section of the VMLRP Web site at
Table I lists “Special Consideration Areas” which include any State or Insular Area not reporting data, and/or reporting less than $1,000,000 in annual Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($), and/or possessing less than 500,000 acres, as reported by NASS. One nomination is allocated to any State or Insular Area classified as a Special Consideration Area.
Table II shows how NIFA determined nomination allocation based on quartile ranks of States for two variables broadly correlated with demand for food supply veterinary services: “Livestock and Livestock Products Total Sales ($)” (LPTS) and “Land Area (acres)” (LA). The total number of NIFA-designated shortage situations per state in any given program year is based on the quartile ranking of each state in terms of LPTS and LA. States for which NASS has both LPTS and LA values, and which have at least $1,000,000 LPTS and at least 500,000 acres LA (typically all states plus Puerto Rico), were independently ranked from least to greatest value for each of these two composite variables. The two ranked lists were then divided into quartiles with quartile 1 containing the lowest variable values and quartile 4 containing the highest variable values. Each state then received the number of designated shortage situations corresponding to the number of the quartile in which the state falls. Thus a state that falls in the second quartile for LA and the third quartile for LPTS may submit a maximum of five shortage situation nominations (2 + 3). This transparent computation was made for each state thereby giving a range of 2 to 8 shortage situation nominations, contingent upon each state's quartile ranking for the two variables.
The maximum number of designated shortage situations for each State in 2015 is shown in Table III.
While Federal Lands are widely dispersed within States and Insular Areas across the country, they constitute a composite total land area over twice the size of Alaska. If the 200-mile limit U.S. coastal waters and associated fishery areas are included, Federal Land total acreage would exceed 1 billion. Both State and Federal Animal Health officials have responsibilities for matters relating to terrestrial and aquatic food animal health on Federal Lands. Interaction between wildlife and domestic livestock, such as sheep and cattle, is particularly common in the plains states where significant portions of Federal lands are leased for grazing. Therefore, both SAHOs and the Chief Federal Animal Health Officer (Deputy Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or designee) may submit nominations to address shortage situations on or related to Federal Lands.
NIFA emphasizes that shortage nomination allocation is set to broadly balance the number of designated shortage situations across states prior to the application and award phases of the VMLRP. Awards will be made based strictly on the peer review panels' assessment of the quality of the match between the knowledge, skills and abilities of the applicant and the attributes of the specific shortage situation applied for, thus no state will be given a preference for placement of awardees. Additionally, unless otherwise specified in the shortage nomination form, each designated shortage situation will be limited to one award.
As described in Section 4 above, all SAHOs will, for the FY 2015 cycle, have an opportunity to do the following: (1) Retain (carry over) designated status for any shortage situation successfully designated in 2014 and not revised, without need for reevaluation by merit review panel, (2) rescind any nomination officially designated in 2014, and (3) submit new nominations. The total number of new nominations and designated nominations retained (carried over) may not exceed the maximum number of shortages each state is allocated. An amendment to an existing shortage nomination constitutes a significant change and therefore must be rescinded and resubmitted to NIFA as a new nomination, to be evaluated by the 2015 review panel. The maximum number of nominations (and potential designations) for each state is the same in 2015 as it was in previous years.
The following process is the mechanism by which a SAHO should retain or rescind a designated nomination: NIFA will initiate the process by sending an email to each SAHO with a PDF copy of the nomination form of each designated area that went unfilled in FY 2014. If the SAHO wishes to retain (carry over) one or more designated nomination(s), the SAHO shall copy and paste the prior year information (unrevised) into the current year's nomination form. The
Both new and retained nominations must be submitted on the Veterinary Shortage Situation Nomination form provided in the State Animal Health Officials section at
Shortage situation nominations, both new and carry over, must be submitted on or before January 20, 2015, by email at
Each shortage situation is approved for one program year cycle only. However, any previously approved shortage situation not filled in a given program year may be resubmitted with no changes as a “carry-over” shortage in response to the solicitation for shortage nominations the following program year. Content of carry-over shortage nominations must not be changed in any respect, except for providing a revised date of submission and/or the name of a new submitting chief SAHO in the event the person holding that post has changed. Carry-over shortage nominations will not be required to undergo panel merit review and shall therefore be automatically approved. However, by resubmitting a nomination in a following program cycle, the SAHO is affirming that it is his or her professional judgment that the original case made for shortage status, and the original description of needs, are still accurate.
For the purpose of implementing the solicitation for veterinary shortage situations, the definitions provided in 7 CFR part 3431 are applicable.
The veterinary shortage situation nomination form is available in the State Animal Health Officials section at
Following conclusion of the nomination and designation process, NIFA will prepare lists and/or maps that include all designated shortage situations for the current program year. This effort requires a physical location that represents the center of the service area for a geographic shortage or the location of the main office or work address for a public practice and/or specialty practice shortage. For example, if the state seeks to certify a tri-county area as a food animal veterinary service (i.e., Type I) shortage situation, a road intersection approximating the center of the tri-county area would constitute a satisfactory physical location for NIFA's listing and mapping purposes. By contrast, if the state is identifying “veterinary diagnostician”, a Type III nomination, as a shortage situation, then the nominator would complete this field by filling in the address of the location where the diagnostician would work (e.g., State animal disease diagnostic laboratory).
Congressional intent is for this program to incentivize applicants to “serve in veterinary service shortage areas with the greatest need.” There is therefore the presumption that all areas nominated as shortage situations should be classified as at least “moderate priority” shortages. To assist nomination merit review panelists and award phase peer panelists in scoring shortage nominations and ranking applications from VMLRP applicants, SAHOs are asked to characterize each shortage situation nomination as “Moderate Priority”, “High Priority”, or “Critical Priority” shortages.
Moderate Priority: This shortage prioritization corresponds to an area lacking in some aspect of food supply veterinary services, commensurate with the service percent full-time-equivalency (FTE) specified. Absence of, or insufficient, trained “eyes and ears” of a veterinarian serving a food animal production area is sufficient to constitute moderate priority shortage status. This is because access to veterinary services is necessary for basic animal health, animal well-being, production profitability, and for food safety, and because high consequence disease outbreaks in agricultural animals or natural catastrophes can occur spontaneously anywhere. In such cases, early detection of disease and/or treatment of animals are essential. These activities are the authorized purview of a licensed veterinarian. In addition to the above examples, the SAHO is invited to make a unique case based on other situation-specific risk criteria, for classifying a nominated area as a Moderate Priority shortage.
High Priority: This shortage prioritization corresponds to an area lacking sufficient access to food supply veterinary services, commensurate with the service percent FTE specified. High Priority status is justified by meeting the criteria for Moderate Priority status plus any of a variety of additional concerns relating to food supply veterinary medicine and/or public health. For example, the area may exhibit an especially large census of food animals in comparison to available veterinary services. Special animal or public health threats unique to the area, such as a recent history of outbreaks of high consequence, reportable, endemic animal and zoonotic diseases (e.g., Brucellosis, TB, etc.) could also constitute a high priority threat. In addition to the above examples, the SAHO is invited to make a unique case based on other situation-specific risk criteria, for classifying a nominated area as a High Priority shortage.
Critical Priority: This shortage prioritization corresponds to an area severely lacking in some aspect of food supply or public health-related veterinary services, commensurate with the service percent FTE specified. Critical priority status is justified by meeting the criteria for moderate and/or high priority status plus any of a variety of additional serious concerns relating to the roles food supply veterinarians play in protecting animal and public health. For example, an area may exhibit an especially high potential for natural disasters or for incursion of catastrophic foreign animal disease such as Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, Mad Cow Disease, or Foot and Mouth Disease. High risk areas could include high through-put international animal importation sites and areas where wild life and domestic food animals cross national borders carrying infectious disease agents (e.g., the US-Mexico border). In addition to the above examples, the submitting SAHO is invited to make a unique case based on other situation-specific risk criteria for classifying a nominated area as a Critical Priority shortage.
SAHOs identifying this shortage type must check one or more boxes indicating which specie(s) constitute the veterinary shortage situation. Indicate
SAHOs identifying this shortage type must check one or more boxes indicating which specie(s) constitute the veterinary shortage situation. Indicate either “Must Cover” or “May Cover” to stipulate which species a future awardee must be prepared, willing, and committed to provide services for, versus which species an awardee could treat using a minor percentage of their time obligated under a VMLRP contract. The shortage situation must be in an area satisfying the definition of “rural.” The minimum 30 percent-time (12 hours/week) commitment of an awardee to serve in a rural shortage situation is in recognition of the fact that there may be some remote or economically depressed rural areas in need of food animal veterinary services that are unable to support a practitioner predominately serving the food animal sector, yet the need for food animal veterinary services for an existing, relatively small, proportion of available food animal business is nevertheless great. The Type II nomination is therefore intended to address those rural shortage situations where the nominator believes there is a shortage of food supply veterinary services, and that a veterinarian can operate profitably committing 30 to 79 percent to food animal medicine in the designated rural shortage area. The nominator will specify the minimum percent time (between 30 and 79 percent) a veterinarian must commit in order to satisfactorily fill the specific nominated situation. Under the Type II nomination category, the expectation is that the veterinarian may provide veterinary services to other veterinary sectors (e.g., companion animal clientele) as a means of achieving financial viability. As with Type I nominations, the residence of the veterinarian (VMLRP award recipient) and/or the address of veterinary practice employing the veterinarian may or may not fall within the geographic bounds of the designated shortage area. However, the awardee is required to verify the specified minimum percent time commitment (30 percent to 79 percent, based on a standard 40 hour work week) to service within the specified geographic shortage area.
SAHOs identifying this shortage type must, in the spaces provided, identify the “Employer” and the presumptive “Position Title”, and check one or more of the appropriate boxes identifying the specialty/disciplinary area(s) being nominated as a shortage situation. This is a broad nomination category comprising many types of specialized veterinary training and employment areas relating to food supply veterinary workforce capacity and capability. These positions are typically located in city, county, State and Federal Government, and institutions of higher education. Examples of positions within the public practice sector include university faculty and staff, veterinary laboratory diagnostician, County Public Health Officer, State Veterinarian, State Public Health Veterinarian, State Epidemiologist, FSIS meat inspector, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Area Veterinarian in Charge (AVIC), and Federal Veterinary Medical Officer (VMO).
Veterinary shortage situations such as those listed above are eligible for consideration under Type III nomination. However, nominators should be aware that Congress has stipulated that the VMLRP must emphasize private food animal practice shortage situations. Accordingly, NIFA anticipates that loan repayments for the Public Practice sector will be limited to approximately 10 percent of total nominations and available funds.
The minimum time commitment serving under a Type III shortage nomination is 49 percent. The nominator will specify the minimum percent time (between 49 percent and 100 percent) a veterinarian must commit in order to satisfactorily fill the specific nominated situation. NIFA understands that some public practice employment opportunities that are shortage situations may be part-time positions. For example, a veterinarian pursuing an advanced degree (in a shortage discipline area) on a part-time basis may also be employed by the university for the balance of the veterinarian's time to provide part-time professional veterinary service(s) such as teaching, clinical service, or laboratory animal care that may or may not also qualify as veterinary shortage situations. The 49 percent minimum therefore provides flexibility to nominators wishing to certify public practice shortage situations that would be ineligible under more stringent minimum percent time requirements.
a. Importance and Objectives of a Veterinarian Meeting This Shortage Situation
Within the allowed word limit the nominator should clearly state overarching objectives the State hopes to achieve by placing a veterinarian in the nominated situation. Include the minimum percent time commitment (within the range of the shortage type selected) the awardee is expected to devote to filling the specific food supply veterinary shortage situation.
Within the allowed word limit the nominator should clearly state the principal day-to-day professional activities that would have to be conducted in order to achieve the objectives described in a) above.
Within the allowed word limit the nominator should explain any prior efforts to mitigate this veterinary service shortage and prospects for recruiting veterinarian(s) in the future.
Within the allowed word limit the nominator should explain the consequences of not addressing this veterinary shortage situation.
Minimum percent FTE service obligated under the VMLRP is specified for each of the three shortage types. However, the nominator may indicate, in the box provided on page 2 of the nomination form, a greater percent FTE than the specified minimum, according to the following guidelines. For a Type I shortage, the minimum FTE obligation is 80 percent, but the nominator may specify up to 100 percent (100 percent FTE corresponds to 40 hours/week). The minimum FTE obligation is 30 percent for Type II shortage situation, but the nominator may specify up to 79 percent. Higher percentages should be submitted as Type I shortages. The minimum FTE obligation is 49 percent for Type III (public practice) shortage situations, but the nominator may specify up to 100 percent. An entry should be made in the box for specification of percent FTE if the percentage specified is other than the default minimum. Otherwise the box should be left blank. In assigning a percentage FTE, SAHOs should be cognizant of the impact this has on an eventual awardee. If the percentage is too high for an awardee to achieve, he or she could fall into breach status under the program and owe substantial financial penalties. NIFA requires formal quarterly certification that minimum service time was worked before each quarterly loan repayment is paid to the awardee's lender(s). Accordingly, NIFA advises that a nomination be submitted only if the SAHO is confident that an awardee can meet the default, or optionally specified, minimum FTE percentage each and every one of the 12 quarters (i.e, twelve 3-month periods) constituting the 3-year duration of service under the program.
SAHOs submitting shortage nominations should check both “affirmation” boxes on the last page of the nomination form. These two affirmations provide assurance that submitting SAHOs understand the shortage nomination process and the importance of the SAHO having reasonable confidence that the nomination submitted describes a bona fide shortage area. The second assurance is particularly important to help avoid the placement of a VMLRP awardee where veterinary coverage already exists, and where undue competition could lead to insufficient clientele demand to support either the awardee or the veterinary practice originally serving the area.
NIFA will convene a panel of food supply veterinary medicine experts from Federal and state agencies, as well as institutions receiving Animal Health and Disease Research Program funds under section 1433 of NARETPA, who will review the nominations and make recommendations to the NIFA Program Manager. NIFA explored the possibility of including experts from non-governmental professional organizations and sectors for this process, but under NARETPA section 1409A(e), panelists for the purposes of this process are limited to Federal and State agencies and cooperating state institutions (i.e., NARETPA section 1433 recipients), and other postsecondary educational institutions.
NIFA will review the panel recommendations and designate the VMLRP shortage situations. The list of shortage situations will be made available on the VMLRP Web site at
Criteria used by the shortage situation nomination review panel and NIFA for certifying a veterinary shortage situation will be consistent with the information requested in the shortage situations nomination form. NIFA understands that defining the risk landscape associated with shortages of veterinary services throughout a state is a process that may require consideration of many qualitative and quantitative factors. In addition, each shortage situation will be characterized by a different array of subjective and objective supportive information that must be developed into a cogent case identifying, characterizing, and justifying a given geographic or disciplinary area as deficient in certain types of veterinary capacity or service. To accommodate the uniqueness of each shortage situation, the nomination form provides opportunities to present a case using both supportive metrics and narrative explanations to define and explain the proposed need. At the same time, the elements of the nomination form provide a common structure for the information collection process which will in turn facilitate fair comparison of the relative merits of each nomination by the evaluation panel.
While NIFA anticipates some arguments made in support of a given shortage situation will be qualitative, respondents are encouraged to present verifiable quantitative and qualitative evidentiary information wherever possible. Absence of quantitative data such as animal and veterinarian census data for the proposed shortage area(s) may lead the panel to recommend not approving the shortage nomination.
The maximum point value review panelists may award for each element is as follows:
20 points: Describe the objectives of a veterinarian meeting this shortage situation as well as being located in the community, area, state/insular area, or position requested above.
20 points: Describe the activities of a veterinarian meeting this shortage situation and being located in the community, area, state/insular area, or position requested above.
5 points: Describe any past efforts to recruit and retain a veterinarian in the shortage situation identified above.
35 points: Describe the risk of this veterinarian position not being secured or retained. Include the risk(s) to the production of a safe and wholesome food supply and/or to animal, human, and environmental health not only in the community but in the region, state/insular area, nation, and/or international community.
An additional 20 points will be used to evaluate overall merit/quality of the case made for each nomination.
Prior to the panel being convened, shortage situation nominations will be evaluated and scored according to the established scoring system by a primary reviewer. When the panel convenes, the primary reviewer will present each nomination orally in summary form. After each presentation, panelists will have an opportunity, if necessary, to discuss the nomination, with the primary reviewer leading the discussion and recording comments. After the panel discussion is complete, any scoring revisions will be made by and at the discretion of the primary reviewer. The panel is then polled to recommend, or not recommend, the shortage situation for designation. Nominations scoring 70 or higher by the primary reviewer (on a scale of 0 to 100), and receiving a simple majority
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC). The Committee will advise the Directors of the Economics and Statistics Administration's (ESA) two statistical agencies, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Census Bureau, and the Commissioner of the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics. Last minute changes to the agenda are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments.
December 12, 2014. The meeting will begin at approximately 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Conference Center, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, MD 20746.
James R. Spletzer, Designated Federal Official, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Research and Methodology Directorate, Room 5K175, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301–763–4069, email:
Members of the FESAC are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee advises the Directors of the BEA, the Census Bureau, and the Commissioner of the Department of Labor's BLS, on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics. The Committee is established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2).
The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside for public comments and questions. Persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing at least three days before the meeting to the Designated Federal Official named above. If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Monday, December 1, 2014. You may access the online registration form with the following link:
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Designated Federal Official as soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.
Due to increased security and for access to the meeting, please call 301–763–9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice and opportunity for public comment.
Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.
Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.
Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the County of Erie, grantee of FTZ 23, requesting authority to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 13, 2014.
FTZ 23 was approved by the FTZ Board on March 31, 1976 (Board Order 110, 41 FR 14824, 4/7/1976) and expanded on November 2, 1979 (Board Order 148, 44 FR 65802, 11/15/1979); April 16, 1982 (Board Order 187, 47 FR 18014, 4/27/1982); February 7, 1985 (Board Order 291, 50 FR 6372, 2/15/1985); October 30, 1989 (Board Order 445, 54 FR 46431, 11/3/1989); and, June 25, 1993 (Board Order 645, 58 FR 36390, 7/7/1993).
The current zone includes the following sites:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be Erie County, New York, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Buffalo Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone to include Site 1 as a “magnet” site and Sites 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 as “usage-driven” sites, as well as to remove Sites 2, 3, 7 and 8. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 1 be so exempted. The application would have no impact on FTZ 23's previously authorized subzones.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 20, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to February 2, 2015.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice of inquiry.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is seeking public comments on the impact that implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (CWCIA) and the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (CWCR), has had on commercial activities involving “Schedule 1” chemicals during calendar year 2014. The purpose of this notice of inquiry is to collect information to assist BIS in its preparation of the annual certification to the Congress on whether the legitimate commercial activities and interests of chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical firms are being harmed by such implementation. This certification is required under Condition 9 of Senate Resolution 75, April 24, 1997, in which the Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the CWC.
Comments must be received by December 19, 2014.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
• Email:
• Fax: (202) 482–3355 (Attn: Willard Fisher);
• By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
For questions on the Chemical Weapons Convention requirements for “Schedule 1” chemicals, contact Douglas Brown, Treaty Compliance Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482–1001. For questions on the submission of comments, contact Willard Fisher, Regulatory Policy Division, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482–2440.
In providing its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction, commonly called the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC or “the Convention”), the Senate included, in Senate Resolution 75 (S. Res. 75, April 24, 1997), several conditions to its ratification. Condition 9, titled “Protection of Advanced Biotechnology,” calls for the President to certify to Congress on an annual basis that “the legitimate commercial activities and interests of chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical firms in the United States are not being significantly harmed by the limitations of the Convention on access to, and production of, those chemicals and toxins listed in Schedule 1.” On July 8, 2004, President Bush, by Executive Order 13346, delegated his authority to make the annual certification to the Secretary of Commerce.
The CWC is an international arms control treaty that contains certain verification provisions. In order to implement these verification provisions, the CWC established the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The CWC imposes certain obligations on countries that have ratified the Convention (i.e., States Parties), among which are the enactment of legislation to prohibit the production, storage, and use of chemical weapons, and the establishment of a National Authority to serve as the national focal point for effective liaison with the OPCW and other States Parties in order to achieve the object and purpose of the Convention and the implementation of its provisions. The CWC also requires each State Party to implement a comprehensive data declaration and inspection regime to provide transparency and to verify that both the public and private sectors of the State Party are not engaged in activities prohibited under the CWC.
“Schedule 1” chemicals consist of those toxic chemicals and precursors set forth in the CWC “Annex on Chemicals” and in Supplement No. 1 to part 712 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (CWCR) (15 CFR parts 710–722). The CWC identified these toxic chemicals and precursors as posing a high risk to the object and purpose of the Convention.
The CWC (Part VI of the “Verification Annex”) restricts the production of “Schedule 1” chemicals for protective purposes to two facilities per State Party: A single small-scale facility (SSSF) and a facility for production in quantities not exceeding 10 kg per year. The CWC Article-by-Article Analysis submitted to the Senate in Treaty Doc. 103–21 defined the term “protective purposes” to mean “used for determining the adequacy of defense equipment and measures.” Consistent with this definition and as authorized by Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 70 (December 17, 1999), which specifies agency and departmental responsibilities as part of the U.S. implementation of the CWC, the Department of Defense (DOD) was assigned the responsibility to operate these two facilities. Although this assignment of responsibility to DOD under PDD–70 effectively precluded commercial production of “Schedule 1” chemicals for protective purposes in the United States, it did not establish any limitations on “Schedule 1” chemical activities that are not prohibited by the CWC. However, DOD does maintain strict controls on “Schedule 1” chemicals produced at its facilities in order to ensure accountability for such chemicals, as well as their proper use, consistent with the object and purpose of the Convention.
The provisions of the CWC that affect commercial activities involving “Schedule 1” chemicals are implemented in the CWCR (see 15 CFR part 712) and in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (see 15 CFR 742.18 and 15 CFR part 745), both of which are administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). Pursuant to CWC requirements, the CWCR restrict commercial production of “Schedule 1” chemicals to research, medical, or pharmaceutical purposes (the CWCR prohibit commercial production of “Schedule 1” chemicals for “protective purposes” because such production is effectively precluded per PDD–70, as described above—see 15 CFR 712.2(a)). The CWCR also contain other requirements and prohibitions that apply to “Schedule 1” chemicals and/or “Schedule 1” facilities. Specifically, the CWCR:
(1) Prohibit the import of “Schedule 1” chemicals from States not Party to the Convention (15 CFR 712.2(b));
(2) Require annual declarations by certain facilities engaged in the production of “Schedule 1” chemicals in excess of 100 grams aggregate per calendar year (i.e., declared “Schedule 1” facilities) for purposes not prohibited
(3) Provide for government approval of “declared Schedule 1” facilities (15 CFR 712.5(f));
(4) Provide that “declared Schedule 1” facilities are subject to initial and routine inspection by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (15 CFR 712.5(e) and 716.1(b)(1));
(5) Require 200 days advance notification of establishment of new “Schedule 1” production facilities producing greater than 100 grams aggregate of “Schedule 1” chemicals per calendar year (15 CFR 712.4);
(6) Require advance notification and annual reporting of all imports and exports of “Schedule 1” chemicals to, or from, other States Parties to the Convention (15 CFR 712.6, 742.18(a)(1) and 745.1); and
(7) Prohibit the export of “Schedule 1” chemicals to States not Party to the Convention (15 CFR 742.18(a)(1) and (b)(1)(ii)).
For purposes of the CWCR (see 15 CFR 710.1), “production of a Schedule 1 chemical” means the formation of “Schedule 1” chemicals through chemical synthesis, as well as processing to extract and isolate “Schedule 1” chemicals produced biologically. Such production is understood, for CWCR declaration purposes, to include intermediates, by-products, or waste products that are produced and consumed within a defined chemical manufacturing sequence, where such intermediates, by-products, or waste products are chemically stable and therefore exist for a sufficient time to make isolation from the manufacturing stream possible, but where, under normal or design operating conditions, isolation does not occur.
In order to assist in determining whether the legitimate commercial activities and interests of chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical firms in the United States are significantly harmed by the limitations of the Convention on access to, and production of, “Schedule 1” chemicals as described in this notice, BIS is seeking public comments on any effects that implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act and the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations, has had on commercial activities involving “Schedule 1” chemicals during calendar year 2014. To allow BIS to properly evaluate the significance of any harm to commercial activities involving “Schedule 1” chemicals, public comments submitted in response to this notice of inquiry should include both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the impact of the CWC on such activities.
All comments must be submitted to one of the addresses indicated in this notice. The Department requires that all comments be submitted in written form.
The Department encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on December 19, 2014. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying.
The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, displays public comments on the BIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from the People's Republic of China (PRC), covering the period February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014. The Department preliminarily determines that during the period of review (POR) one company covered by this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Michael A. Romani, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0198.
The merchandise covered by the order includes all small diameter graphite electrodes with a nominal or actual diameter of 400 millimeters (16 inches) or less and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter graphite electrodes. Small diameter graphite electrodes and graphite pin joining systems for small diameter graphite electrodes that are subject to the order are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 8545.11.0010, 3801.10, and 8545.11.0020. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. Except for Henan Sanli Carbon Products Co., Ltd. (Henan Sanli) the petitioners
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Preliminary Decision Memorandum contains a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
We determined that Henan Sanli is not entitled to a separate rate and should remain part of the PRC-wide entity. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum contains a full discussion of the rationale underlying our decision.
The Department determined that the following preliminary dumping margin exists for the period February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014:
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically
Upon issuing the final results of review, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For the final results, if we continue to treat Henan Sanli as part of the PRC-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an
The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, including Henan Sanli, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a preliminary 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 administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (steel wire rod) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.
Rebecca Trainor or Reza Karamloo, Office II, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4007 and (202) 482–4470, respectively.
The petitioners in this investigation are ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Charter Steel, Evraz Pueblo (formerly Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel), Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc. and Nucor Corporation. In addition to the Government of the PRC, the mandatory respondents in this investigation are Benxi Beiying Iron & Steel Group Import & Export Corp., Benxi Beiying Iron & Steel (Group) Co. Ltd. (collectively, Benxi Steel) and Hebei Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Tangshan Branch (Hebei Iron & Steel).
The events that have occurred since the Department published the
The scope of this investigation covers certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately circular cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.1 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium). All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093, 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I.
For purposes of this final determination, we continue to rely on facts available and to draw an adverse inference, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, to determine the subsidy rate for Hebei Iron & Steel, because it failed to participate in this investigation.
In the
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated separate subsidy rates for the individually-investigated producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, Benxi Steel and Hebei Iron & Steel. Section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that, if the countervailable subsidy rates established for all individually-investigated exporters and producers are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish an all-others rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated. In this case, the rates calculated for the two investigated companies are based entirely on facts available under section 776 of the Act. As there is no other information on the record, we based the all-others rate on the AFA rates calculated for Benxi Steel and Hebei Iron & Steel, consistent with our past practice.
We determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rates to be:
As a result of our affirmative preliminary critical circumstances determination with respect to all companies other than Benxi Steel, pursuant to section 703(e)(2) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from companies other than Benxi Steel which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 9, 2014, the date 90 days prior to the date of the publication of the
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we later issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after November 5, 2014, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from April 9, 2014 through November 4, 2014, as appropriate.
We will issue a countervailing duty order and reinstate the suspension of liquidation in accordance with our final determination and under section 706(a) of the Act if the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, and we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, eiher publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to the APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that imports of carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod (steel wire rod) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) are being, or likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation is July 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. The final weighted-average dumping margins for this investigation are listed in the “Final Determination Margins” section below.
Brian Smith or Brandon Custard, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1766 or (202) 482–1823.
The Department published the preliminary determination in the LTFV investigation of steel wire rod from the PRC on September 8, 2014.
We invited parties to comment on the
The product covered by the scope of this investigation is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately circular cross section, less than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional diameter. Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel (also known as free machining steel) products (
The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be included in this scope if they meet the physical description of subject merchandise above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
The Department
In the
As noted above, for this final determination, the Department found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC-wide entity. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all imports of the merchandise subject to the investigation from the PRC-wide entity, that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 10, 2014, 90 days prior to publication of the
Because we did not find that critical circumstances exist with respect to the separate rate companies, in accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from these companies which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 8, 2014, the date of publication of the
Furthermore, consistent with our practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty (CVD) investigation, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which the normal value exceeds the export price or constructed export price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through.
The Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. As the Department's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of subject merchandise, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice also serves as a reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of propriety information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of return or destruction of
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The President's Export Council (Council) will hold a meeting to deliberate on recommendations related to promoting the expansion of U.S. exports and to convey a report to the President on the September 2014 fact-finding trip to Poland and Turkey by some members of the Council. Topics may include: the National Export Initiative; trade promotion authority; trade negotiations; reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; innovation; education, skills development and workforce readiness; infrastructure; tax reform; and export control reform. The final agenda will be posted at least one week in advance of the meeting on the President's Export Council Web site at
December 11, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. (ET).
The President's Export Council meeting will be broadcast via live webcast on the Internet at
Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230, telephone: 202–482–5876, email:
a. Electronic Submissions
Submit statements electronically to Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President's Export Council via email:
b. Paper Submissions
Send paper statements to Tricia Van Orden, Executive Secretary, President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Statements will be posted on the President's Export Council Web site (
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Amendment.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Industry and Analysis is amending the notice published at 79 FR 24674, May 1, 2014, for the
Amendment to Revise the Application Deadline and add an optional stop
Recruitment for this Mission began in February 28, 2014.
In addition, since recruitment commenced, new opportunities have been identified for American firms in Vizag, India. Recruitment for the mission will continue, and conclude on November 21, 2014. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis until the maximum of 20 participants is selected. Applications received after November 21, 2014, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
For the reasons stated above, the last paragraph of the Timeframe for Recruitment and Application section of the notice 79 FR 24674, May 1, 2014, for the
For the reasons stated above, the Optional Visit to Goa section of the Notice 79 FR 24674, May 1, 2014, for the
The header will read: Optional Visit to Goa and Visakhapatnam (Vizag). For an additional fee, participants in the mission can visit the port of Vizag, an Eastern port of India. The port city, often called “The Jewel of the East Coast” faces the Bay of Bengal.
For the reason stated above, the Fees and Expenses, section of the Notice 79
• The fee for the optional stop to Vizag will be $700 per participant for the first representative and $200 for any additional representative, provided there are a number of 5 participants traveling to Vizag.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Commerce Department's International Trade Administration (ITA) and the U.S. Commercial Service (USCS) posts in Bogota, Colombia and Lima, Peru will organize a Business Development Mission April 26–30, 2015.
The Business Development Mission supports the federal government's Look South Initiative, which encourages U.S. companies to explore opportunities in the United States' eleven Free Trade Agreement Partner (FTA) countries in Latin America. Automotive parts and services are in high demand in these high-growth and market-liberalizing countries.
The Business Development Mission will include representatives from a variety of U.S. automotive manufacturing companies, service providers and associations/organizations. These mission participants will be introduced to international agents, distributors and end-users whose capabilities are targeted to each U.S. participants' needs in that particular market. Mission participants will also meet with key local industry contacts that can advise on local market conditions and opportunities. In addition to the above-mentioned services, the U.S. Commercial Service industry specialists will be on hand to discuss market trends and opportunities in Colombia and Peru.
The Republic of Colombia is the third largest economy in Latin America and has the third largest population with approximately 46 million inhabitants. Aided by major security improvements, steady economic growth, and moderate inflation, Colombia has become a free market economy with major commercial and investment ties to the United States, Europe, Asia and the rest of Latin America. Since the implementation of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) on May 15, 2012, U.S. exports to Colombia have increased over twenty percent. The past ten years have brought extraordinary change to the country in terms of economic development due to improvements in the national safety and security situation. Strong political stability, a growing middle class (35.3 percent of the population), and improved security have created an economic boom in Colombia that, coupled with the government's conservative fiscal policies, lessened the impact of the global economic crisis. Key economic indicators demonstrating the positive long-term effect of Colombia's political and economic policies include: GDP growth of 4.3 percent in 2013; and foreign direct investment of US$ 16.8 billion in 2013, a record for Colombia, which is an increase over the previous record of US$ 15.3 billion in 2012. These are all signs of a strong and growing economy.
Due to Colombia's close ties to the United States and Colombians' appreciation for the quality and reliability of U.S products, consumers in Colombia often favor U.S. products and services over those of our foreign competitors. Colombia is a major player in the regional automotive market. At the beginning of 2013 there were 9.3 million vehicle units in the country, according to data from the Ministry of Transportation. According to research conducted by the multinational banking group BBVA in 2013, Colombia's vehicle stock will increase by 3.5 million between 2010 and 2020. The same study establishes that the automotive sector contributes to 4 percent of the country's GDP and employs about 3.2 percent of the country's population. Colombia currently ranks as the third largest automobile manufacturer in Latin America. In addition, after Brazil, Colombia is the second largest motorcycle producer in the region, with an annual output of 515,000 motorcycles. A number of international auto manufacturers currently produce vehicles in Colombia. 68 brands and 267 models are found in the market. The high import percentage represents good opportunities for all imported parts and accessories, especially those from the United States, which are very well known and regarded nationwide. The average lifespan of a vehicle in Colombia is fifteen years. Due to this, there are significant opportunities for replacement parts. In addition, with the implementation of the FTA, tariffs for most auto parts made in the United States have been reduced from thirteen to zero percent.
Peru continues to be one of the fastest growing Latin American economies in the past eleven years, while keeping low inflation, as the International Monetary Fund noted in January 2014. The steady economic growth began with the pro-market policies enacted by President Fujimori in the 1990s. All subsequent governments have continued these policies, including the current administration inaugurated in July 2011 for a five-year term.
Although growth slowed down in the last three years, the Peruvian economy has grown at an average of 6.3% per year since 2002, reaching a $207 billion GDP in 2013. The trend is expected to continue with a projected GDP growth of 5.2% in 2014 and 5.7% to 6.0% in 2015. Private investment and consumption are anticipated to be the main driving forces of this growth. Projections for 2014 are that gross fixed investment growth will exceed 7% in real terms to reach US$55.3 billion. Public investment is increasingly important as in 2013 it was $11.6 billion (5.3% of GDP), while in 2001 it was $1.7 billion (3.1% of GDP). The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) foresees that public investment will increase 17% in dollar terms to US$13.4 billion. As the economy has grown, poverty in Peru has steadily decreased, to 23.9% in 2013. In its November 2012 Peru Handbook, HSBC states that Peru is “the third-fastest growing consumer market globally, and set to be a bigger economy than Chile, Colombia, or even South Africa in the long term”.
The Peruvian Government has encouraged integration with the global economy by signing a number of free trade agreements, including the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA), which entered into force in
The auto parts industry grew 4.5 percent from 2012 to 2013—a total of over US$1.5 billion—with tires being the main import item for both light and heavy vehicles, followed by the segments for lubricants, engine parts, filters, transmission systems and body parts. The United States is a major exporter of auto parts to Peru, though increasing exports from Asian countries, particularly China, provide for a high level of competition. U.S. products are widely accepted and understood to be of high quality. Marketing strategies should emphasize product's quality and valuable post-sale service provisions. Furthermore, formal and personal connections should be formed with potential partners in Peru to foster trust in the agreement. Peru's automobile market has ample space to grow, as the number of cars is small compared with other countries in the region with similar income levels. Furthermore, the higher average age of vehicles creates a context which is envisioned to encourage vehicle renewal.
Companies that intend to export Aftermarket Parts & Accessories; Chemicals and Lubricants; Parts and Components; Mobile Electronics and Components; Tools and Testing Equipment; and Services Consulting possess great potential for success. Other companies will be considered as well based on their market potential in both countries.
The goal of the Automotive Trade Mission is to facilitate an effective presence for small and medium sized companies to export to companies in Colombia and Peru. The mission will enable U.S. companies and associations/organizations to familiarize themselves with these important markets, to conduct market research, and to explore export opportunities through pre-arranged meetings with potential partners. The companies and associations/organizations will be able to network with government and industry professionals, providing them with an enhanced image and level of engagement. Knowledgeable Commercial Service Specialists who are familiar with the firms' objectives will support the mission participants.
All persons and associations/organizations interested in participating in the Automotive Trade Mission to Colombia and Peru must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. Target recruitment for the Trade Mission is minimum 12 and maximum 20 companies. After an applicant has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. Upon notification of acceptance to participate, those selected have 5 business days to submit payment or the acceptance may be revoked.
An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If the U.S. Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
A company's products or services must be either produced in the United States or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content of the value of the finished product/service.
• Relevance of the company's
• Timeliness of company's or association's/organization's signed application.
• Timely and adequate provision of company and product/service information and literature, in order to enable communication of company's objectives and scheduling of business appointments.
• Provision of adequate information on company's or association's/organization's products and/or services, and primary market objectives, in order to facilitate appropriate matching with potential business partners.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Expenses for lodging, some meals, incidentals, and travel (except for transportation to and from airport) will be the responsibility of each mission participant.
Recruitment for the mission is to begin immediately and conclude no later than March 1, 2015. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review all applications immediately after the deadline. We will inform applicants of selection decisions as soon as possible after March 1, 2015. Applications received after that date will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
ITA Trade Specialists will promote the Trade Mission. This promotion will take place nation-wide and will largely be handled by the Global Automotive Team. Those interested in the mission will apply to the program, and once accepted will work with the mission leader(s) to develop their business goals in Colombia and Peru. If the participation fee is not paid within the designated timeframe, the offer to participate on the mission may be withdrawn.
U.S. Export Assistance Center trade specialists and particularly members of the Global Automotive Team will recruit and counsel prospective participants for the trade mission. Company information and literature will be forwarded by the companies to CS Bogota and CS Lima. The two offices will then begin the partner search, and will provide management and logistical coordination of the program.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration is organizing a trade mission to Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania that will include the Trade Winds—Sub-Sahara Africa business forum in Johannesburg, South Africa on September 16–18, 2015. U.S. trade mission members will participate in the Trade Winds—Sub-Sahara Africa business forum in Johannesburg, South Africa, which is also open to U.S. companies not participating in the trade mission. Trade mission participants may also choose to participate in their choice of trade mission stops based on recommendations from the USFCS, including in Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania. Each trade mission stop will include one-on-one business appointments with pre-screened potential buyers, agents, distributors or joint-venture partners. Trade mission participants participating in the Trade Winds—Sub-Sahara Africa business forum may attend regional and industry-specific sessions and consultations with USFCS Senior Commercial Officers and other government officials representing the Sub-Sahara Africa region during the business forum in Johannesburg, South Africa on September 16–18, 2015.
This mission is open to U.S. companies and trade associations from a cross-section of industries with growth potential in Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania, including, but not limited to the following industries: Power generation, transmission and distribution technology and equipment; oil and gas equipment and technology; mining and construction equipment; building products; agricultural equipment and technology; information communications technology and equipment; healthcare and medical products, equipment, and services; rail, air and port technology, products and services; environmental technologies; consumer products; and safety and security products and services.
Africa is the world's fastest growing continent, with excellent ground-level business opportunities for U.S. exporters across an array of sectors. Macroeconomic indicators continue to strengthen, as poverty declines and education and health outcomes continue to improve. Economic growth on the sub-continent is now projected to rise from 4.9% in 2013 to about 5.5% this year. In fact, robust economic activity, underpinned by large investments in infrastructure and mining and an expanding agricultural segment, continues in all three sub-regions of East Africa, West Africa and Southern Africa. Foreign investment has now fully recovered from the effects of the global crisis, and will reach a record US$80 billion in 2014, with manufacturing and services (vice oil and gas) attracting an increasing share of the continent's greenfield-investment projects. An increasing number of U.S. multi-national companies have recently
With a population of 1.07 billion and a geography as large as China; India; Western Europe; Mexico; and the United States combined, rising wages, an emerging middle class and consumerism are diversifying demand for U.S. products and services. While, infrastructure opportunities (energy, minerals, transportation, and ICT) and agricultural production continue to expand, continent-wide consumer spending is on a growth path that is expected to reach $1.4 trillion in 2020 (from a base of $860 billion in 2008).
U.S. goods and services exports to Africa continue to grow by 6–8 percent annually, having reached a record high of $50.2 billion in 2013. Sub-Saharan Africa is thus poised to become world's next economic success story.
Angola is the third-largest economy in Sub-Saharan Africa with a GDP of over US$124 billion, and average annual growth of 5%. The Angolan economy is driven by the oil and gas industry, but is rapidly diversifying as the country's growth has fueled consumption and attracted foreign investors. The cost of doing business in Angola is high, but the rewards are commensurate. Areas with the best potential for U.S. exporters include: health & medical supplies, franchising, infrastructure (airports, ports, highways, roads, sewage systems, power generation), oil & gas suppliers and services, safety & security, agribusiness (fertilizers, machinery, and irrigation), food processing, mining, telecoms, construction, and environmental technologies.
Ethiopia's population of over 90 million makes it one of the largest growing markets in Africa. GDP growth for the past five years has averaged between 7%–12% annually, and Moody's has rated Ethiopia's credit worthiness a `B+', reflecting the economy's stable outlook and prospects for continued growth in the short and medium-term.
Now is an opportune time for U.S. companies to enter the Ethiopian market, as the government is revising its five-year Growth and Transformation Plan for 2015–2020 to charter the development path in key sectors—Renewable Energy (wind, geothermal, solar), ICT and other infrastructure related projects, agro-business, education, and tourism. Due to its strategic location to GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) countries, stable security, low corruption and unprecedented growth, Ethiopia is a prime location for U.S. exports and investment.
Ghana has a vibrant democratic government and has witnessed strong economic growth (7.5% over the last decade, surging to 15% in 2011 as offshore petroleum reserves become available) due to prudent macroeconomic management, a competitive business environment, an increasingly diversified economy and sustained reductions in poverty levels.
One of Ghana's most promising sectors is energy—both oil & gas exploration and power production. Ghana has far less production capacity than needed to grow its economy. Thermal power production has been hampered by inadequate and inconsistent sources of gas. Reliance on the West Africa Gas Pipeline to supply gas from Nigeria is one solution; a more sustainable and reliable solution to utilize gas from Ghana's offshore energy fields is in development as are plans to source renewable sources of energy. In other sectors, significant opportunities exist for U.S. companies with the ability to provide comprehensive solutions—often including financing—for port development, airport expansions, road construction, rail projects and more.
Kenya has an estimated population of 44.3 million with a market-based economy and a well-educated, multi-lingual professional workforce, particularly in Nairobi, the country capital. Kenya is generally considered the economic, commercial, and logistics hub of East Africa. With the strongest industrial base in East Africa, Kenya has been successful in attracting private equity capital. U.S. companies continue to invest in Kenya and are setting up local and regional operations to take advantage of Kenya's strategic location, comprehensive air routes, and status as a regional financial center.
Major opportunities for U.S. exporters lie in agribusiness, particularly horticulture, which relies heavily on the importation of fertilizers, pesticides and equipment to boost local productivity. Similar opportunities lie in Kenya's floriculture industry, a leading exporter of fresh cut flowers to the flower auction in Holland. Energy presents another opportunity, particularly in geothermal and wind technology applications. Other sectors that show lucrative U.S. export potential are medical devices, infrastructure (roads, bridges, rail, air- and seaports) and ICT products and services (Cloud, web-hosting, accounting, payroll).
Mozambique, with a population of 24 million, grew its economy on average by 8% annually from 1994–2009, a result of prudent macroeconomic reforms and large foreign investment projects. Real opportunities exist in developing transport infrastructure (rail and ports) and related equipment, as infrastructure projects will be key to Mozambique's near- and long-term future. The government is investing heavily in expanding rail- and port capacity to manage the rising production of mineral resources. Regular new discoveries in oil and gas present excellent U.S. export prospects for construction and infrastructure projects and U.S. investment in the energy sector, particularly off-shore natural gas, is expected to grow tremendously in the next several years. Other infrastructure and equipment opportunities include telecommunications, energy (natural gas, hydropower and bio-diesel); mining (tantalum, graphite and coal); tourism (hotels, sports and leisure resorts); water supply and sanitation, medical equipment and consumables.
Nigeria has the largest economy in Sub-Saharan Africa and is one of the world's fastest growing economies, with an annual GDP growth rate of about 7%. It is also Africa's most populous country, with approximately 170 million inhabitants. Oil revenue currently accounts for almost 20% of Nigeria's GDP and over 90% of its foreign exchange earnings.
In recent years, the country's long-neglected non-oil sectors have been growing faster than the oil sector itself. This means significant opportunities for U.S. business in a wide range of sectors—not only in energy (oil and gas), but also in mining, power (generation and distribution), infrastructure (roads, buildings, and bridges), health (hospital care and medical equipment), transportation (aerospace, railroads, automobiles, and trucks), information and communications technology, agricultural technology, environmental technology, safety and security, education and training, franchising, and financial services. There is also considerable potential for American consumer goods in Nigeria's expanding market.
With a population of 51 million and GDP at US$350.6 billion, South Africa is a middle-income country, with relative macroeconomic stability, a mature and diverse economy, urban infrastructure that resembles OECD standards and a largely pro-business environment. The banking and financial services sector is stable and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) ranks amongst the top emerging market exchanges in the world.
The U.S. is a critical trading partner of South Africa, and good U.S. export opportunities exist across a range of sectors. Much of South Africa's infrastructure is in need of an overhaul—with the government looking to invest in improving and expanding rail lines, locomotives and network lines. Opportunities also exist in energy efficient solutions for power generation and smart-grid technologies, as well as medical devices, particularly in high-tech equipment and diagnostics, green technologies, green building technologies, automotive aftermarket (specialty products), water management, air pollution control and monitoring equipment and agricultural equipment.
Real GDP for Tanzania's population of 48 million grew by 7% in 2013, the fifth consecutive year that Tanzania has enjoyed a growth rate that ranks it among the 20 fastest growing in the world. This growth is due to a strengthening manufacturing sector, continued investment in the natural gas sector, increased energy production, and robust growth in construction activities. While U.S. exports to Tanzania amounted to just over $400 million last year, this represents 70% year on year growth. Tanzania's strategic location makes it a natural East African hub for investors seeking to capitalize not only on its vast resources but also a growing market of 527 million consumers in East and Southern Africa.
Best prospect sectors and opportunities for U.S. exporters include petroleum, gas and energy; agribusiness and food processing equipment; mining equipment, IT and telecommunication equipment, construction and real estate development and aviation infrastructure. In addition, U.S. consumer goods and franchise concepts are increasingly attractive to the Tanzanian market.
The goal of the trade mission is to help participating firms gain market insights, make industry contacts, solidify business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports to Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania and the region. The delegation will also have access to USFCS Senior Commercial Officers and Commercial Specialists during the mission, learn about the many business opportunities in Sub-Sahara Africa, and gain first-hand market exposure. U.S. trade mission participants already doing business in Sub-Sahara Africa will have opportunities to further advance business relationships and projects in those markets.
All parties interested in participating in the trade mission to Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce. All applicants will be evaluated on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below.
A minimum of 55 companies and/or trade associations will be selected to participate in the mission from the applicant pool on a first-come, first-served basis. Mission stop participation will be limited as follows: The Ethiopia mission stop is limited to 5 companies; the Tanzania mission stop is limited to 5 companies; the Mozambique mission stop is limited to 5 companies; the Angola mission stop is limited to 5 companies; the Kenya mission stop is limited to 15 companies; the South Africa mission stop is limited to 50 companies; the Nigeria mission stop is limited to 20 companies; and the Ghana mission stop is limited to 5 companies.
Additional delegates may be accepted based on available space. U.S. companies and/or trade associations already doing business in or seeking business in Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania for the first time may apply.
After a company has been selected to participate in the mission, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required.
• For one mission stop, the participation fee will be $2,500 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and $3,500 for large firms.
• For two mission stops, the participation fee will be $3,300 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and $4,300 for large firms.
• For three mission stops, the participation fee will be $4,100 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) and $5,100 for large firms.
The above trade mission fees include the $500 participation fee for the Trade Winds business forum to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa on September 16–18, 2015.
An additional representative for both SMEs and large firms will require an additional fee of $500 for one mission stop, $1,000 for two mission stops, or $1,500 for three mission stops
Expenses for travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals such as local transportation and interpreters will be the responsibility of each mission participant.
Conditions for Participation:
• An applicant must submit a completed and signed mission application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. Applicant should specify in their application and supplemental materials which trade mission stops they are interested in participating in. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
• Each applicant must also certify that the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the U.S., or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service. In the case of a trade association or trade organization, the applicant must certify that, for each company to be represented by the trade association or trade organization, the products and services the represented company seeks to export are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content.
Selection Criteria for Participation: Selection will be based on the following criteria:
• Suitability of the company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') products or services to each of the markets the company or trade association/organization has expressed an interest in visiting as part of this trade mission.
• Company's (or, in the case of a trade association or trade organization, represented companies') potential for business in each of the markets the company or trade association/organization has expressed an interest in visiting as part of this trade mission.
• Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission.
Diversity of company size, sector or subsector, and location may also be considered during the review process.
Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.
Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the
Recruitment for the mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than June 15, 2015. The U.S. Department of Commerce will review applications and make selection decisions on a rolling basis beginning December 3, 2014, until the minimum of 55 participants is selected. After June 15, 2015, applications will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Coral Working Group.
The meeting will convene at 9 a.m. (E.S.T.) on Thursday, December 4, 2014 until 5 p.m. on Friday, December 5, 2014.
The meeting will be held at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council office, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607.
Dr. Morgan Kilgour, Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348–1630; fax: (813) 348–1711; email:
The items of discussion on the agenda are as follows:
1. Review Council charge—“to determine the criteria and boundaries, and other specifics for potential sites, and once that has been determined, that this group meet with representatives of any potentially impacted fisheries and members of law enforcement.”
2. Discuss individual sites identified in the September webinar
a. Review data available
b. Evaluate appropriate boundaries or areas
c. Make recommendations on appropriate areas
3. Other Business
This is the focus of the working group. Individual working group members may choose to present supplementary material to enhance our understanding of these areas and improve the discussion.
Adjourn
The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted on the Council's file server, which can be accessed by going to the Council Web site at
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council Office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) will meet December 5, 2014.
The meeting is scheduled as follows: December 5, 2014, 9:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held at the George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs, Room 505, 1957 E St. NW., Washington, DC 20052.
Tahara Dawkins, NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA, 1335 East West Highway, Room 8260, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; telephone (301) 713–3385, fax (301) 713–1249, email
As required by section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1982), notice is hereby given of the meeting of ACCRES. ACCRES was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on May 21, 2002, to advise the Secretary through the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on long- and short-range strategies for the licensing of commercial remote sensing satellite systems.
The meeting will be open to the public pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409 and in accordance with Section 552b(c)(1) of Title 5, United States Code.
The Committee will receive a presentation on commercial remote sensing issues and updates of NOAA's licensing activities. The committee will also receive comments on its activities.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations may be directed to ACCRES, NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA, 1335 East West Highway, Room 8260, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.
Any member of the public wishing further information concerning the meeting or who wishes to submit oral or written comments should contact Tahara Dawkins, Designated Federal Officer for ACCRES, NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA, 1335 East West Highway, Room 8260, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Copies of the draft meeting agenda can be obtained from Thomas Smith at (301) 713–0573, fax (301) 713–1249, or email
The ACCRES expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously-submitted oral or written statements. In general, each individual or group making an oral presentation may be limited to a total time of five minutes. Written comments (please provide at least 15 copies) received in the NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA on or before April 30, 2014, will be provided to Committee members in advance of the meeting. Comments received too close to the meeting date will normally be provided to Committee members at the meeting.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 19, 2014.
Comments may be submitted to OMB within 30 days of the notice's publication. Comments, identified by “Large Trader Reporting for Physical Commodity Swaps” (OMB Control No. 3038–0095), can be submitted by email at
Comments may also be submitted, regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, identified by “Large Trader Reporting for Physical Commodity Swaps” (OMB Control No.
•
•
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Dana Brown, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418–5093; email:
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) is inviting comments on topics for discussion at future Market Risk Advisory Committee (MRAC or Committee) meetings and also calling for the submission of nominations to this newly established Committee. The MRAC is a discretionary advisory committee and was established by the Commission in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The deadline for comments and nominations is December 3, 2014.
Comments on topics for discussion at future MRAC meetings and nominations should be emailed to
Petal Walker, (202) 418–5794; email:
The MRAC was established to conduct public meetings and submit reports and recommendations to the Commission on matters of public concern to clearinghouses, exchanges, intermediaries, market makers, end-users (e.g., consumers) and the Commission regarding systemic issues that threaten the stability of the derivatives markets and other financial markets, and to otherwise assist the Commission in identifying and understanding the impact and implications of an evolving market structure and movement of risk across clearinghouses, intermediaries, market makers and end-users. The duties of the MRAC are solely advisory and will
MRAC members will generally serve as representatives in order to provide advice reflecting the views of organizations and entities that constitute the structure of the derivatives and financial markets. The MRAC may also include regular government employees when doing so furthers purposes of the MRAC. Though the precise number of members in any category may vary over time, the Commission expects the MRAC to have approximately 20–25 members with the following types of entities with interests in the derivatives markets and systemic risk being represented (and their approximate number): (i) Exchanges (3–5), (ii) clearinghouses (1–3), (iii) intermediaries (1–4), (iv) market makers (5–8), (v) end-users (4–6), (vi) academia (1–2) and (vii) regulators (1–2). The MRAC will hold approximately 2–4 meetings per year and members will serve at the pleasure of the Commission. MRAC members will not receive compensation or honoraria for their services, and they will not be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses.
The Commission seeks members who represent organizations or groups with an interest in the MRAC's mission and function and reflect a wide range of perspectives and interests, including those that may be conflicting, related to the derivatives markets and other financial markets. To advise the Commission effectively, MRAC members must have a high-level of expertise and experience in the derivatives and financial markets and the Commission's regulation of such markets, including from a historical perspective. To the extent practicable, the Commission will strive to select members reflecting wide ethnic, racial, gender, and age representation. MRAC members should be open to participating in a public forum.
The Commission invites comments from the public on the topics on which MRAC should focus. In other words, topics that:
(a) Reflect matters of public concern to clearinghouses, exchanges, intermediaries, market makers, end-users and the Commission regarding systemic issues that threaten the stability of the derivatives markets and other financial markets; and/or
(b) are important to otherwise assist the Commission in identifying and understanding the impact and implications of an evolving market structure and movement of risk across clearinghouses, exchanges, intermediaries, market makers and end-users.
In addition, the Commission also invites the submission of nominations to the MRAC. Each nomination submission should include relevant information about the proposed member, such as the individual's name, title, and organizational affiliation as well as information that supports the individual's qualifications to serve on the MRAC. The submission should also include the name and email or mailing address of the person nominating the proposed member.
Submission of nomination is not a guarantee of selection as a member of the MRAC. As noted in the MRAC's Membership Balance Plan, the CFTC identifies members for the MRAC based on Commissioners' and Commission staff professional knowledge of the derivatives and other financial markets, consultation with knowledgeable persons outside the CFTC, and requests to be represented received from organizations. The office of the Commissioner primarily responsible for the MRAC plays a primary, but not exclusive, role in this process and makes recommendations regarding membership to the Commission. The Commission, by vote, authorizes members to serve on the MRAC.
5 U.S.C. App. II.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled CNCS Application Instructions for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Amy Borgstrom, at 202–606–6930 or email to
Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the
(1)
(2)
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose 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.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Defense Health Agency, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Defense Health Agency proposes to alter an existing system of records, EDHA 11, entitled “Defense Medical Human Resources System internet (DMHRSi)” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This system consolidates all of the human resources functions, including readiness, manpower, labor cost assignment, education, and training, for personnel across the DoD medical enterprise, thereby providing a single database source of instant query/access for all personnel types and the readiness posture of all DoD medical personnel. This system of records permits ready access to essential manpower, personnel, labor cost assignment, education and training, and personnel readiness information across the DoD medical enterprise.
Comments will be accepted on or before December 19, 2014. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
*
Ms. Linda S. Thomas, Chief, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, Defense Health Agency, Defense Health Headquarters, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042–5101, or by phone at (703) 681–7500.
The Defense Health Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Defense Medical Human Resources System internet (DMHRSi) (November 18, 2013, 78 FR 69076).
Changes
Delete entry and replace with “Defense Health Agency, Defense Health Headquarters, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042–5101.”
Delete entry and replace with “Active Duty Military, Reserve, National Guard, civilian employees who are assigned to or are part of the Military Health System or the DHA, and includes non-appropriated fund employees and foreign nationals, DoD contractors, and volunteers.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individual's name, gender, work address and telephone number, DoD ID Number and/or Social Security Number (SSN), work assignment, National Provider Identifier, medical training information including class names and class dates, and personnel readiness documentation that includes immunization and other health information required to determine an individual's fitness to perform their duties.”
Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; E.O. 12656, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities; DoD Directive 5136.01, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASD(HA)); DoDI 1322.24, Medical Readiness Training; DoD 6010.13–M, Medical Expense Performance Reporting System for Fixed Military Medical Treatment Facilities Manual; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses may apply to this system of records.”
Delete entry and replace with “Systems are maintained in a controlled area accessible only to authorized personnel with a valid requirement and authorization to enter. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, passwords which are changed periodically, and administrative procedures.
Users must have a Common Access Control card and an active user account in DMHRSi in order to access. Access to personal information is restricted to those who require the data in the performance of their official duties. All personnel whose official duties require access to the information are trained in the proper safeguarding and use of the information.”
Delete entry and replace with “Chief/Deputy Program Manager, Resources Division, Defense Health Services Systems, Defense Health Agency, Defense Health Headquarters, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042–5101.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Chief, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Service Center, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042–5101.
Written requests should contain the individual's full name, SSN and/or DoD ID Number.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Chief, FOIA Service Center, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042–5101.
Written requests for information should include the individual's full name, SSN and/or DoD ID number.”
Delete entry and replace with “The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81, 32 CFR Part 311, or may be obtained from the system manager.”
Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Defense Logistics Agency proposes to alter a system of records notice, S500.55, entitled “Information Technology Access and Control Records” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
Comments will be accepted on or before December 19, 2014. This proposed action will be effective on the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350–3100.
John Lockwood, AMPS Program Manager, Defense Logistics Agency, Headquarters McNamara Complex 8725 John J. Kingman Rd, Suite 3533, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, have been published in the
Information Technology Access and Control Records (March 5, 2013, 78 FR 14283).
Delete entry and replace with “System contains documents relating to requests for and grants of access to DLA computer networks, systems, or databases. The records contain the individual's name; date of birth, Electronic Data Interchange Personal Identifier (EDIPI) (DoD Identification Number), social security number; citizenship; physical and electronic addresses; work telephone numbers; office symbol; contractor/employee status; computer logon addresses, passwords, and user identification codes; type of access/permissions required; verification of need to know; dates of mandatory information assurance awareness training; and security clearance data. The system also captures details about programs, databases, functions, and sites accessed and/or used; dates and times of use; and information products created, received, or altered during use. The records may also contain details about access or functionality problems telephoned in for technical support along with resolution. For individuals who telecommute from home or a telework center, the records may contain the
Defense Health Agency, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Defense Health Agency proposes to alter an existing system of records, EDTMA 03, entitled “Legal Opinion Files” in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This system uses records to address and resolve legal issues and for research, precedent, historical, and record purposes.
Comments will be accepted on or before December 19, 2014. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
•
Ms. Linda S. Thomas, Chief, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, Defense Health Agency, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042–5101, or by phone at (703) 681–7500.
The Defense Health Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on November 12, 2014, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A–130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Legal Opinion Files (November 18, 2013, 78 FR 69076)
Delete entry and replace with “Office of the General Counsel, Defense Health Agency, 16401 East Centretech Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011–9066.
Office of the General Counsel, Defense Health Agency Headquarters, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042–5101.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals who have contacted or corresponded with Defense Health Agency regarding any matter requiring legal clarification or resolution.”
Delete entry and replace with “Inquiries received from individuals, attorneys, fiscal administrators, hospital contractors, other government agencies, Health Care Advice Nurse records, and Congressional offices. Files contain legal opinions, ethics opinions, correspondence, memoranda for the record, and similar documents. Medical/dental treatment records, authorizations and pre-authorizations, care and claims inquiry documents, medical/dental history files, the name, Social Security Number (SSN) and/or DoD Identification Number (DoD ID Number) of the sponsor and/or beneficiary; and beneficiary's relationship to sponsor may be included in these records, as appropriate, to document TRICARE legal determinations.”
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. Chapter 55, Medical and Dental Care; 38 U.S.C. Chapter 17, Hospital, Nursing Home, Domiciliary, and Medical Care; 32 CFR Part 199, Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”
Delete entry and replace with “Defense Health Agency uses these records to address and resolve legal issues and for research, precedent, historical, and record purposes.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
To the Departments of Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs consistent with their statutory administrative responsibilities under TRICARE and the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Chapter 55 and 38 U.S.C. Chapter 17.
Referral to Federal, state, local, or foreign governmental agencies, and to private business entities, including individual providers of care (participating and non-participating), on matters relating to eligibility, claims pricing and payment, fraud, program abuse, utilization review, quality assurance, peer review, program integrity, third-party liability, coordination of benefits, and civil or criminal litigation related to the operation of TRICARE.
Disclosure to the Department of Justice and the United States Attorneys in situations where the matter directly or indirectly involves the TRICARE program.
Disclosure to third-party contacts in situations where the party to be contacted has, or is expected to have, information necessary to establish the validity of evidence or to verify the accuracy of information presented by
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses may apply to this system of records.
NOTE 1: This system of records contains individually identifiable health information. The DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation (DoD 6025.18–R) or any successor DoD issuances implementing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, Health and Human Services, General Administrative Requirements and Security & Privacy, respectively, applies to most such health information. DoD 6025.18–R or a successor issuance may place additional procedural requirements on uses and disclosures of such information beyond those found in the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, or mentioned in this system of records notice.
NOTE 2: Except as provided under 42 U.S.C. 290dd–2, records of identity, diagnosis, prognosis or treatment information of any patient maintained in connection with the performance of any program or activity relating to substance abuse education, prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation, or research, which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly assisted by a department or agency of the United States will be treated as confidential and disclosed only for the purposes and under the circumstances expressly authorized under 42 U.S.C. 290dd–2.”
Delete entry and replace with “Paper records and/or electronic storage media.”
Delete entry and replace with “Information is retrieved by subject matter with cross-reference by the individual's name, SSN, and/or DoD ID Number.”
Delete entry and replace with “Electronic media, data and/or electronic records are maintained in a controlled area. Records are maintained in a secure, limited access, or monitored area. The computer system is accessible only to authorized personnel. Entry into these areas is restricted to those personnel with a valid requirement and authorization to enter. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, passwords which are changed periodically, and administrative procedures.
The system provides two-factor authentication through user IDs/passwords. Access to personal information is restricted to those who require the data in the performance of their official duties. All personnel whose official duties require access to the information are trained in the proper safeguarding and use of the information.
All of the records must be properly secured for the duration of their life cycle. The safeguards in place for the paper records include placing the documents in locked file cabinets and storage rooms with limited access and electronic security measures. In addition, some of the records are housed in secure facilities monitored by security guards and video surveillance.”
Delete entry and replace with “Permanent. Retire to Denver Federal Records Center (FRC) when superseded or obsolete.”
Delete entry and replace with “Paralegal Specialist, Office of General Counsel, Defense Health Agency, 16401 East Centretech Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011–9066.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Chief, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Service Center, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042–5101.
Requests should contain the full name and signature of the sponsor or beneficiary.
If requesting information about a minor or legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the custodial parent, legal guardian, or party acting in loco parentis of such individual. Written proof of that status may be required before the existence of any information will be confirmed.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Chief, FOIA Service Center, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042–5101.
Written requests for information should include the full name and signature of the sponsor or beneficiary.
If requesting records about a minor or legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the custodial parent, legal guardian, or party acting in loco parentis of such individual. Written proof of that status may be required before any records will be provided.”
Delete entry and replace with “The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81, 32 CFR Part 311, or may be obtained from the system manager.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals (TRICARE and CHAMPVA beneficiaries, sponsors, or others), attorneys, fiscal administrators, hospital contractors, managed care support contractors, providers of care, medical records, other government agencies (Federal, state, local, and foreign), and Congressional offices.”
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The Department of the Air Force proposes to alter a system of records notice, F032 AFCES A, entitled “Civil Engineer System-Fire Department Records” in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This system will be used to assist in protecting installation resources, equipment, and personnel that require emergency services. Operate emergency dispatch centers to support fire emergency operations. In addition, it will track fire prevention and protection, firefighting, rescue, and Hazardous Materials (HazMat) response and after action reports.
Comments will be accepted on or before December 19, 2014. This proposed action will be effective on the
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
* Federal Rulemaking Portal:
* Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350–3100.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this
Mr. Charles J. Shedrick, Department of the Air Force Privacy Office, Air Force Privacy Act Office, Office of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer, ATTN: SAF/CIO A6, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330–1800, or by phone at (571)256–2515.
The Department of the Air Force's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on November 12, 2014, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A–130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
Civil Engineer System-Fire Department Records (December 4, 2008, 73 FR 73924).
Delete entry and replace with “F032 AF CE H”.
Delete entry and replace with “Automated Civil Engineer System—Fire Department Records.”
Delete entry and replace with “Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Systems Management Center, Montgomery, 401 East Moore Drive, Building 857, Gunter AFB, AL 36114–3001.”
Delete entry and replace with “Any individual who places a call to the Air Force installation emergency 911 dispatcher and/or fire department for emergency assistance; Air Force fire department civilian employees.”
Delete entry and replace with “Callers' name and phone number from which they are calling; and Air Force fire department employee's name, grade/rank, DoD Identification Number DoD ID Number, home/mobile/office telephone number, home address, duty title, and duty station.”
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air Force; delegation by; 10 U.S.C. 9832, Property accountability: Regulations; 15 U.S.C. 2227, Fire Safety Systems in Federal Assisted Buildings: Regulations; Pre-fire Plans; 15 U.S.C. 2229, Firefighter assistance.”
Delete entry and replace with “To protect installation resources, equipment, and personnel that require emergency services. Operate emergency dispatch centers to support fire emergency operations. In addition, it will track fire prevention and protection, firefighting, rescue, and Hazardous Materials (HazMat) response and after action reports.”
Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses published at the beginning of the Air Force's compilation of record system notices may apply to this system.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individual's name and duty station.”
Delete entry and replace with “Steps have been taken to limit the access to the Privacy data to only those users with the appropriate roles. Access to records is limited to persons responsible for servicing the record in performance of their official duties and who are properly screened and cleared for need-to-know. Access to the application is restricted by Department of Defense (DoD) Common Access Card (CAC).”
Delete entry and replace with “Automated Civil Engineer System/Interim Work Management System Program Manager, Headquarters (HQ) A7CRT, 139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1, Tyndall AFB, FL 32403–5319.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about them is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Civil Engineer System/Interim Work Management System Program Manager, Headquarters (HQ) A7CRT, 139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1, Tyndall AFB, FL 32403–5319.
For verification purposes, individual should provide their full name, and/or DoD ID Number, any details which may assist in locating records, and their signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”
Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Civil Engineer System/Interim Work Management System Program Manager, Headquarters (HQ) A7CRT, 139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1, Tyndall AFB, FL 32403–5319.
For verification purposes, individual should provide their full name, and/or DoD ID Number, any details which may assist in locating records, and their signature.
In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 December 19, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions related to collection activities or burden, please contact Douglas Pineda Robles, 202–377–4578.
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.
Section 483 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), mandates that the Secretary of Education “. . . shall produce, distribute, and process free of charge common financial reporting forms as described in this subsection to be used for application and reapplication to determine the need and eligibility of a student for financial assistance . . .”.
The determination of need and eligibility are for the following Title IV, HEA, federal student financial assistance programs: The Federal Pell Grant Program; the Campus-Based programs (Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Federal Work-Study (FWS), and the Federal Perkins Loan Program); the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant; and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant.
Federal Student Aid, an office of the U.S. Department of Education (hereafter “the Department”), subsequently developed an application process to collect and process the data necessary to determine a student's eligibility to receive Title IV, HEA program assistance. The application process involves an applicant's submission of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). After submission and processing of the FAFSA, an applicant receives a Student Aid Report (SAR), which is a summary of the processed data they submitted on the FAFSA. The applicant reviews the SAR, and, if necessary, will make corrections or updates to their submitted FAFSA data. Institutions of higher education listed by the applicant on the FAFSA also receive a summary of processed data submitted on the FAFSA which is called the Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR).
The Department seeks OMB approval of all application components as a single “collection of information”. The
This information collection also documents an estimate of the annual public burden as it relates to the application process for federal student aid. The Applicant Burden Model (ABM), measures applicant burden through an assessment of the activities each applicant conducts in conjunction with other applicant characteristics and in terms of burden, the average applicant's experience. Key determinants of the ABM include:
The total number of applicants that will potentially apply for federal student aid;
How the applicant chooses to complete and submit the FAFSA (e.g., by paper or electronically via FOTW);
How the applicant chooses to submit any corrections and/or updates (e.g., the paper SAR or electronically via FOTW Corrections);
The type of SAR document the applicant receives (eSAR, SAR acknowledgment, or paper SAR);
The formula applied to determine the applicant's EFC (full need analysis formula, Simplified Needs Test or Automatic Zero); and
The average amount of time involved in preparing to complete the application.
The ABM is largely driven by the number of potential applicants for the application cycle. The total application projection for 2015–2016 is based upon two factors—estimates of the total enrollment in all degree-granting institutions and the percentage change in FAFSA submissions for the last completed or almost completed application cycle. The ABM is also based on the application options available to students and parents. The Department accounts for each application component based on Web trending tools, survey information, and other Department data sources.
For 2015–2016, the Department is reporting a net burden decrease of 2,081,212 hours.
In response to the 60-day comment period, the Department has made some changes to the application explained in the
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 January 20, 2015.
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 Kashka Kubzdela, 202–502–7411.
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.
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. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission (December 12, 2014). The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k. Description of Request: The licensee requests a temporary variance of the minimum flow requirements in the lower Yuba River below Englebright Dam, which requires a minimum flow of 600 cubic feet per second (cfs) from October 16 through December 31 and from January 16 through March 31. In order to conserve water resources during the current drought and make best biological use of a limited water supply, the licensee proposes to instead, release 550 cfs from December 1 to 31, 2014 and from January 16 through March 31, 2015. In addition, the licensee requests that minimum flow compliance during this period be based on a 5-day running average of average daily streamflows, with instantaneous flows never less than 90 percent of the specified 550 cfs minimum flow and never less than 550 cfs for more than 48 hours.
l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502–8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
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 surrender. 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 issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Request for Limited Waiver of Calpine Energy Services, L.P.
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 exempt wholesale generator 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
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on November 10, 2014, pursuant to section 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Departing Kentucky Municipals (Departing Kentucky Municipals or Complainant), filed a formal complaint against Kentucky Utilities Company (Kentucky Utilities Company or Respondent), alleging that Kentucky Utilities Company has failed to comply with Section 4.1.3.4 of its wholesale requirements contracts with the Departing Kentucky Municipals, which requires it to file for Commission approval to stop collecting in its rates to Departing Kentucky Municipals the costs associated with construction work in progress after receiving the Departing Kentucky Municipals' notices of termination, as more fully explained in the complaint.
Departing Kentucky Municipals certify that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Kentucky Utilities Company as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 15, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198–0001:
1.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR is for extending the use of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0990–0422, which expires on August 31, 2015. Prior to submitting that ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before January 20, 2015.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS–OS–0990–0422–60D for reference.
Office of the Secretary specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is hereby giving notice that a meeting of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC) will take place via webinar. This webinar will be open to the public. Registration is required for those who wish to provide public testimony.
The CFSAC webinar will be held Wednesday, December 3, 2014, from 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (ET) and Thursday, December 4, 2014, from 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. (ET).
The meeting will be conducted by webinar.
Barbara James, Senior Public Health Advisor, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee, Department of Health and Human Services, Office on Women's Health, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 728F, Washington, DC 20201. Phone: 202–690–7650; Fax: 202–260–6537.
The CFSAC is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The purpose of the CFSAC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on issues related to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). The issues can include factors affecting access and care for persons with ME/CFS; the science and definition of ME/CFS; and broader public health, clinical, research and educational issues related to ME/CFS.
The agenda for this meeting and instructions to access the webinar will be posted on the CFSAC Web site
Title 5, U.S.C. Section 4314(c)(4) of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95–454, requires that the
The following persons may be named to serve on the Performance Review Boards or Panels, which oversee the evaluation of performance appraisals of Senior Executive Service members of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639–7570 or send an email to
Clinic Context Matters Study—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The daily use of specific antiretroviral medications by persons without HIV infection, but at high risk of sexual or injection exposure to HIV, has been shown to be a safe and effective HIV prevention method. The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of Truvada® for preexposure prophylaxis PrEP) in July 2012 and CDC has issued Public Health Service clinical practice guidelines for its use.
Because approximately 50,000 new HIV infections continue to occur in the U.S. each year, with rates of HIV infection increasing most rapidly for young MSM and because severe disparities in HIV infection continue among African-American men and women, incorporation of PrEP into HIV prevention is important. However, as a prevention tool in very early stages of introduction and use, there is much we need to learn about how to implement PrEP in real-world settings.
CDC is requesting OMB approval to collect data over a 3-year period that will be used to conduct research among clinicians about their knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to a new intervention (PrEP) over the period of its initial introduction in their clinics. The knowledge gained will be used to refine measurement instruments and methods (for example, identify modifications to questions in the current surveys that are unclear to participants), develop training and educational resources and tools for use by CDC/DHAP (Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention)-funded partners, and other organizations supporting delivery of PrEP in clinical settings. The project will be conducted in clinics in each of four cities (Houston, Newark, Chicago, and Philadelphia) where PrEP has recently become available at local community health centers. Once per year for 3 years, CDC will conduct an online survey of clinicians at participating clinics to collect data on the demographics of the respondents and their knowledge, attitudes, practices, and organizational factors related to PrEP and its delivery in their clinics. Surveys will be administered through an online survey Web site.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total annual burden hours are 88.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencyies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639–7570 or send an email to
National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), (OMB No. 0920–0234 exp. 12/31/2014)—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the utilization of health care provided by non-federal office-based physicians in the United States. On December 13, 2011, the OMB approved data collection for three years from 2012 to 2014. This revision is to request approval to continue NAMCS data collection activities for three years from 2015–2017, make minor modifications to survey content, and to collect additional questions on alcohol screening practices and on provider cultural and linguistic competence. This notice also covers potential increases in sample size that might result due to other future budget allocations.
The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) has been conducted intermittently from 1973 through 1985, and annually since 1989. The purpose of NAMCS, a voluntary survey, is to meet the needs and demands for statistical information about the provision of ambulatory medical care services in the United States. Ambulatory services are rendered in a wide variety of settings, including physicians' offices and hospital outpatient and emergency departments.
The NAMCS target universe consists of all office visits made by ambulatory patients to non-Federal office-based physicians (excluding those in the specialties of anesthesiology, radiology, and pathology) who are engaged in direct patient care. In 2006, physicians and mid-level providers (i.e., nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and nurse midwives) practicing in community health centers (CHCs) were added to the NAMCS sample, and these data will continue to be collected.
To complement NAMCS data, NCHS initiated the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS, OMB No. 0920–0278) in 1992 to provide data concerning patient visits to hospital outpatient and emergency departments. NAMCS and NHAMCS are the principal sources of data on ambulatory care provided in the United States.
The annualized estimated burden of time is 25,311 hours. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639–7570 or send an email to
Surveillance of Health-Related Workplace Absenteeism—[New]—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
There is currently a high global human health risk from emerging novel influenza, coronavirus and similar evolving pathogens, which is prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to enhance situational awareness capacity for emergency preparedness and response.
During the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus pandemic, NIOSH/CDC did a pilot study to test the feasibility of using national surveillance of workplace absenteeism to assess the pandemic's impact on the workplace to plan for preparedness and continuity of operations and to contribute to health awareness during the emergency response. As part of this emergency effort, CDC contracted with the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), which has access to a large network of affiliated medical directors and corporate health units that routinely compile absenteeism data, to conduct enhanced passive surveillance of absenteeism using weekly data from a convenience sample of sentinel worksites.
Due the emergency situation at that time, OMB approval was erroneously not requested for the data collection activities associated with the pilot study. The current request seeks to build off of the data collected from the pilot and accounts for the burden involving all of the participants.
From September 28, 2009, through March 31, 2010, 79 sentinel worksites representing 16 different employers participated in the pilot study. Each week, ACOEM collected reports of aggregated absenteeism data from the medical directors of the participating companies using an emailed, standardized form. ACOEM replaced company names with coded unique identifiers, and sent the aggregated data to CDC/NIOSH for analysis.
The major strengths of the sentinel worksite approach to absenteeism surveillance were the use of existing, routinely collected data and timeliness. The use of existing, routinely collected data made the burden on participating companies negligible. Data were routinely compiled and thus could be collected and analyzed in near real time, making this approach useful, in principle, for providing current situational awareness and actionable intelligence that could be used to inform, prioritize, and evaluate intervention efforts during the pandemic. On the other hand, there were several limitations to the sentinel worksite surveillance done in 2009–2010, and the activity was not maintained after the H1N1 pandemic ended.
At present, two new emerging infectious diseases, novel H7N9 influenza virus and a coronavirus circulating in the Middle East, have demonstrated the need to build additional capacity for national surveillance for health-related workplace absenteeism so that it can be used to monitor the impact of these or any other disease that might reach pandemic potential and spread to the U.S.
NIOSH/CDC requests permission to collect company absenteeism data, to be able to assess the impact of disease on a company and to identify trends in the spread of influenza or other novel disease states. This will provide an additional monitoring system to CDC. The proposed project builds on the 2009/10 initiative and modifies the reporting format to collect information on a daily versus weekly basis. The companies in the program will be those that routinely collect absenteeism data thus the burden will be minimal. We will be asking companies to record their daily absenteeism numbers into an excel file which can be emailed to ACOEM on a weekly or monthly basis. The excel file will be pre-populated with company name, site and dates to ease the reporting burden on companies.
ACOEM will transmit de-identified information on a weekly or monthly basis to NIOSH/CDC who will in turn conduct analysis on an aggregate basis. Data will be compiled by state and HHS region, as well as nationally to allow for trend analysis.
The initial 16 respondents in the 2009/10 study will be asked to participate and an additional 12 companies have indicated an interest in participating in the data collection activity. The employee population among these 28 companies is approximately 293,000.
The annualized estimated burden of time is 607 hours for the 28 respondents in the study. Respondents will complete the form daily; no more than 5 minutes per day/per respondent which translates to 25 minutes per week/per respondent or 700 minutes per week for all respondents. This results in an
There are no costs to participants other than the time.
Family and Youth Services Bureau, ACYF, ACF, HHS.
Notice of the award of a single-source program expansion supplement grant under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) Technical Assistance (TA) Project to the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence to support training and technical assistance activities.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Division of Family Violence and Prevention Services (DFVPS) announces the award of $236,000 as a single-source program expansion supplement to the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence in Harrisburg, PA. The grantee, funded under the Family Violence Protection and Services Act (FVPSA) program, is a technical assistance (TA) provider that assists FVPSA service providers to build the capacity of domestic violence programs.
The period of support for the single-source program expansion supplement is September 30, 2014 through September 29, 2015.
Shawndell Dawson, Senior Program Specialist, Family Violence Prevention and Services Program, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Suite 8219, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 202–205–1476; Email:
Supplemental award funds will support the grantee in providing training and technical assistance to domestic violence service providers. A portion of the supplemental award is contributed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Division of Violence Prevention (DVP).
This award will expand the scope of the NRCDV's technical assistance activities to include additional activities concerning the prevention of intimate partner violence (IPV) by: (1) Coordinating engagement with national-level partners, including foundations, for the purpose of enhancing communication related to IPV prevention; 2) engaging in planning to facilitate dialogue that will include the sharing of tools and lessons learned among state domestic violence coalitions engaged in IPV primary prevention efforts; 3) continuing to identify and disseminate information on lessons learned and key findings from state domestic violence coalitions that have implemented IPV primary prevention activities through
In addition to the prevention activities, the grantee will coordinate an accessibility and sustainability peer-to-peer technical assistance collaborative with three to five state domestic violence coalitions, which may involve activities such as: (1) Identifying state coalitions with experience in addressing organizational accessibility challenges (i.e. mental health, substance use, men, and adolescent boys), or sustainability challenges (i.e. fiscal management or board management); (2) coordinating support to domestic violence organizations or coalitions experiencing accessibility or sustainability challenges; and (3) developing peer-informed accessibility and sustainability tools and resources, and a discussion forum, for use by all domestic violence coalitions.
Section 310 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, as amended by Section 201 of the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111–320. The statutory authority for the additional funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is 42 U.S.C. 247b(k)(2) and 42 USC 280b–1 of the Public Health Service Act.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by January 20, 2015.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
FDA's Center for Tobacco Products proposes to conduct experimental studies to develop generalizable scientific knowledge to help inform its implementation of section 911 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 387k), wherein FDA will be evaluating information submitted to the Agency about how consumers understand and perceive tobacco products marketed as MRTPs. Section 911 of the FD&C Act authorizes FDA to grant orders to persons to allow the marketing of MRTPs. The term “modified risk tobacco product” means any tobacco product that is sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially marketed tobacco products. FDA must issue an order authorizing the marketing of an MRTP if the Agency determines that the product, as it is actually used by consumers, will significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-related disease to individual tobacco users and benefit the health of the population as a whole taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products (section 911(g)(1) of the FD&C Act).
FDA may also issue an order authorizing the marketing of an MRTP that reduces or eliminates exposure to a harmful substance if, among other requirements, the Agency determines that the order would be appropriate to promote the public health, the issuance of the order is expected to benefit the population as a whole taking into account both users and nonusers of tobacco products, and the existing evidence demonstrates that a measurable and substantial reduction in morbidity and mortality among individual tobacco users is reasonably likely to be shown in subsequent studies (section 911(g)(2) of the FD&C Act). In addition, section 911 requires that any advertising or labeling concerning modified risk products enable the public to comprehend the information concerning modified risk and to understand the relative significance of such information in the context of total health and in relation to all of the diseases and health related conditions associated with the use of tobacco products (section 911(h)(1) of the FD&C Act). The proposed research will inform the Agency's efforts to implement the provisions of the FD&C Act related to MRTPs.
FDA proposes to conduct experimental studies in order to develop generalizable scientific information to better understand how consumers perceive and understand these products, how exposure to claims about modified risk or exposure influence intentions to try or purchase the product (i.e., product adoption), and how individual characteristics such as current tobacco use and/or brand loyalty might influence these outcomes. Moreover, information from the experimental studies may assist FDA to determine the appropriate methods and measures for gathering such information from consumers.
The impact of different claims pertaining to modified risk or exposure on understanding, perceptions, and potential product adoption (i.e., intention to try) will be evaluated by conducting a series of three studies that, in turn, will examine: The impact of claims about cigarette (Study 1) or smokeless tobacco products (Study 2) among young adult and adult current, former, or never users of tobacco; and the impact of claims on adolescents currently using, or susceptible to using, tobacco (Study 3). All three studies will assess individual-level factors that might influence the impact of claims on consumer responses, including: Brand loyalty, tobacco use history and behavior, concerns about health risks, and openness to new products.
Across all studies, participants will be randomized to either see modified risk claims or not (control condition). In Studies 1 and 2, modified risk claims will be displayed on mock tobacco product packages and ads. For ethical reasons, adolescents (Study 3) will see modified risk claims displayed as statements alone, not attached to product packaging or ads. Consumer reactions to claims will be evaluated by measuring constructs such as: Comprehension of the modified risk information in the claims, perceived benefits of the product, perceptions of harm and risk, misbeliefs about the product, quit intentions, and willingness to try or purchase the product.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with research that is similar to this proposed study. Approximately 30,000 respondents will complete a screener to determine eligibility for participation in a study, estimated to take approximately 2 minutes (0.03 hours), for a total of 900 hours for screening activities. Three thousand respondents will complete a full study, estimated to last 20 minutes (0.333 hours), for a total of 999 hours for completion of both adult studies and one youth study. The estimated total hour burden of the collection of information is 1,899 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Validation Rules for Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) Formatted Studies.” CDER is making this document available to improve the standardization and quality of clinical data submitted to CDER, as well as to improve the predictability of data quality and usefulness.
Office of Strategic Programs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1192, Silver Spring, MD 20993, email:
CDER supports the regulatory submission of standardized clinical study data based on the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium SDTM. Upon receipt of the data, CDER validates the data using a set of validation rules. The “Validation Rules for SDTM Formatted Studies” is an Excel file that provides a human readable description of a rule set for validation. Submitters of clinical study data can use this information to understand how FDA validates the data. The file is available on FDA's Study Data Standards Resources Web page at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Vaginal Microbicides: Development for the Prevention of HIV Infection.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in all phases of development of vaginal microbicides, defined as vaginal drug products that prevent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition. The guidance outlines the types of nonclinical studies and clinical trials recommended throughout the drug development process to support approval of vaginal microbicides. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued on November 23, 2012.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Charu Mullick, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6365, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–1500.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Vaginal Microbicides: Development for the Prevention of HIV Infection.” This guidance addresses nonclinical development, early phases of clinical development, phase 3 trial considerations, and safety considerations in vaginal microbicide development including safety considerations in adolescent and pregnant populations. The guidance also outlines development of combination microbicide products such as drug-drug combinations, drug-device combinations, or combination products that include microbicide and are intended for multiple indications. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued on November 23, 2012 (77 FR 70167). The majority of public comments submitted to the docket were related to clinical trial considerations and nonclinical pharmacology/toxicology issues. This guidance incorporates FDA responses to the public comments.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on developing vaginal microbicides for preventing HIV transmission. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under 0910–0014, and the collections of information referred to in the guidance for clinical trial sponsors entitled “Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees” have been approved under 0910–0581.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the opening of a public docket and requesting comments on proposed criteria for “first generic” abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) submissions. The purpose is to facilitate FDA's establishment of review prioritization under the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA). Establishing clear criteria for this review prioritization category will allow FDA to appropriately prioritize ANDA submissions and track them in a manner consistent with the review prioritization commitments FDA made under GDUFA. Clear criteria for this category will also lead to less industry confusion and more consistent identification of “first generic” submissions.
Submit either electronic or written comments by December 19, 2014.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments as follows:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Submit written comments as follows:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Maryll Toufanian, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1682, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 240–402–7944.
On July 9, 2012, GDUFA (Title III of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112–144)) was signed into law by the President. GDUFA is designed to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and to reduce costs to industry. GDUFA is based on an agreement negotiated by FDA and representatives of the generic drug industry to address a growing number of regulatory challenges. An attendant
To help meet the goals in the Commitment Letter, FDA will prioritize ANDA reviews in conformance with the recently issued Manual of Policies and Procedures (MAPP) 5240.3 Rev. I: Prioritization of the Review of Original ANDAs, Amendments, and Supplements; and MAPP 5200.4: Criteria and Procedures for Managing the Review of Original ANDAs, Amendments and Supplements.
Subsequent to enactment of GDUFA, FDA has received informal comments on the Commitment Letter from several stakeholders that conveyed different understandings of the criteria for the “first generic” review prioritization category. For example, stakeholders have characterized a “first generic” as the first ANDA submitted, the first ANDA approved, the first ANDA marketed, all first-to-file ANDAs, and a company's “top priority” ANDA. Without clear criteria for this category, there is the potential for confusion and inconsistent review prioritization.
On September 17, 2014, FDA's Office of Generic Drugs held a public hearing to solicit public comment on certain topics related to implementation of GDUFA.
FDA is requesting comments and supporting information on the following criteria for a “first generic” ANDA for the purposes of review prioritization. A first generic application is any received ANDA
FDA believes that these proposed criteria appropriately focus FDA's resources on approving as quickly as possible, new safe and effective generic drug products for patient use. The Agency also believes that these criteria are consistent with the broad scope of the Commitment Letter, and generally reflect industry intent. Finally, these criteria enable FDA to prioritize review of a
We note that under these proposed criteria, “first generic” status is predicated largely on circumstances outside Agency control, and ones that may change while the ANDA is pending, for example, developments related to the disposition of related patent litigation. Accordingly, FDA also is seeking comments and supporting information on mechanisms the Agency could put in place to facilitate ANDA sponsor submission of such relevant information in a timely manner, in addition to that already required under the regulations.
We also note that as a result of such developments, ANDA submissions that originally met the criteria for a “first generic” submission may no longer meet those criteria; for example, the validity of a patent may be upheld in litigation, thereby blocking approval until patent expiry.
We thus are seeking comment on whether FDA should change the review prioritization for an ANDA that no longer meets the “first generic” criteria during its review.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404, that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to Amprion, Inc. located in Houston Texas, USA, to practice the inventions embodied in the following Patents and Patent Applications, each entitled “Detection of Infectious Prion Protein by Seeded Conversion of Recombinant Prion Protein”:
1. US provisional Application 60/961,364 filed July 20, 2007 [HHS Ref. No. E–109–2007/0–US–01]
2. PCT/US2008/070656, filed July 21, 2008; [HHS Ref. No E–109–2007/1–PCT–01]
3. EPC application No 08796382.3 filed July 21, 2008 [HHS Ref. No E–109–2007/1–EP–03]
4. US Application No. 12/177,012, filed July 21, 2008 and issued as US patent 8,216,788 on July 10, 2012 [HHS Ref. No E–109–2007/1–US–02];
5. US Application No. 13/489,321, filed June 5, 2012 [E–109–2007/1–US–04];
6. US Application No. 14/263,703, filed April 28, 2014 [E–109–2007/1–US–011]
The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive licensed territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to in vitro diagnostics of prion-associated diseases requiring FDA premarket approval, or the equivalent thereof outside of the United States, and USDA licensed veterinary diagnostics, or the equivalents thereof outside of the United States.
Only written comments and/or application for a license that are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on December 19, 2014 will be considered.
Requests for a copy of the patents and applications, inquiries, comments and other materials relating to the contemplated license should be directed to: Tedd Fenn, Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852–3804; Email:
The invention relates to methods and compositions for the detection of infectious prions and diagnosis of prion related diseases. Currently, available tests for disease-causing prions are incapable of detecting low concentrations and must be confirmed post-mortem. This technology enables rapid and economical detection of sub-lethal concentrations of prions by using recombinant protein (rPrP-sen) as a marker. A seeded sample polymerizes rPrP-sen, which is detected as an amplified indicator of prions in the sample. This assay does not require multiple amplification cycles unless a higher degree of sensitivity is required. This technology potentially may be combined with additional prion-detection technologies to further improve the sensitivity of the assay.
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within thirty (30) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404.
Any additional applications for a license in the field of use, filed in response to this notice, will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
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.
Open: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Closed: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD, December 5, 2014, 08:00 a.m. to December 5, 2014, 04:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to add an open session and agenda from December 5, 2014, 08:00 a.m. to December 5, 2014, 12:30 p.m. as follows below. The closed session commences immediately afterward.
Open: 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Closed: 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations, imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In
Comments must be submitted on or before January 20, 2015.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Linda S. Pressley Instructional Systems Specialist, Center for Domestic Preparedness, 256–231–0112 for additional information. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 212–4701 or email address:
The CDP is required by Congress to “identify, develop, test, and deliver training to State, local, and tribal emergency response providers, provide on-site and mobile training at the performance and management and planning levels, and facilitate the delivery of training by the training partners of the Department” pursuant to Section 1204 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 110–53, 121 Stat. 266, August 3, 2007 (codified at 6 U.S.C. 1102). The collection of this data will help facilitate that Congressional mandate.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet in person on December 4–5, 2014, in Arlington, Virginia. The meeting will be open to the public.
The TMAC will meet on Thursday, December 4, 2014, from 8:00
The meeting will be held in room 803 of FEMA's office located at 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, Virginia 20598. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must send an email to
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed in “For Further Information Contact:” below as soon as possible.
To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC, as listed in the
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
• Email: Address the email TO:
• Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472–3100.
Public comment periods will be held during the open portion of the meeting on December 4, 2014, from 11:15 a.m.–11:45 a.m., and on December 5, 2014, from 9:45 a.m.–10:15 a.m., and speakers are requested to limit their comments to no more than three minutes. The public comment period will not exceed thirty minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker by close of business on November 25, 2014.
Mark Crowell, Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street Arlington, VA 22202, telephone (202) 646–3432, and email
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
As required by the
In accordance with the
Further, in accordance with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
On February 26, 2014, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a final rule (79 FR 10685) revising the monetary thresholds for when FEMA will process an application using simplified procedures under its Public Assistance Program. FEMA based the revised thresholds on an analysis it completed pursuant to the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. The findings of the analysis were submitted in a Report to Congress on January 29, 2014. FEMA is seeking comment on the findings in this Report to inform any future revisions to the project thresholds.
Comments must be received by January 20, 2015.
Comments must be identified by docket ID FEMA–2014–0009 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
Liza Davis, Associate Chief Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202–646–4046,
You may submit your comments and material by the methods specified in the
FEMA's Public Assistance program provides grants to State, Tribal, and local governments, as well as eligible private nonprofit organizations, for debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged facilities after a Presidentially-declared emergency or major disaster.
FEMA is seeking comment on the findings that are included in its Report to Congress, “Determination on the Public Assistance Simplified Procedures Thresholds,” to inform possible future revisions to the maximum and minimum thresholds.
FEMA welcomes comments on all aspects of the report. In general, FEMA expects that comments will be most useful if accompanied by supportive data and a recommendation for future action. FEMA is particularly interested in responses to the following questions:
1. How will the revised thresholds impact your State, Tribe, jurisdiction, or community? For example, please consider how the revised thresholds might impact the administrative costs of processing grants, the timeliness of receiving recovery funds, and the ability to ensure proper use of Public Assistance grant funding. Please provide data to support your statement, if available.
If available please provide input on the following:
a. How does the process to administer and close out Public Assistance grants vary between large and small projects in your State, Tribe, and/or local jurisdiction? (i.e., for both large and small projects, how does your State, Tribe, and/or local jurisdiction manage grants, disburse funds, conduct final projects inspections, verify the completion of the proposed scope of work, close out the projects, or require any other procedures for closing out a project)?
b. For large projects, how much time is typically spent per request for disbursement of additional funds based on completed work?
c. Since small project grants can be awarded based on the estimates, will the increase in the maximum threshold save time for subgrantees and grantees? If so, will this time be saved from:
i. Reducing requests for additional funds for large projects as work progresses?
ii. The need to track and reconcile actual costs?
iii. Other savings?
d. Does your State, Tribe, or jurisdiction reconcile actual costs for both small and large projects regardless of Federal requirements?
e. What is the average amount of time spent on reconciling (if applicable and assuming the subgrantee is not requesting a net small project overrun) and closing a project, considering project amounts near the previous and current maximum thresholds, for example:
i. Between $40,000 and $68,500?
ii. Between $68,500 and $120,000?
iii. Between $120,000 and $200,000?
f. Will there be a reduction in the number of final site inspections for projects between $68,500 and $120,000?
g. What is the average amount of time spent on a final site inspection for a project between $68,500 and $120,000?
h. If the increased maximum threshold would decrease the number of final site inspections, will that create grantee and/or subgrantees cost savings on transportation, lodging, per diem, travel time and other associated final inspection costs? If so, what are the estimated savings?
i. Are there impacts to other processes and/or savings generated by the change in the maximum threshold for the grantees and/or subgrantees? If so, what are these impacts and savings?
j. Will the maximum threshold change cause challenges to the grantees and subgrantees? If available, please provide any solutions to the identified challenges.
k. What processes does your State, Tribe or jurisdiction have in place to alleviate waste, fraud and abuse?
l. As a grantee, does your State, Tribe, or jurisdiction perform audits on small projects? If so, can you estimate how much it costs to complete the audit?
m. Does your State, Tribe, or jurisdiction foresee or plan to change your policies, procedures, laws, or regulations in response to the new maximum threshold? For example:
i. Grantee/subgrantee cost shares for large or small projects (if so, can you estimate how much or by what percentage change)?
ii. Reconciliation for large or small projects?
iii. Audits for large or small projects?
iv. Additional consolidation of work on small projects?
2. How will the change to the minimum threshold impact your State, Tribe, jurisdiction, or community? For example, please consider how it might impact the administrative costs of processing grants, the timeliness of receiving recovery funds, and the ability to ensure proper use of Public Assistance grant funding. Please provide data to support your statement, if available.
a. How many projects between $1,000 and $3,000 would be consolidated into a single project worksheet over $3,000 based on a logical grouping of work (which is the current standard)? If not many, why?
b. Are there obstacles to project consolidation that FEMA needs to consider? If so, please provide solutions to the identified obstacles.
c. Is there a way to track the number of projects that will be consolidated? Would your State, Tribe, jurisdiction, or community be willing to submit data to support an estimate of the number of consolidated projects and/or participate in a survey to collect data?
d. Is there a way to track the number of projects that did not meet the minimum threshold and will not be consolidated? Would your State, Tribe, jurisdiction, or community be willing to submit data to support an estimate of the number of consolidated project and/or participate in a survey to collect data?
e. Will greater consolidation of projects based on a logical grouping of work under the minimum threshold save time in the closeout of a small project? For example, will closing one consolidated project worksheet save time compared to closing three separate project worksheets?
f. Does your State, Tribe, or jurisdiction foresee or plan to change your policies, procedures, laws, or regulations in response to the new minimum threshold? For example:
i. Training and policies for project consolidation and logical grouping.
ii. Change to disaster assistance minimum thresholds in your State, Tribe, or jurisdiction, if applicable.
3. Do you have other comments or recommendations related to this subject that you would like to share for FEMA's consideration?
42 U.S.C. 5189.
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 19, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 19, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
30-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 19, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with supplementary documents, or need additional information, please visit
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111–203, approved July 21, 2010, Sec 1496) appropriated $1billion to HUD to establish an Emergency Homeowner's Relief Fund, pursuant to section 107 of the Emergency Housing Act of 1975, that will provide emergency mortgage assistance to homeowners that are at risk of foreclosure due to involuntary unemployment or underemployment due to an adverse economic or medical condition. Accordingly, HUD is implementing the Emergency Homeowners Loan Program (EHLP) that is designed to offer a declining balance, deferred payment “bridge loan” (non-recourse, subordinate loan with zero interest) for up to $50,000 to assist eligible homeowners with payments of arrearages, including delinquent taxes and insurance. Additionally, EHLP may be used to assist eligible homeowners with up to 24 months of monthly payments on their mortgage principal, interest, mortgage insurance premiums, taxes, and hazard insurance. Assistance will not exceed $50,000 per eligible homeowner.
HUD will use two approaches to implement EHLP: (1) Provide allocations to States that currently have substantially similar programs to administer their mortgage relief funds directly; and (2) delegate key administrative functions to third party entities that will assist HUD with program implementation. The third party entities will be primarily responsible for application intake, eligibility screening, funds control, payment distribution, and note processing.
Homeowners' (borrowers') participation in the program is voluntary. However, to help determine eligibility for assistance borrowers must submit the required application information and loan documentation to demonstrate that they meet program eligibility guidelines to receive mortgage relief assistance through EHLP.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
Eligible public housing agencies (PHAs) (for HOPE VI Revitalization and Demolition) and eligible local units of government (for HOPE VI Main Street) interested in obtaining HOPE VI grants are required to submit applications to HUD, as explained in each program NOFA. The information collection conducted in the applications enables HUD to conduct a comprehensive, merit-based selection process in order to identify and select the applications to receive funding. With the use of HUD-prescribed forms, the information collection provides HUD with sufficient information to approve or disapprove applications.
Applicants that are awarded HOPE VI grants are required to report on a quarterly basis on the sources and uses of all amounts expended for revitalization, demolition, or Main Street activities. HOPE VI Revitalization grantees use a fully-automated, Internet-based process for the submission of quarterly reporting information. HUD reviews and evaluates the collected information and uses it as a primary tool with which to monitor the status of HOPE VI Revitalization projects and the HOPE VI Revitalization program.
Members of affected public: Public Housing Agencies.
Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:
For HOPE VI Revitalization Application: 30 respondents, once annually, 195.5 hours average per response results in a total annual reporting burden of 5,865.0 hours.
For HOPE VI Demolition Applications: 34 respondents, once annually, 40.25 hours average per response results in a total annual reporting burden of 1,368.50 hours.
For HOPE VI Main Street Applications: 15 respondents, once annually, 48.67 hours average per response results in a total annual reporting burden of 675.0 hours.
For HOPE VI Revitalization Quarterly Reporting: 207 respondents, 4 times annually, 20 hours average per response results in a total annual reporting burden of 16,560 hours.
Grand total: These information collections, along with other Non-NOFA information collection items required in connection with the HOPE VI program including budget updates, supportive services and relocation plans, and cost certificates result in an annual total reporting burden of 26,516.00 hours.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111–117, December 16, 2009), provided a total of $150 million in fiscal year 2010 to HUD for a Sustainable Communities Initiative to improve regional planning efforts that integrate housing and transportation decisions, and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning.
This information collection is necessary to fulfill the reporting requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development`s Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) Planning Grant Programs, which comprise of the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program, the Community Challenge Planning Grant Program, and the Capacity Building for Sustainable Communities Grant Program. All grant programs require progress reporting by grantees on a semi-annual basis (i.e., Twice per year: January 30th and July 30th). The grant program terms and conditions require the grantee to submit a semi-annual progress report which reflects activities undertaken, obstacles encountered and solutions achieved, and accomplishments. Progress reports that show progress of the program in meeting approved work plan goals, objectives are to be submitted.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
The annual CoC Registration comprises the first phase of the combined CoC Homeless Assistance information collection form. During this phase, HUD collects the contact information of the collaborative applicant for the CoC, and the HMIS Lead Agency as well as the geographic areas served by the CoC applicant. Additionally, CoCs approve their preliminary pro-rata need and affirm their annual renewal demand, and HUD collects information regarding the CoC's board structure and the capacity of the CoC to carry out the various activities outlined in the program regulations. The registration information is necessary to assist in the selection of project proposals submitted to HUD (by State and local governments, public housing authorities, and nonprofit organizations) for the awarded funds during the annual CoC competition because it provides vital information about the CoC applicants.
All collaborative applicants are required to register their CoCs in the e-snaps electronic grants management system prior to the opening of the CoC Homeless Assistance competition. The registration requirements include a basic description of the CoC's lead organization, contact information, and geographic area. The information to be collected by HUD will be used to determine eligibility for CoC Homeless Assistance and establish grant amounts. To determine the total amount a CoC may request for renewal funding, collaborative applicants will list their Continuum's programs on a Grant Inventory Worksheet (GIW) that will allow HUD to accurately assess individual project applications during the CoC Application process. The information from the GIW is essential for operation of the CoC competition. For the CoC, the GIW allows each CoC to see all the project grants side-by-side that will be eligible for competition in the annual competition. This then allows them to determine, in communication with HUD, the total amount of funding (the annual renewal demand or ARD) that their CoC has available in a given competition year, which then allows them to make informed planning decisions about which project grants they want to prioritize, reduce or eliminate in the actual CoC Homeless Assistance Program Application. In turn, the program details in the GIW allow HUD to conduct an accurate assessment of renewal project applications and to determine in the aggregate what the total renewal demand for all CoCs will
The optional board requirement questions in the registration forms are an important part of the registration process. To meet the performance goals established by statute, CoCs will need to significantly increase their capacity for strategy, planning, monitoring, and evaluation. In addition, the HEARTH Act and the 24 CFR part 578 allow for the development of United Funding Agencies (UFAs), a significant change to the structure of the CoC and the relationship between HUD and grantees. For the CoCs that seek UFA status, they must demonstrate that they have the operational capacity and a high functioning CoC Board that can serve as the sole manager of their projects, in order to qualify. With UFA established by statute and regulation, HUD needs as much information as possible regarding the baseline operational readiness of CoCs, and the few CoCs that may apply as a UFA will need to provide more information during the Registration process. As recently as the FY2013 competition, only 16 CoCs applied for UFA status, three were conditionally approved, and ultimately only two met the high standards of management and organizational capacity needed to serve this function. Providing all CoCs with the option of reporting their Board status will allow HUD to prepare for UFA applications and estimate how our program resources will need to be allocated over the next few years of program implementation.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of submission to OMB.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for approval for the revision of collection of information for the Indian Child Welfare Quarterly and Annual Report. The information collection is currently authorized by OMB Control Number 1076–0131, which expires November 30, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 19, 2014.
You may submit comments on the information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, by facsimile to (202) 395–5806 or you may send an email to:
Ms. Evangeline Campbell, (202) 513–7621. You may review the information collection request online at
The BIA is seeking to revise the information collection conducted under 25 CFR part 23, related to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). BIA collects information using a consolidated caseload form, which tribal ICWA program directors fill out. BIA uses the information to determine the extent of service needs in local Indian communities, assess ICWA program effectiveness, and provide date for the annual program budget justification. The aggregated report is not considered confidential. A response is required to obtain and/or retain a benefit.
The revision includes changes to the existing form, reducing which is now, Part A—Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Data, and adds a new section, Part B—Tribal Child Abuse Neglect Data. Part A—ICWA Data has been simplified, including fewer categories that were no longer considered useful for planning purposes, based on feedback received from BIA Regional staff. Part B—Tribal Child Abuse and Neglect Data is a new section. Part B only applies to tribes that operate child protection programs.
Copies of the forms are available on the Web site at
On September 8, 2014, BIA published a notice announcing the revision of this information collection and provided a 60-day comment period in the
The BIA requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The
Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.
It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the
Submission of this information by Indian tribes allows BIA to consolidate and review selected data on Indian child welfare cases. The data is useful on a local level, to the tribes and tribal entities that collect it, for case management purposes. The data are useful on a nationwide basis for planning and budget purposes. Response is required to obtain or retain a benefit.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
In order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), as lead agency in cooperation with the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe (Tribe), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other Federal agencies, intend to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will evaluate a proposed photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generation project on the Las Vegas Paiute Indian Reservation and a transmission line located on tribal lands, private lands and/or Federal lands administered and managed by BLM in Clark County, Nevada.
This notice announces the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify potential issues related to the EIS. It also announces that public scoping meetings will be held in Nevada to identify potential issues, alternatives, and mitigation to be considered in the EIS.
The date and location of the public scoping meeting will be published in the
You may mail, email, or hand carry written comments to either Mr. Paul Schlafly, Natural Resource Specialist, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Southern Paiute Agency, 180 North 200 East, Suite 111, P.O. Box 720, St. George, Utah 84770; telephone: (435) 674–9720; email:
The proposed Federal action, taken under 25 U.S.C. 415, is BIA's approval of a solar energy ground lease and associated agreements entered into by the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe with a subsidiary of First Solar, Inc. (First Solar) to provide for construction and operation of an up-to 100 megawatt (MW) alternating current solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity generation facility located entirely on the Las Vegas Paiute Snow Mountain Reservation and specifically on lands held in trust by the United States for the Tribe. The Project would interconnect to an adjacent substation via a short 138 kilovolt or 230 kilovolt (kV) line that may be located on Tribal lands, private lands and/or Federal lands administered and managed by BLM. First Solar has accordingly requested that the BIA and BLM additionally approve right-of-ways (ROWs) authorizing the construction and operation of the transmission line. Together, the proposed solar energy facility, transmission line, and other associated facilities will make up the proposed Snow Mountain Solar Project (Project).
The Project would be located in Township 18 South, Range 59 East, Sections 34, 35, and 36 Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada, and access to the Project would be provided by U.S. Highway 95, Paiute Drive, and/or an upgrade to an existing road that crosses next to the proposed Project site. The generation facility would generate electricity using First Solar's solar PV panels. Also included would be inverters, a collection system, an on-site substation to step-up the voltage to
Construction of the Project is expected to take approximately 12 to 15 months. First Solar is expected to operate the energy facility for 30 years, with two options to renew the lease for an additional 10 years, if mutually acceptable to the Tribe and First Solar. The Project is expected to be built in one phase of up to 100 MW, per the demand of potential off-takers or utilities. During construction, the PV panels will be placed on top of fixed-tilt and/or single-axis tracking mounting systems that are set on steel posts embedded in the ground. Other foundation design techniques may be used depending on the site topography and conditions. No water will be used to generate electricity during operations. Water will be needed during construction for dust control and a minimal amount will be needed during operations for administrative and sanitary water use on-site. The water supply required for the Project would be leased from the Tribe and the EIS will consider the impacts of alternative sources and delivery methods.
The purposes of the proposed actions are to: (1) Help to provide long-term, diverse, and viable economic revenue base and job opportunities for the Tribe; (2) help Nevada and neighboring States to meet their State renewable energy needs; and (3) allow the Tribe, in partnership with First Solar, to optimize the use of the lease site while maximizing the potential economic benefit to the Tribe.
The BIA will prepare the EIS in cooperation with the Tribe, BLM, and possibly the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Defense (DOD). In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will provide input on the analysis. The resulting EIS will aim to: (1) Provide agency decision makers, the Tribe, and the general public with a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of the proposed Project and alternatives on the Reservation; (2) describe the cumulative impacts of increased development on the Reservation; and (3) identify and propose mitigation measures that would minimize or prevent significant adverse impacts. Consistent with these objectives, the EIS will analyze the proposed Project and appurtenant features, viable alternatives including other interconnection options, modified footprint alternatives, alternate routing for Project ROWs, and the No Action alternative. Other alternatives may be identified in response to issues raised during the scoping process.
The EIS will provide a framework for BIA and BLM to make determinations and to decide whether to take the aforementioned Federal actions. In addition, BIA will use and coordinate the NEPA commenting process to satisfy its obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470f) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with policy and tribal concerns will be given due consideration, including impacts on Indian trust assets. Other Federal agencies may rely on the EIS to make decisions under their authority and the Tribe may also use the EIS to make decisions. The USFWS will review the EIS for consistency with the Endangered Species Act, as amended, and other implementing acts, and may rely on the EIS to support its decisions and opinions regarding the Project's impact on federally listed species.
Issues to be covered during the scoping process may include, but would not be limited to, Project impacts on air quality, geology and soils, surface and groundwater resources, biological resources, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, socioeconomic conditions, land use, aesthetics, environmental justice, and Indian trust resources. In addition to those already identified above, other Federal, State, and local agencies, along with other stakeholders that may be interested or affected by the BIA's decision on the proposed Project, are invited to participate in the scoping process.
Please include your name, return address, and the caption “EIS, Snow Mountain Solar Project,” on the first page of any written comments. You may also submit comments at the public scoping meeting.
A public scoping meeting will be held on the Reservation to further describe the Project and identify potential issues and alternatives to be considered in the EIS. The date of the public scoping meeting will be included in notices to be posted in the
Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the mailing address shown in the
This notice is published in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7 of the Council of Environmental Quality regulations and 43 CFR 46.235 of the Department of the Interior Regulations implementing the procedural requirements of the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact taking effect.
This notice publishes the Class III Gaming Compact between the Karuk Tribe and the State of California taking effect.
Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219–4066.
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100–497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting Notice.
As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1–16), the National Park Service (NPS) is hereby giving notice that the Cape Krusenstern National Monument Subsistence Resource Commission (SRC), Kobuk Valley National Park SRC, and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park SRC will hold meetings to develop and continue work on NPS subsistence program recommendations, and other related regulatory proposals and resource management issues. The NPS SRC program is authorized under Section 808 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3118), Title VIII.
Teleconference participants must call the Cape Krusenstern National Monument office at (907) 442–3890 by December 1, 2014, prior to the meeting to receive teleconference passcode information.
For more detailed information regarding the Cape Krusenstern National Monument SRC or Kobuk Valley National Park SRC meetings, or if you are interested in applying for SRC membership, contact Frank Hays, Designated Federal Official and Superintendent, at (907) 442–3890, email
For more detailed information regarding the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park SRC meeting/teleconference, or if you are interested in applying for SRC membership, contact Rick Obernesser, Designated Federal Official and Superintendent, at (907) 822–3182, email
The agenda may change to accommodate SRC business. The proposed meeting agenda for each meeting includes the following:
SRC meeting locations and dates may change based on inclement weather or exceptional circumstances. If the meeting date and location are changed, the Superintendent will issue a press release and use local newspapers and radio stations to announce the rescheduled meeting.
These meetings are open to the public and will have time allocated for public testimony. The public is welcome to present written or oral comments to the SRC. The meetings will be recorded and meeting minutes will be available upon request from the Superintendent for public inspection approximately six weeks after the meeting. Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Reclamation has made available for public review and comment the Central Valley Project (CVP) Municipal and Industrial Water Shortage Policy (M&I WSP) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Draft EIS addresses updating the CVP M&I WSP and implementation guidelines. The CVP M&I WSP would be used by Reclamation to: (1) Define water shortage terms and conditions for applicable CVP M&I water service contractors, as appropriate; (2) establish CVP water supply levels that, together with the M&I water service contractors' drought water conservation measures and other water supplies, would assist the M&I water service contractors in their efforts to protect public health and safety during severe or continuing droughts; and (3) provide information to M&I water service contractors for their use in water supply planning and development of drought contingency plans.
Send written comments on the Draft EIS on or before January 12, 2015.
Four meetings to receive oral or written comments will be held on the following dates:
• Monday, December 8, 2014, 2–4 p.m., Sacramento, California.
• Wednesday, December 10, 2014, 6–8 p.m., Willows, California.
• Tuesday, December 16, 2014, 6–8 p.m., Fresno, California.
• Wednesday, December 17, 2014, 6–8 p.m., Oakland, California.
Send written comments or requests for copies to Mr. Tim Rust, Bureau of Reclamation, Resources Management Division, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825, or via email to
The meeting locations are:
• Sacramento—Sacramento Inn and Conference Center, 1401 Arden Way, Sacramento, California 95825.
• Willows—Veteran's Memorial Hall, 525 W. Sycamore Street, Willows, California 95988.
• Fresno—Piccadilly Inn Airport, 5113 E. McKinley Avenue, Fresno, California 93727.
• Oakland—Oakland Courtyard Airport, 350 Hegenberger Road, Oakland, California 94621.
To request a compact disc of the Draft EIS, please contact Mr. Tim Rust as indicated above, or call (916) 978–5516. The Draft EIS may be viewed at Reclamation's Web site at
Mr. Tim Rust, Program Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, via email at
The CVP is operated under Federal statutes authorizing the CVP, and by the terms and conditions of water rights acquired pursuant to California law. During any year, constraints may occur on the availability of CVP water for M&I water service contractors. The cause of the water shortage may be drought, unavoidable causes, or restricted operations resulting from legal and environmental obligations or mandates. Those legal and environmental obligations include, but are not limited to, the Endangered Species Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), and conditions imposed on CVP's water rights by the California State Water Resources Control Board. The 2001 draft CVP M&I WSP, as modified by Alternative 1 B of the 2005 draft environmental assessment, establishes the terms and conditions regarding the constraints on availability of water supply for the CVP M&I water service contracts.
Allocation of CVP water supplies for any given water year is based upon forecasted reservoir inflows and Central Valley hydrologic conditions, amounts of storage in CVP reservoirs, regulatory requirements, and management of Section 3406(b)(2) resources and refuge water supplies in accordance with CVPIA. In some cases, M&I allocations in water shortage years may differ between CVP divisions due to regional CVP water supply availability, system capacity, or other operational constraints.
The purpose of the update to the 2001 CVP M&I WSP, as modified by Alternative 1 B of the 2005 draft environmental assessment, is to provide detailed, clear, and objective guidelines for the distribution of CVP water supplies during water shortage conditions, thereby allowing CVP water users to know when, and by how much, water deliveries may be reduced in drought and other low water supply conditions.
The increased level of clarity and understanding that will be provided by the update to the 2001 draft CVP M&I WSP is needed by water managers and the entities that receive CVP water to better plan for and manage available CVP water supplies, and to better integrate the use of CVP water with other available non-CVP water supplies. The update to the 2001 draft CVP M&I WSP is also needed to clarify certain terms and conditions with regard to its applicability and implementation. The proposed action is the adoption of an updated CVP M&I WSP and its implementation guidelines.
The EIS analyzes five alternative actions. Alternative 1 is No Action, and represents the current 2001 draft CVP M&I WSP, as modified by Alternative 1 B of the 2005 Environmental Assessment, which is currently guiding Reclamation's allocation of water to agricultural and M&I water service contractors during water shortage years. Alternative 2, Equal Agricultural and M&I Allocation, provides M&I and agricultural water service contractors with equal allocation percentages during water shortage conditions. Alternative 3, Full M&I Allocation Preference, provides M&I contractors with 100 percent of their contract allocation until CVP supplies are not available to meet those demands, while agricultural water service contractor deliveries are reduced as needed. Alternative 4, Updated M&I WSP, modifies Alternative 1 to provide a different definition of unconstrained years used in calculating historical use, and provides higher level of deliveries to M&I water service contractors by attempting to provide minimum public health and safety (PH&S) unmet need amounts without a guarantee. Alternative 5, M&I Contractor Suggested WSP, is similar to Alternative 4 but attempts to meet PH&S unmet need deliveries through modification of operational priorities.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available for public review at the following locations:
1. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, Regional Library, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.
2. Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street
If special assistance is required to participate in the public meeting, please contact Mr. Louis Moore at (916) 978–5106, or via email at
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.
National Institute of Justice.
Notice.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) announces publication of
Brian Montgomery, by telephone at (202) 353–9786 [Note: this is not a toll-free telephone number], or by email at
National Institute of Justice, DOJ.
Notice.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is requesting manufacturers and developers of firearms that incorporate advanced safety technologies or firearms accessories utilizing advanced safety technologies that are intended to modify firearms to submit an expression of interest in the forthcoming Gun Safety Technology Challenge (“Challenge”) and provide information about their products or technology. Through the Challenge, NIJ will seek an objective demonstration through testing and evaluation of the reliability of firearms and firearms accessories available today that are typically known by various terms such as smart guns, user-authorized handguns, childproof guns, and personalized firearms. These firearms or firearms accessories can be understood to utilize integrated components that exclusively permit an authorized user or set of users to operate or fire the gun and automatically deactivate it under a set of specific circumstances, reducing the chances of accidental or purposeful use by an unauthorized
Manufacturers or developers wishing to submit an expression of interest and information to the National Institute of Justice must do so by 5 p.m. Eastern Time January 5, 2015, as instructed below.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) was tasked with supporting the President's Plan to Reduce Gun Violence, specifically:
“The President is directing the Attorney General to work with technology experts to review existing and emerging gun safety technologies, and to issue a report on the availability and use of those technologies. In addition, the Administration will issue a challenge to the private sector to develop innovative and cost-effective gun safety technology and provide prizes for those technologies that are proven to be reliable and effective.”
In support of this Executive action, NIJ has conducted a technology assessment and market survey of existing and emerging gun safety technologies that would be of interest to the law enforcement and criminal justice communities and others with an interest in gun safety and advanced firearm technology. A report published in June 2013 by NIJ entitled
Following the report, NIJ now seeks an objective demonstration of the reliability of firearms available today with advanced gun safety technology integrated into the firearm through a forthcoming Gun Safety Technology Challenge (“Challenge”). The reliability of firearms with integrated advanced safety technologies has been cited as a concern regarding the potential performance and user acceptance of products that may incorporate such technologies, as discussed in the report. It is anticipated that the results of the Challenge will provide a basis to improve the general understanding of whether the addition of a smart gun technology does or does not significantly reduce the reliability of the firearm system compared to existing firearms. It is believed that this Challenge will be the first effort to apply a methodology to provide a rigorous and scientific assessment of the technical performance characteristics of these types of firearms.
Manufacturers and developers of “smart guns” are encouraged to respond to this notice to help determine the number of firearm products that are at a commercial or pre-commercial level of maturity that could reasonably be considered safe to carry out testing with live ammunition. Qualified interested parties will be able to submit at a later time their products for testing and evaluation by a third-party testing entity capable of assessing the performance characteristics of firearms through the Challenge. NIJ has partnered with the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) to perform firearm testing and evaluation. While response to this notice is not a prerequisite for participation in the forthcoming Challenge, the information provided here would permit NIJ and ATC to better assess whether the products or technologies are viable from a testing perspective. The types of firearms that can reasonably be expected to be within the scope of the Challenge include pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns, or accessories that can modify those types of firearms.
The proposed testing and evaluation in the forthcoming Challenge will notionally proceed in an escalated manner in three stages. Stage 1 will be an information review. Participants will deliver a white paper describing their product or technology and will be encouraged to provide any available test data to substantiate claims regarding performance or reliability. Stage 2 will involve single product testing. Participants will deliver two firearms or firearm accessories with integrated gun safety technology for initial testing to confirm that the product performs at a minimum performance level. Testing would be limited to a thorough inspection and tests tending toward more light duty real-world use. Participants will need to provide a safety assessment report to ensure that their products are safe for testing personnel to handle and operate. Stage 3 will involve expanded product testing. Participants will deliver additional units for testing to boost the sample size. This stage will be reserved for mature products that are demonstrated to perform at a minimum performance level determined by Stage 2 testing with Stage 3 tests tending toward more heavy duty real-world use. More rounds of ammunition will be used per unit tested with additional environmental tests to characterize functionality and durability under different conditions.
The test procedures used in the Challenge will be selected or designed to better understand the impact of smart gun technology on the reliability of the firearm, which may include different authentication technologies like radio frequency identification and fingerprint sensors. Test procedures shall be applicable to any firearm or firearm accessory eligible for entry into the Challenge, which will be informed in part by the response to this notice. Failure definitions and scoring criteria that can be used to draw conclusions regarding the performance of the participating firearms or firearms accessories will be developed according to established guidelines already in use for reliability applications in U.S. Army and Joint Service systems. It is also anticipated that manufacturers or developers of “smart guns” will be invited at a later time to participate in a voluntary informational workshop as a part of the Challenge. Response to this notice is not a prerequisite for participation in the forthcoming Challenge.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize the preservation of records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and the destruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. Notice is published for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).
Requests for copies must be received in writing on or before December 19, 2014. Once the appraisal of the records is completed, NARA will send a copy of the schedule. NARA staff usually prepare appraisal memorandums that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. These, too, may be requested and will be provided once the appraisal is completed. Requesters will be given 30 days to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Management Services (ACNR) using one of the following means:
Requesters must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency which submitted the schedule, and must provide a mailing address. Those who desire appraisal reports should so indicate in their request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, Records Management Services (ACNR), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740–6001. Telephone: 301–837–1799. Email:
Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless specified otherwise. An item in a schedule is media neutral when the disposition instructions may be applied to records regardless of the medium in which the records are created and maintained. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.
Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.
1. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (DAA–0462–2012–0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track institutions participating in the child nutrition program.
2. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA–AU–2014–0028, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains records relating to equipment failures and corrective actions.
3. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA–AU–2014–0030, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains equipment testing data used for acquisition purposes.
4. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA–AU–2014–0031, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system that contains equipment life cycle support data to include inventories, maintenance schedules, and failure review actions.
5. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA–AU–2014–0032, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains ammunition tracking data.
6. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA–AU–2014–0034, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to track laundry items and cost reports.
7. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau (DAA–0029–2014–0004, 5 items, 2 temporary items). Records of the Survey of Income Program Participation, including unedited and edited internal data files. Proposed for permanent retention are public use microdata files, reports and working papers, and survey documentation.
8. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense (DAA–0330–2013–0014, 13 items, 6 temporary items). Still photographs, motion pictures, and other audio and visual records lacking research or other value received by the Defense Imagery Management Operations Center. Proposed for permanent retention are audio and visual records, including finding aids, that provide significant documentation of the department, including its combat and non-combat activities.
9. Department of Defense, Defense Commissary Agency (DAA–0506–2014–0002, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Preliminary notifications of adverse incidents such as thefts or accidents at commissaries and other agency facilities.
10. Department of Defense, Defense Commissary Agency (DAA–0506–2014–0003, 11 items, 10 temporary items). Records relating to agency process improvement, initiatives, innovation, performance management, change management, and strategic planning. Proposed for permanent retention are agency strategic plans.
11. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DAA–0361–2013–0001, 9 items, 9 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system that contains records relating to all aspects of the supply chain for military materiel.
12. Department of Defense, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (DAA–0537–2014–0001, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Working case files of the Ombudsman Office. Proposed for permanent retention are program records and annual reports.
13. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (DAA–0440–2013–0012, 8 items, 8 temporary items). Records related to safety, occupational health, and environmental administrative procedures, including complaints, reports, and environmental impact statements.
14. Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate (DAA–0563–2013–0008, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Master files and outputs of an electronic information system which performs information technology infrastructure intrusion detection, analysis, and prevention.
15. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (DAA–0560–2013–0005, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system used to track employee incidents and provide assistance for personal or work-related crises.
16. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA–0566–2014–0004, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Forms used to track and update deportation cases created prior to 2002.
17. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA–0566–2015–0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Logs detailing the inventorying, transfer, and destruction of secure forms such as naturalization and citizenship certificates.
18. Department of Justice, Agency-wide (DAA–0060–2014–0004, 2 items, 2 temporary items). General correspondence from the public not related to specific cases or actions.
19. Department of Justice, Agency-wide (DAA–0060–2014–0005, 2 items, 2
20. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (DAA–0065–2013–0004, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Master file of an electronic information system used to track requests and approvals for disseminating information to foreign governments, productivity reports on request processing, and information disseminated.
21. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (DAA–0237–2014–0002, 8 items, 5 temporary items). Comprehensive schedule covering various administrative records relating to agency legal opinion, decision, and litigation activity. Proposed for permanent retention are substantive opinion, litigation, and hearing case files.
22. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (DAA–0237–2014–0003, 9 items, 6 temporary items). Comprehensive schedule covering various administrative records relating to agency policies, regulations, and rule making. Proposed for permanent retention are substantive policy, regulation, and rule making case files.
23. Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (N1–559–12–1, 14 items, 14 temporary items). Records of the Regulatory Policy and Programs Division, including final rules and working papers, correspondence, and regulatory analysis records.
24. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA–0058–2015–0002, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Examination program records for competency tests of tax professionals.
25. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Agency-wide (DAA–0180–2013–0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to collect visitor information.
26. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Agency-wide (DAA–0180–2013–0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of the debt collection program to include case files, court judgements, and correspondence.
27. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency-wide (DAA–0412–2013–0006, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Planning and resource allocation records, including agency program plans review files, regional guidance reports and revisions, and related records. Proposed for permanent retention are historically significant records including management studies, organizational plans, program development files, program policy planning files, and annual headquarters and regional guidance plans.
28. Government Accountability Office, Agency-wide (DAA–0411–2015–0001, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records related to the investigation of fraud including case files, referrals, and investigation tracking records.
29. Library of Congress, Agency-wide (DAA–0297–2014–0012, 16 items, 9 temporary items). Records relating to agency involvement in cultural activities and events, such as press clippings and biographies. Proposed for permanent retention are records documenting the public face of the agency including executive speech files, news releases, publications, motion pictures, still photography, and posters.
30. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (DAA–GRS–2014–0004, 4 items, 4 temporary items). General Records Schedule for records of employee separation program management, individual separation case files, and capture of employee knowledge prior to departure.
31. Presidio Trust, Agency-wide (DAA–0556–2014–0003, 5 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to resource and land management including routine project, correspondence, and administrative files. Proposed for permanent retention are final reports, significant correspondence, and policy and procedure records related to environmental remediation and cultural resource management.
32. Presidio Trust, Agency-wide (DAA–0556–2014–0004, 9 items, 5 temporary items). Records related to the rehabilitation and maintenance of buildings including project administration, operational and equipment manuals, easement records, and routine correspondence. Proposed for permanent retention are building rehabilitation project maps, architectural plans, and construction and restoration reports.
33. Presidio Trust, Agency-wide (DAA–0556–2014–0005, 6 items, 4 temporary items). Records relating to residential and commercial services including lease agreements and responses to commercial services solicitations. Proposed for permanent retention are policy and procedure records and non-residential long-term leases of 50 years or more that rendered permanent changes to the structure or landscape.
34. Presidio Trust, Agency-wide (DAA–0556–2014–0006, 10 items, 7 temporary items). Records that document planning, organizing, staffing, directing, internal/external reporting, and controlling of agency activities that occur routinely. Proposed for permanent retention are annual reports to Congress, strategic plans, and the Executive Director's orders, policy records, and email.
35. Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, Agency-wide (DAA–0220–2014–0016, 11 items, 8 temporary items). Investigative case files, correspondence, program files, and other records relating to the review of management of Federal appropriations. Proposed for permanent retention are final reports and significant program files.
36. Securities and Exchange Commission, Agency-wide (DAA–0266–2013–0004, 7 items, 7 temporary items). Records relating to routine monitoring of companies.
37. Securities and Exchange Commission, Agency-wide (DAA–0266–2014–0009, 7 items, 7 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system used to manage tips, complaints, and referrals of possible securities violations.
38. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Credit Ratings (DAA–0266–2014–0005, 13 items, 9 temporary items). Records related to examinations and monitoring of credit reporting organizations, including internal reports, memorandums, and correspondence. Proposed for permanent retention are routine reporting records from credit reporting organizations, final reports, and rulemaking records.
39. United States Institute of Peace, Agency-wide (DAA–0573–2013–0001, 6 items, 2 temporary items). Records related to facility construction, including working copies of building plans and non-significant subject files. Proposed for permanent retention are full sets of building plans, design drawings and simulations, and significant subject files.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, November 20, 2014.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314–3428
Open.
12:00 p.m.
12:15 p.m., Thursday, November 20, 2014.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.
Closed.
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703–518–6304.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95–541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by December 19, 2014. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Li Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address or
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
ASPA entry. Applicant desires to collect sediment samples from lakes, ephemeral ponds, and terrestrial slopes in the ASPAS, to assess the presence and potential origin of anthropogenic chemicals in lake and ephemeral pond sediments. Up to 54 samples of lake sediment, 54–108 samples of ephemeral pond sediment, and 54 samples of terrestrial sediment would be taken. Sediment disturbance would be limited to 15x15cm and 2.5cm in depth for lake and dry sediments. If ice cover allows traversing across a lake, samples taken through ice holes would be 30cm deep and 6cm in diameter.
King George Island ASPAs 132 (Potter Peninsula), 150 (Ardley Island), and 171 (Narebski Point, Barton Peninsula).
February 1, 2015–March 1, 2016.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment about our intention to request the OMB's approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below. We are required to publish this notice in the
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by January 20, 2015, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The public may examine and have copied for a fee publicly-available documents, including the draft supporting statement, at the NRC's Public Document Room, Room O–1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC's Web site:
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Comments submitted should reference Docket No. NRC–2014–0247. You may submit your comments by any of the following methods: Electronic comments go to
Questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell (T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, by telephone at 301–415–6258, or by email to
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an additional International Business Reply Service negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
On November 12, 2014, the Postal Service filed notice that it has entered into an additional International Business Reply Service (IBRS 3) negotiated service agreement (Agreement).
To support its Notice, the Postal Service filed a copy of the Agreement, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015–10 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than November 20, 2014. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Pamela A. Thompson to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015–10 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Pamela A. Thompson is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than November 20, 2014.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an addition of Global Expedited Package Services 3 to the competitive product list. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
On November 12, 2014, the Postal Service filed notice that it has entered
To support its Notice, the Postal Service filed a copy of the Agreement, a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the product, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers.
The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015–9 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than November 20, 2014. The public portions of the filing can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Curtis E. Kidd to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2015–9 for consideration of the matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E. Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than November 20, 2014.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 515A.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend MIAX Rule 515A regarding PRIME to allow orders of any size to initiate a PRIME Auction on MIAX at a price which is at or better than the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”). The proposed change is based on recent filings of other competing exchanges.
Rule 515A provides that a Member (the “Initiating Member”) may initiate an Auction provided that: (i) If the Agency Order is for 50 standard option contracts or 500 mini-option contracts or more, the Initiating Member must stop the entire Agency Order as principal or with a solicited order at the better of the NBBO or the Agency Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order); or (ii) if the Agency Order is for less than 50 standard option contracts or 500 mini-option contracts, the Initiating Member must stop the entire Agency Order as principal or with a solicited order at the better of (A) the NBBO price improved by a $0.01 increment; or (B) the Agency Order's limit price (if the order is a limit order).
The Exchange proposes to discontinue the disparate treatment for Agency Orders less than 50 contracts or 500 mini-option contracts. As a result, all Agency Orders regardless of their size will be treated the same as Agency Orders that are 50 standard option contracts or 500 mini-option contracts or more in current Rule 515A(a)(1)(ii). Similarly, for auto-match submissions, the Exchange will discontinue the requirement that Agency Orders for less
The following examples show how allocations will be allocated at the conclusion of the Prime Auction with the proposed changes.
Initiating Member's Contra Order selling 100 contracts with a single stop price of $1.20
RFR sent identifying the option, side and size, with initiating price of $1.20
(Auction Starts)
• @110 milliseconds MM1 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 5 at $1.17
• @230 milliseconds MM4 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 100 at $1.20
• @450 milliseconds MM3 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 40 at $1.22
• 500 milliseconds (Auction Ends)
Under this scenario the Agency Order would be executed as follows:
1. 5 contracts trade with MM1 @$1.17
2. 40 contracts trade with the Initiating Member's Contra Order @$1.20 (This satisfies their 40% participation guarantee)
3. 55 contracts trade with MM4 @$1.20
Initiating Member's Contra Order selling 30 contracts with a single stop price of $1.20
RFR sent identifying the option, side and size, with initiating price of $1.20
(Auction Starts)
• @110 milliseconds MM1 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 5 at $1.17
• @230 milliseconds MM4 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 5 at $1.18
• @450 milliseconds MM3 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 10 at $1.20
• 500 milliseconds (Auction Ends)
Under this scenario the Agency Order would be executed as follows:
1. 5 contracts trade with MM1 @$1.17
2. 5 contracts trade with MM4 @$1.18
3. 12 contracts trade with the Initiating Member's Contra Order @$1.20 (This satisfies their 40% participation guarantee)
4. 8 contracts trade with MM3 @$1.20 (This fills the entire Agency Order)
• @ 150 milliseconds MM2 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 5 at $1.17
• @ 230 milliseconds MM4 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 10 at $1.18
• @ 450 milliseconds MM3 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 40 at $1.20
• 500 milliseconds (Auction Ends)
Under this scenario the Agency Order would be executed as follows:
1. 5 contracts trade with MM2 @ $1.17
2. 5 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.17 (due to auto-match)
3. 10 contracts trade with MM4 @ $1.18
4. 10 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.18 (due to auto-match)
5. 8 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.20 (due to auto-match of 40% of the remainder of the order participation guarantee)
6. 12 contracts trade with MM3 @ $1.20 (This fills the entire Agency Order)
• @ 150 milliseconds MM2 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 5 at $1.17
• @ 230 milliseconds MM4 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 5 at $1.18
• @ 450 milliseconds MM3 response received, AOC eQuote to Sell 30 at $1.20
• 500 milliseconds (Auction Ends)
Under this scenario the Agency Order would be executed as follows:
1. 5 contracts trade with MM2 @ $1.17
2. 5 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.17 (due to auto-match)
3. 5 contracts trade with MM4 @ $1.18
4. 5 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.18 (due to auto-match)
5. 4 contracts trade with Contra Order @ $1.20 (due to auto-match of 40% of the remainder of the order participation guarantee)
6. 6 contracts trade with MM3 @ $1.20 (This fills the entire Agency Order)
While the removal of the requirement that Agency Orders for less than 50 contracts or 500 mini-option contracts to be $0.01 increment or better than the NBBO, removes the guarantee of price improvement in a limited instance, specifically when a PRIME Order is for fewer than 50 contracts and MIAX is already present at the NBBO at the commencement of the Auction, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will benefit customers because it will encourage the entry of more orders into PRIME, thus it is more likely that such orders may receive price improvement. Similar price improvement mechanisms on the ISE, BOX, and PHLX do not guarantee price improvement over the NBBO today. The BOX PIP mechanism and PHLX PIXL allow orders of any size to be stopped at the NBBO or better which also does not guarantee price improvement.
The Exchange believes using the same exact allocation method, as it does today for Agency Orders of 50 contracts or 500 mini-options or greater, is a fair distribution because the Contra-side Order provides significant value to the market. The Initiating Member guarantees the Agency Order the opportunity for price improvement, and is subject to market risk while the order is exposed to other market participants. The Initiating Member may not change or cancel its order once the PRIME Auction commences. Other market participants are free to modify or cancel their quotes and orders at any time during the auction. The Exchange believes that the Initiating Member provides an important role in facilitating the price improvement opportunity for market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will attract new order flow that might not currently be afforded any price improvement opportunity. Moreover, the Exchange notes that other competing options exchanges currently have rules that allow it [sic] to commence its [sic] price improvement auction, at a price equal to the NBBO.
The Exchange believes that because there is no rational need for volume differentiation, and as there is a competitive disadvantage to the Exchange in continuing differentiation, it is appropriate to discontinue the requirement that Agency Orders for less than 50 contracts or 500 mini-option contracts to be $0.01 increment or better than the NBBO and thereby simplify the way PRIME operates.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the proposed changes to the size requirements subject to a Pilot Program ending July 18, 2015, pursuant to which the Exchange will periodically submit reports based on the comprehensive list of the data that the Exchange represented that it will collect in order to aid the Commission in its evaluation of the PRIME that incorporates the changes proposed.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposal will result in more orders of less than 50 contracts being executed in PRIME, thus providing an increased probability of price improvement for small orders. By removing the requirement as proposed, market participants would be incentivized to introduce more customer orders to PRIME for the opportunity to receive price improvement. Furthermore, Priority Customers will continue to have priority at each price level in accordance with Rule 515A(a)(2)(iii). In particular, the Exchange believes that using the same allocation process as is used today for Agency Orders of 50 contracts or greater, is fair and equitable because of the value the Initiating Member brings to the market place. Specifically, by stopping the Agency Order at or better than the NBBO, the Initiating Member facilitates a process that protects investors and is in the public interest by providing an opportunity for price improvement. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is appropriate in the price improvement auctions are widely recognized by market participants as invaluable, both as a tool to access liquidity, and a mechanism to help meet their best execution obligations. The proposed rule change will further the ability of market participants to carry out these strategies. Finally, as noted above, the proposed changes are a competitive response to how price improvement auctions on other exchanges currently operate and with this proposal, the Exchange will be on a more equal footing to compete with other exchanges for orders to be executed in the PRIME.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposal to amend its rules regarding the start price of a PRIME Auction will not impose a burden on competition because it will increase the number of orders that may be executed in the PRIME and thereby receive price improvement opportunities that were not previously available to them. The PRIME Auction is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner intended to be beneficial to investors seeking to effect option orders with an opportunity to access additional liquidity and receive price improvement. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues who offer similar functionality. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Auctions are pro-competitive by providing market participants with functionality that is similar to that of other options exchanges.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to add fees for the NYSE ArcaBook for Arca Options Complex feed, operative on November 1, 2014. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange offers six NYSE Arca Options real-time options market data products: ArcaBook for Arca Options—Trades, ArcaBook for Arca Options—Top of Book, ArcaBook for Arca Options—Depth of Book, ArcaBook for Arca Options—Complex, ArcaBook for Arca Options—Series Status, and ArcaBook for Arca Options—Order Imbalance (collectively, “Arca Options Products”).
Starting on May 1, 2014, the Exchange began offering one of the six feeds, ArcaBook for Arca Options—Complex, on a standalone basis without charge from May 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014.
The Exchange does not propose to make any other changes to the fees for Arca Options Products.
The Exchange proposes a change to the Market Data Fee Schedule regarding non-display use fees. Specifically, with respect to the three categories of, and fees applicable to, market data recipients for non-display use, the Exchange proposes to describe the three categories in the Market Data Fee Schedule.
In September 2014, the Exchange revised the fees for non-display use of and added fees for non-display use of NYSE ArcaBook for Arca Options.
The Exchange is proposing to amend the Market Data Fee Schedule to add the descriptions of the three categories, as set forth above, as a footnote to the Market Data Fee Schedule. Because there will now be multiple footnotes to the Market Data Fee Schedule, the Exchange proposes non-substantive edits to change the existing footnote references from asterisks to numbers.
The Exchange does not propose to make any other changes to the fees for Arca Options Products.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because it would allow vendors and subscribers to pay the standalone fees associated with the one product rather than payment of the higher fees associated with all six Arca Options Products. In this regard, the Exchange notes that some vendors of, and subscribers, to the Arca Options Products currently utilize only ArcaBook for Arca Options—Complex. The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the same levels of fees would be charged to similar types of users of the same market data products.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because the proposed fees would be comparable to the fees that other option markets charge for comparable market data products. For example, CBOE charges, for its “Complex Order Book Feed,” a Distributor Fee of $3,000 per month, a Professional User Fee of $25 per month and a Non-Professional User Fee of $1 per month.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable for the proposed Non-Display Fee for ArcaBook for Arca Options—Complex to be lower than the fee for non-display use for all six Arca Options Products (
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable for the proposed Non-Professional User Fee to be the same as the existing fee for all six Arca Options Products (
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable not to propose a Non-Professional User Fee Cap at this time because such a cap is not anticipated to encourage greater subscription to or distribution of ArcaBook for Arca Options—Complex. The absence of a Non-Professional User Fee Cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because each Redistributor would be charged the same amount for each additional Non-Professional User that subscribes to ArcaBook for Arca Options—Complex, regardless of how many Non-Professional Users to which the Redistributor makes ArcaBook for Arca Options—Complex available.
The Exchange also notes that purchasing Arca Options Products is entirely optional. Firms are not required to purchase them and have a wide variety of alternative options market data products from which to choose. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make these proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees proposed in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the relevant statutory standards.
As the
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange believes that adding the description of the three categories of data recipients for non-display use to the Market Data Fee Schedule would remove impediments to and help perfect a free and open market by providing greater transparency for the Exchange's customers regarding the category descriptions that have been previously filed with the Commission and are applicable to the existing Market Data Fee Schedule.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to price its proprietary data products is constrained by actual competition for the sale of proprietary data products, the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
Moreover, competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary options data products and therefore constrain markets from overpricing proprietary options market data. Broker-dealers send their order flow to multiple venues, rather than providing them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive constraint. Options markets, similar to the equities markets, are highly fragmented.
If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and increases the value of its proprietary options market data products because they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and trade executions, then its options market data products may be less desirable to customers using them in support of order routing and trading decisions in light of the diminished content; data products offered by competing venues may become correspondingly more attractive. Thus, competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data fees at reasonable levels.
In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters, the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available Arca Options Products described herein unless their customers request them, and customers will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless this data product can provide value by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes, accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data purchases. For example, in July 2014 more than 80% of the options transaction volume on each of NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”) was executed by market participants that purchased one or more proprietary market data products. A super-competitive increase in the fees for either executions or market data would create a risk of reducing an exchange's revenues from both products.
Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have common costs.
Analyzing the cost of market data product production and distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including 12 self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) options markets. Two of the 12 have launched operations since December 2012.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. For example, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS”), which previously operated as an ATS and obtained exchange status in 2008, has provided certain market data at no charge on its Web site in order to attract more order flow, and uses revenue rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for its users.
The fact that proprietary data from vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE Arca both published proprietary data on the Internet before registering as exchanges. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the amount of data available via proprietary products is greater in size than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. Because market data users can find suitable substitutes for most proprietary market data products, a market that overprices its market data products stands a high risk that users may substitute one or more other sources of market data information for its own.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, and BATS. As noted above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008. Two new options exchanges have launched operations since December 2012.
In establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary options market data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors, and has not considered irrelevant factors, in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the purchase.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to describe the three categories of data recipients for non-display use in the Market Data Fee Schedule would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the Exchange is merely adding to the Market Data Fee Schedule information that has been previously filed with the Commission.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule to add a service fee for certain post-trade adjustments performed by the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective December 1, 2014.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to add a service fee for certain post-trade adjustments performed by the Exchange (the “Service Fee”). The Exchange proposes to implement the Service Fee effective December 1, 2014. As described below, the proposed Service Fee would apply to certain post-trade adjustments performed by Exchange staff. The purpose of the proposed Service Fee is to ensure a fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources by allowing the Exchange to recoup for valuable employee time and resources expended on these post-trade adjustments that may also be self-executed by OTP Holders or OTP Firms (collectively, “OTPs”). In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed Service Fee would incentivize OTPs to process their own post-trade adjustments going forward.
In an effort to conserve Exchange resources, the Exchange has provided OTPs with the functionality to perform certain of their own post-trade adjustments. Specifically, OTPs may perform post-trade adjustments on their side of the trade that do not affect the contractual terms of a transaction. For example, OTPs may currently make the following non-contractual post-trade adjustments without Exchange interaction: changing the position indicator (
Notwithstanding the availability of functionality for OTPs to perform this function themselves, OTPs still send the Exchange a significant number of requests, on a daily basis, to perform these straightforward Post-Trade Adjustments on the OTPs' behalf. The Exchange uses its best efforts to respond to these requests by OTPs in a timely manner. While the Exchange is committed to delivering a certain level of customer service to its OTPs, it believes that performing the Post-Trade Adjustments free of charge results in the diversion of valuable Exchange time and resources in a manner that is not a [sic]
Thus, to help offset the costs of having Exchange staff process Post Trade Adjustments on behalf of OTPs, the Exchange is proposing a $5.00 Service Fee, per trade adjusted. The Post-Trade Adjustments that would be subject to the proposed Service Fee would be only those Post-Trade Adjustments that do not affect the contractual terms of a transaction and that are performed by the Exchange on behalf of OTPs when the OTPs could otherwise enter the Post-Trade Adjustments on their own behalf.
The $5.00 Service Fee would apply to each trade adjusted, not to each non-contractual change that the Exchange is requested to make to a given trade.
The Exchange is proposing to discount the $5.00 fee to $1.00 per trade adjusted for the first three months that the Service Fee is operative (
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the Service Fee is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to ensure a fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources by allowing the Exchange to recoup for valuable employee time and resources expended on the Post-Trade Adjustments. The Exchange believes that imposing this $5.00 fee per trade adjusted would reasonably compensate the Exchange for the resources diverted to the Post-Trade Adjustments (
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the Service Fee would promote a fair and orderly market and protect investors and the public interest because the Service Fee may result in a more efficient use of Exchange resources, which would benefit all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the Service Fee is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because OTPs would have the option, as they do today, to perform the Post-Trade Adjustments themselves and the Service Fee would only apply if OTPs elected to rely on the Exchange to perform these adjustments for them. Moreover, the Service Fee would apply equally to all market participants who opt to rely on the Exchange to perform the Post-Trade Adjustments. In fact, the Exchange believes that the proposed Service Fee would incentivize OTPs to process their own Post-Trade Adjustments going forward.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues, and imposing the Service Fee may enable the Exchange to improve efficiency and ensure the fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed Service Fee reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List for certain executions at the opening. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective November 4, 2014. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List for certain executions at the opening. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective November 4, 2014.
For securities priced $1.00 or greater, the Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0010 per share for executions at the opening or of $0.0010 per share for executions at the opening only orders, subject to a monthly fee cap of $20,000 per member organization for such executions. Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”) are not charged for executions at the opening.
The Exchange proposes to modify the monthly fee cap of $20,000 per member organization for securities priced $1.00 or greater
In addition, the Exchange proposes non-substantive, conforming changes to the text governing “Equity per Share Charge” and “Tier 1 Adding Credit—Equity per Share Credit—per transaction” to reflect that the terms “ADV” and “Adding ADV” are now defined in footnote 2.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that members and member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to add a requirement that member organizations execute Adding ADV at least 5,000,000 shares during the billing month in order to qualify for a fee cap. The proposed Adding ADV requirement will encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a national securities exchange, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for member organizations. Moreover, the requirement is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all similarly situated member organizations.
The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to extend the implementation rollout of its new Options Floor Broker Management System.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, the Exchange operates two Floor Broker Management Systems concurrently on the options trading floor: The original Floor Broker Management System operating since 2005 (“old FBMS”); and the enhanced Floor Broker Management System (“new FBMS”). The purpose of the proposal is to continue the concurrent operation of old FBMS and new FBMS for a temporary period ending November 3, 2015 for the reasons stated below.
Old FBMS enables Floor Brokers and/or their employees to enter, route, and report transactions stemming from options orders received on the Exchange. Old FBMS also establishes an electronic audit trail for options orders represented by Floor Brokers on the Exchange. Floor Brokers can also use old FBMS to submit orders to Phlx XL, rather than executing the orders in the trading crowd.
New FBMS was launched in March 2014. With the new FBMS, all options transactions on the Exchange involving at least one Floor Broker are required to be executed by the new FBMS. In connection with order execution, the Exchange allows the new FBMS to execute two-sided orders entered by Floor Brokers, including multi-leg orders up to 15 legs, after the Floor Broker has represented the orders in the trading crowd. New FBMS also provides Floor Brokers with an enhanced functionality called the complex calculator that calculates and displays a suggested price of each individual component of a multi-leg order, up to 15 legs, submitted on a net debit or credit basis.
The Exchange received approval to implement the new FBMS as of June 1, 2013,
The Exchange has been making improvements intended to improve the performance of the new system. However, the Floor Brokers have experienced, among other things, some latency in order processing as well as some occasional difficulty accessing certain order entry screens in a timely manner. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the old FBMS should be retired on November 3, 2014. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to continue operation of the old FBMS and new FBMS concurrently for a one year period ending November 3, 2015.
During this time period, the Exchange intends to identify an alternative system to the new FBMS to ultimately replace both old FBMS and new FBMS.
If an alternative to the new FBMS could be implemented sooner than this date, the Exchange will seek to implement it sooner. In addition, the Exchange will notify the Floor Brokers and file a proposed rule change addressing any changes to its rules before implementing any new system.
During this additional time period, the Exchange will continue to permit Floor Brokers to use both the old and the new FBMS based on their business needs and Floor Brokers can choose whether to use one or both. Both old FBMS and new FBMS will continue to be available in all options and to all Floor Brokers. For example, a Floor Broker will be able to use the old FBMS for one order and the new FBMS for the next order. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the performance issues with the new FBMS are less likely and should decrease because the Floor Broker can choose the old FBMS.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that permitting Floor Brokers to use both the old FBMS and new FBMS for an additional period of time while the Exchange considers an alternative approach to address the efficient operation of the Exchange's trading floor should allow it to compete with other floor-based exchanges and help the Exchange's Floor Brokers compete with floor brokers on other options exchanges.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission notes that the full implementation of the new FBMS was scheduled to occur on November 3, 2014. The Exchange has indicated that it has experienced performance issues with the new FBMS and that it needs additional time to identify an alternative system to the new FBMS. While it seeks this alternative, the Exchange represents that it will continue to operate the old FBMS and new FMBS concurrently and that all Floor Brokers may use either the old FBMS or the new FBMS. Based on the foregoing, the Commission has determined to waive the 30-day operative date so that the proposal may take effect upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to add fees for the NYSE Arcabook for Amex Options Complex Feed, operative on November 1, 2014, and change the NYSE Amex Options Proprietary Market Data Fee Schedule (“Market Data Fee Schedule”) regarding non-display use fees. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange offers six NYSE Amex Options real-time options market data products: ArcaBook for Amex Options—Trades, ArcaBook for Amex Options—Top of Book, ArcaBook for Amex Options—Depth of Book, ArcaBook for Amex Options—Complex, ArcaBook for Amex Options—Series Status, and ArcaBook for Amex Options—Order Imbalance (collectively, “Amex Options Products”).
Starting on May 1, 2014, the Exchange began offering one of the six feeds, ArcaBook for Amex Options—Complex, on a standalone basis without charge from May 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014.
The Exchange does not propose to make any other changes to the fees for Amex Options Products.
The Exchange proposes a change to the Market Data Fee Schedule regarding non-display use fees. Specifically, with respect to the three categories of, and fees applicable to, market data recipients for non-display use, the Exchange proposes to describe the three categories in the Market Data Fee Schedule.
In September 2014, the Exchange revised the fees for non-display use of and added fees for non-display use of NYSE ArcaBook for Amex Options.
The Exchange is proposing to amend the Market Data Fee Schedule to add the descriptions of the three categories, as set forth above, as a footnote to the Market Data Fee Schedule. Because there will now be multiple footnotes to the Market Data Fee Schedule, the Exchange proposes non-substantive edits to change the existing footnote references from asterisks to numbers.
The Exchange does not propose to make any other changes to the fees for Amex Options Products.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because it would allow vendors and subscribers to pay the standalone fees associated with the one product rather than payment of the higher fees associated with all six Amex Options Products. In this regard, the Exchange notes that some vendors of, and subscribers, to the Amex Options Products currently utilize only ArcaBook for Amex Options—Complex. The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the same levels of fees would be charged to similar types of users of the same market data products.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because the proposed fees would be comparable to the fees that other option markets charge for comparable market data products. For example, CBOE charges, for its “Complex Order Book Feed,” a Distributor Fee of $3,000 per month, a Professional User Fee of $25 per month and a Non-Professional User Fee of $1 per month.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable for the proposed Non-Display Fee for ArcaBook for Amex Options—Complex to be lower than the fee for non-display use for all six Amex Options Products (
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable for the proposed Non-Professional User Fee to be the same as the existing fee for all six Amex Options Products (
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable not to propose a Non-Professional User Fee Cap at this time because such a cap is not anticipated to encourage greater subscription to or distribution of ArcaBook for Amex Options—Complex. The absence of a Non-Professional User Fee Cap is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because each Redistributor would be charged the same amount for each additional Non-Professional User that subscribes to ArcaBook for Amex Options—Complex, regardless of how many Non-Professional Users to which the Redistributor makes ArcaBook for Amex Options—Complex available.
The Exchange also notes that purchasing Amex Options Products is entirely optional. Firms are not required to purchase them and have a wide variety of alternative options market data products from which to choose. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make these proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
In fact, the legislative history indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
As explained below in the Exchange's Statement on Burden on Competition, the Exchange believes that there is substantial evidence of competition in the marketplace for data and that the Commission can rely upon such evidence in concluding that the fees proposed in this filing are the product of competition and therefore satisfy the
As the
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange believes that adding the description of the three categories of data recipients for non-display use to the Market Data Fee Schedule would remove impediments to and help perfect a free and open market by providing greater transparency for the Exchange's customers regarding the category descriptions that have been previously filed with the Commission and are applicable to the existing Market Data Fee Schedule.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to price its proprietary data products is constrained by actual competition for the sale of proprietary data products, the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data.
Moreover, competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary options data products and therefore constrain markets from overpricing proprietary options market data. Broker-dealers send their order flow to multiple venues, rather than providing them all to a single venue, which in turn reinforces this competitive constraint. Options markets, similar to the equities markets, are highly fragmented.
If an exchange succeeds in its competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions, then it earns trading revenues and increases the value of its proprietary options market data products because they will contain greater quote and trade information. Conversely, if an exchange is less successful in attracting quotes, order flow, and trade executions, then its options market data products may be less desirable to customers using them in support of order routing and trading decisions in light of the diminished content; data products offered by competing venues may become correspondingly more attractive. Thus, competition for quotations, order flow, and trade executions puts significant pressure on an exchange to maintain both execution and data fees at reasonable levels.
In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through market data vendors, such as Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters, the vendors themselves provide additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example, vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Vendors will not elect to make available Amex Options Products described herein unless their customers request them, and customers will not elect to pay the proposed fees unless this data product can provide value by sufficiently increasing revenues or reducing costs in the customer's business in a manner that will offset the fees. All of these factors operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's platform for posting quotes, accepting orders, and executing transactions and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs.
Moreover, an exchange's broker-dealer customers generally view the costs of transaction executions and market data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will only choose to direct orders to an exchange if the revenue from the transaction exceeds its cost, including the cost of any market data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy in support of its order routing and trading decisions. If the costs of the transaction are not offset by its value, then the broker-dealer may choose instead not to purchase the product and trade away from that exchange. There is substantial evidence of the strong correlation between order flow and market data purchases. For example, in July 2014 more than 80% of the options transaction volume on each of NYSE MKT and NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) was executed by market participants that purchased one or more proprietary market data products. A super-competitive increase in the fees for either executions or market data would create a risk of reducing an exchange's revenues from both products.
Other market participants have noted that proprietary market data and trade executions are joint products of a joint platform and have common costs.
Analyzing the cost of market data product production and distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data and data products because it is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, and system and regulatory costs affect the price of both obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
As noted above, the level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including 12 self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) options markets. Two of the 12 have launched operations since December 2012.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return that each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different trading platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market data products (or provide market data products free of charge), and charge relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting relatively high prices for market data products, and setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. For example, BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS”), which previously operated as an ATS and obtained exchange status in 2008, has provided certain market data at no charge on its Web site in order to attract more order flow, and uses revenue rebates from resulting additional executions to maintain low execution charges for its users.
The fact that proprietary data from vendors can bypass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products. By way of example, BATS and NYSE Arca both published proprietary
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid and inexpensive. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TrackECN, and BATS. As noted above, BATS launched as an ATS in 2006 and became an exchange in 2008. Two new options exchanges have launched operations since December 2012.
In establishing the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the competitiveness of the market for proprietary options market data and all of the implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has considered all relevant factors, and has not considered irrelevant factors, in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all users. The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the purchase.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to describe the three categories of data recipients for non-display use in the Market Data Fee Schedule would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the Exchange is merely adding to the Market Data Fee Schedule information that has been previously filed with the Commission.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 Brent J. Fields, 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 August 1, 2014, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “EDGA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange
The proposed rule change, as described in more detail below and in the Notice, amends Rule 1.5 and Chapter XI of the EDGA rule book, relating to: (1) The Exchange's trading sessions and hours of operation; (2) the process for initial opening and re-opening after a trading halt by adding proposed Exchange Rule 11.7, Opening Process; (3) order type, order type instructions and System
After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comments received, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Currently, Exchange Rule 11.1(a) provides that orders may be entered, executed or routed away during Regular Trading Hours, the Pre-Opening Session, and the Post-Closing Session, but does not define those terms. The Exchange proposes to add the term “Session Indicator” to codify the manner that a User
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.1(a)(1), describing the term Session Indicator, specifies that all orders are eligible for execution during the Regular Session, and that orders not designated for a particular session or session would default to the Regular Session. The proposed rule also specifies that orders may be entered from 6:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time but are not eligible for execution until the start of the session selected by the User.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.1(a)(1)(A) specifies that orders designated as Pre-Opening Session would be eligible for execution between 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Proposed Exchange Rule 11.1(a)(1)(B) specifies that orders designated as Regular Session would be eligible for execution between the completion of the Opening Process or a Contingent Open,
The Commission believes that the proposed rules relating to the Exchange trading sessions and hours of trading are consistent with the Act. The proposed rule makes the operation of the Exchange more transparent which should benefit Members, Users, and the general investing public. The Commission also notes that the proposed rule is substantially similar to that of other exchanges.
The Exchange's current rules make various references to, but do not describe, an Opening Process. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes Exchange Rule 11.7 to codify and describe its current Opening and Re-Opening processes, with two changes, which are described below.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.7(a) describes the entry and cancellation of orders before the Opening Process. Specifically, prior to the Regular Session, Users may enter orders to participate in the Opening Process. All orders are eligible to participate during the Opening Process, except: (1) Orders with a Stop Price
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.7(b) describes the execution of orders during the Opening Process. Specifically, during the Opening Process the Exchange would attempt to execute all eligible orders by matching buy and sell orders, in time sequence, at the midpoint of the NBBO, and would continue until either there were no orders to be matched or there was a remaining imbalance of orders. If the Opening Process resulted in no orders being matched, or a remaining imbalance of orders, the unexecuted orders would then be posted on the EDGA Book, canceled, executed, or routed to an away Trading Center pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 11.11.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.7(c) describes how the opening price is determined during the Opening Process. Specifically, for securities listed on either the NYSE or NYSE MKT, the Opening Process would set the opening price at the midpoint based on the (1) first NBBO subsequent to the first reported trade on the listing exchange after 9:30:00 a.m. Eastern Time; or (2) the prevailing NBBO when the first two-sided quotation published by the listing exchange after 9:30:00 a.m. Eastern Time, but before 9:45:00 a.m. Eastern Time if no first trade is reported by the listing exchange within one second of publication of the first two-sided quotation by the listing exchange.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.7(d) describes the Contingent Open. A Contingent Open would result if the Opening Process did not yield an opening price by 9:45:00 a.m. Eastern Time. In such an instance, the order would be posted to the EDGA Book, routed, cancelled, or executed consistent with its order type instruction.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.7(e) describes Re-Openings. A Re-Opening would occur after a trading halt, suspension or pause. The Re-Opening price would be the midpoint of the (1) first NBBO subsequent to the first reported trade on the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause; or (ii) then prevailing NBBO when the first two-sided quotation published by the listing exchange following the resumption of trading after a halt, suspension, or pause if no first trade is reported by the listing exchange within one second of publication of the first two-sided quotation by the listing exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule to codify the Exchange Opening Process, Contingent Open and Re-Openings is consistent with the Act. The Commission believes that the proposed rule is reasonably designed to facilitate an orderly transition between the Pre-Opening Session and Regular Trading Hours, as well as the resumption of trading after a trading halt, suspension or pause. Finally, the Commission notes that the Exchange rule is based on ISE Rule 2106.
As discussed in more detail below, proposed Exchange Rule 11.6 would relocate and reclassify various terms currently defined in the Exchange rulebook, as well as add certain other defined terms. The Exchange proposes to classify certain existing order types as “instructions” to be attached to one or more standalone order types.
The Commission notes that several proposed modifications to existing definitions are substantively similar to the current rule text, with added specificity, including: Attributable, Non-Attributable, Crossing Quotation, Locking Quotation, Minimum Price Variation,
Certain other proposed modifications to existing Exchange definitions are consistent with the rules of other exchanges, including: Discretionary Range,
The Exchange currently defines the terms “Attributable Order” and “Non-Attributable Order” in Exchange Rules 11.5(c)(18) and (19). The Exchange proposes to reclassify these terms as order type instructions and relocate them to proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(a). In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend the terms to provide that: (1) Unless the User elects otherwise, all orders will be automatically defaulted by the System to Non-Attributable; and (2) a User may elect an order to be Attributable on an order-by-order basis or instruct the Exchange to default all its orders as Attributable on a port-by-port basis, except if a User instructs the Exchange to default all its orders as Attributable on a particular port, such User would not be able to designate any order from that port as Non-Attributable. The Exchange also proposes to provide that a User's MPID will be visible via the Exchange's Book Feed if an Attributable instruction is attached to an order and not visible if an order Non-Attributable is attached to an order.
The Exchange proposes to add the defined term “Cancel Back” to codify the existing function where a User may opt to have the System cancel the order at the time of receipt, in lieu of a re-pricing instruction
The Exchange currently defines a “Discretionary Order” in Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(13). The Exchange proposes to reclassify this function as an order type instruction and relocate the term “Discretionary Range” to proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(d). In addition, the Exchange proposes to modify the definition of Discretionary Range to specify which order types
The Exchange proposes to include definitions of “Displayed” and “Non-Displayed” in proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(e). Currently the term “Displayed” is not defined within the Exchange rules. The Exchange would codify that Displayed is the default instruction for all display-eligible orders on the EDGA Book.
Currently, the term Non-Displayed Order is defined in Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(8). The Exchange proposes to reclassify this term as an order type instruction, and relocate the amended term to proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(e). The proposed definition of Non-Displayed also differs from the current definition in that it deletes rule text regarding the priority and ranking of
Under current Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(4), a re-pricing instruction to comply with Regulation NMS may be triggered if an incoming order, if displayed at its limit price, would be a Locking Quotation.
Currently, Exchange Rule 11.16 defines the terms “Locking Quotation”
The Exchange proposes to define the term “Minimum Execution Quantity” as an order type instruction.
Exchange Rule 11.7, Price Variation, currently defines the term “Price Variation.”
Currently the term “Pegged Order” is defined under Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(6). The Exchange proposes to reclassify the term as an instruction and relocate the term to proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(j). The amended definition of a Pegged instruction would continue to indicate that: (1) A User may specify that the order's price will peg to a price a certain amount away from the NBB or NBO (offset); (2) if an order with a Pegged instruction displayed on the Exchange would lock the market, the price of the order will be automatically adjusted by the System to one Minimum Price Variation below the current NBO (for bids) or to one Minimum Price Variation above the current NBB (for offers); (3) a new time stamp is created for the order each time it is automatically adjusted; and (4) orders with a Pegged instruction are not eligible for routing pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 11.11.
The Exchange also proposes to codify that orders with Pegged instructions would not be used to calculate the NBBO, and buy/sell orders with a Pegged instruction would be cancelled when the NBB/NBO is unavailable. In addition, the Exchange would codify the terms—Primary Peg and Market Peg.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(j) also sets forth that a buy (sell) order with a Primary Peg instruction could, but would not be required to, select an offset equal to or greater than one Minimum Price Variation
The Exchange currently defines the term “Permitted Price” in Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(4)(B).
The terms “displayed price sliding”
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(1)(A) would codify the Price Adjust instruction. Specifically, under the proposed rule, a User may select the Price Adjust instruction where an incoming order that would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation would be displayed and ranked
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B) would rename and codify the Hide Not Slide instruction. Specifically, under the proposed rule, if a User selects, or be defaulted by the System to,
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B) would state that, where the NBBO changes such that the order, if displayed at the Locking Price would not be a Locking Quotation, the System would rank and display the order at the Locking Price. Thereafter, the order would not be subject to further re-ranking and would be displayed by the System at the Locking Price until it is executed or cancelled by the User. The Exchange proposes to state that the order would only receive a new time stamp when it is ranked at the Locking Price upon clearance of a Locking Quotation due to the receipt of an ISO with a TIF instruction of Day that establishes a new NBBO at the Locked Price. Pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 11.9, all orders that are re-ranked and re-displayed by the System pursuant to the Hide Not Slide instruction would retain its comparative
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B)(i) would codify the Routed and Returned Re-Pricing instruction. Specifically, under the proposed rule, if a Limit Order was routed away but not fully executed, the returning remainder of the order, if it would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation of a quotation displayed by another Trading Center upon re-entry to the System, would default to a Routed and Returned Re-Pricing instruction, unless the User selected either the Cancel Back, Price Adjust or Hide Not Slide instruction.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(1)(B)(i) would state that, thereafter, in response to changes in the NBBO, an order subject to the Routed and Returned Re-Pricing instruction would be adjusted and displayed by the System at one Minimum Price Variation below (above) the NBO (NBB) and ranked at the Locking Price with the ability to execute at the Locking Price until the price of such order reached its limit price; at which point the order would be displayed at the limit price by the System without further adjustment. Upon return to the EDGA Book after being routed away, the order will execute against any marketable contra-side liquidity on the EDGA Book and any remainder will be subject to the Routed and Returned Re-Pricing instruction.
The Commission finds that the proposed rules related to Regulation NMS re-pricing are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(2) sets forth the following re-pricing instructions for an order with a Short Sale instruction to comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO: (1) Short Sale Price Adjust and (2) Short Sale Price Sliding. Under the proposal, a Limit Order to sell with a Short Sale instruction that cannot display or execute at its limit price at the time of entry because of a short sale price restriction pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO (“Short Sale Circuit Breaker”),
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(2)(A) would codify the Short Sale Price Adjust instruction. If selected by a User and a Short Sale Circuit Breaker was in effect, the sell order with a Short Sale instruction would be ranked and
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(2)(B) would codify the Short Sale Price Sliding instruction. If selected by a User and a Short Sale Circuit Breaker was in effect, the sell order with a Short Sale instruction would be displayed at the Permitted Price and ranked at the midpoint of the NBBO. Following the initial ranking, the order would, to the extent the NBB declined, be re-ranked and re-displayed with a new time stamp one additional time at a price equal to the NBB at the time of the order's original entry.
The Commission finds that the proposed rules related to Regulation SHO re-pricing are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Commission notes that Short Sale Price Sliding permits sell orders with a Short Sale instruction to be ranked at the midpoint of the NBBO and displayed at the Permitted Price. The Commission finds that Regulation SHO re-pricing to permit an order with a Short Sale instruction to be executed at the midpoint of the NBBO, and displayed above the NBB, is consistent with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(l)(3) would codify the re-pricing of non-routable orders with a Non-Displayed instruction to specify that an order with a Non-Displayed instruction that would be a Crossing Quotation of an external market, would be ranked at the Locking Price unless the User affirmatively elects that the Order Cancel Back. Each time the NBBO is updated and the order continues to be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation of an external market, the order will be adjusted so that it continues to be ranked at the current Locking Price. Once an order with a Non-Displayed instruction has been ranked at its limit price it will only be adjusted in the event the NBBO is updated and the order would again be a Crossing Quotation of an external market. The order will receive a new time stamp each time it is subsequently re-ranked.
Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(1) currently defines a “Reserve Order” as “[a] limit order with a portion of the quantity displayed (`display quantity') and with a reserve portion of the quantity (`reserve quantity') that is not displayed.” The Exchange proposes to reclassify this function as an order type instruction and relocate the term “Reserve Quantity” to proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(m). The term Reserve Quantity would be defined to mean the portion of an order with a Non-Displayed instruction in which a portion of that order is also displayed on the EDGA Book. The Exchange also would specify that both the portion of the order with a Displayed instruction and the Reserve Quantity of the order are available for execution against incoming orders. The Exchange also specifies that where the displayed quantity of an order is reduced to less than a Round Lot, the System, in accordance with the replenishment instruction selected by the User, would replenish the displayed quantity from the Reserve Quantity by at least a single Round Lot. A new time stamp would be created for the displayed portion of the order each time it is replenished from the Reserve Quantity, and the Reserve Quantity would retains its original time stamp of its original entry.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(m) also codifies the two replenishment instructions
Under the Random Replenishment instruction, the displayed quantity, both initial and replenished, would be randomly determined by the System within a replenishment range and replenishment value established by the User. The System would randomly select random display in Round Lots based on: (1) The quantity around which the replenishment range is established minus the replenishment value; and (2) the quantity around
In proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(n), the Exchange proposes to define the following routing and posting instructions that a User may select, depending on the order type: (1) Aggressive or Super Aggressive; (2) Book Only; (3) Post Only; (4) Destination Specified; and (5) Destination-on-Open.
The Exchange proposes to codify the terms Aggressive and Super Aggressive. Aggressive is an order instruction that directs the System to route such order if an away Trading Center crosses the limit price of the order resting on the EDGA Book. Super Aggressive is an order instruction that directs the System to route such order if an away Trading Center locks or crosses the limit price of the order resting on the EDGA Book.
Current Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(4) defines the term EDGA Only Order.
Current Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(5) defines the term “Post Only Order.”
Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(9) currently defines the term “Destination Specific Order.”
Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(10) currently defines the term “Destination-on-Open Order.” The Exchange proposes to reclassify this function as an order type instruction and relocate the amended definition and term “Destination-on-Open” to proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(n)(6). The amended definition would state that a Destination-on-Open instruction may be appended to a Market or a Limit Order and that an unfilled portion of an order with a Destination-on-Open instruction may be cancelled or re-routed.
Currently, certain current Exchange rules refer to the terms “short sale order” and “short exempt,”
Current Exchange Rule 11.5(b)(1)–(3) defines the terms “IOC Order,” “Day Order” and “Fill-or-Kill Order.”
The Exchange proposes to include a new TIF instruction, GTT, which could be appended to an order in any trading session with instructions to cancel at a specified time of day. The proposed rule also sets forth that an order with a GTT instruction would not be eligible for execution over multiples days
The Exchange proposes to add the term “Trading Center” to proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(r) to be defined as “[o]ther securities exchanges, facilities of securities exchanges, automated trading systems, electronic communications networks or other brokers or dealers.”
Current Exchange Rule 11.6 provides that “[o]ne hundred (100) shares shall constitute a `round lot,' any amount less than 100 shares shall constitute an `odd lot,' and any amount greater than 100 shares that is not a multiple of a round lot shall constitute a `mixed lot.` ” The Exchange proposes to relocate the definition of “Units of Trading” to proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(s). The relocated and amended definition would provide that a Round Lot is 100 shares, unless an alternative number of shares is established as a Round Lot by the listing exchange for the security. Similarly, in proposed Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(6), the Exchange proposes a conforming change to replace the term “99 shares or fewer” with “less than a Round Lot.” Proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(s) would also state that Round Lots are eligible to be Protected Quotations.
Current Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(2) defines the term an “Odd Lot Order” as “[a]n order to buy or sell an odd lot.” The Exchange proposes to revise and relocate the term to proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(s)(2). The definition would be amended to indicate that an Odd Lot is “[a]ny amount less than a Round Lot,” and that orders of Odd Lot size are only eligible to be Protected Quotations if aggregated to form a Round Lot.
Current Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(3) defines the term a “Mixed Lot Order.” The Exchange proposes to revise and relocate the term to proposed Exchange Rule 11.6(s)(3). The definition would be amended to indicate that “[a]ny amount greater than a Round Lot that is not an integer multiple of a Round Lot,” and that the Odd Lot portions of an order of Mixed Lot size are only eligible to be Protected Quotations if aggregated to form a Round Lot.
The Exchange has determined that the majority of the existing individual order types should be reclassified as order type instructions to be attached to specific, standalone order types.
The Commission finds that the proposed rules relating to the definitions and descriptions of order types are consistent with the Act. The Commission notes that the definitions and operations of Market Order, Limit Order, ISO, MidPoint Peg Order, and MidPoint Discretionary Order are substantively similar to the current rule text, with added specificity related to the operation of the standalone order type and the order type instructions that may be attached thereto. The NBBO Offset Peg Order and Route Peg Order are currently offered by the Exchange, and the related rule text has been relocated and reformatted to conform to the reorganization of the Exchange rule book without substantive amendment. Accordingly, the Commission believes that these proposed rule changes are consistent with the Act.
Current Exchange Rule 11.5(a)(2) defines the term “Market Order.” The Exchange proposed to relocate the term to proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(a), and revise it to include additional language describing the operation of the order type and the order type instructions that may be attached thereto.
Specifically, proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(a) would define a Market Order as “[a]n order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security that is to be executed at the NBBO or better when the order reaches the Exchange.” The proposed rule also specifies that Market Orders are eligible to execute during the Regular Session; ineligible to execute during the Pre-Opening or the Post-Closing Trading Sessions; may be an Odd Lot, Round Lot, or Mixed Lot; and may include a Stop Price instruction. Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(a)(2) would specify that a Market Order would default to a TIF instruction of Day, unless otherwise instructed by the User; and that in addition to Day, a User could append a Market Order with an IOC or FOK instruction. The proposed rule also sets forth that a Market Order with a FOK instruction would cancel if not executed in full portion immediately after entry and that a Market Order with an IOC instruction would cancel any unexecuted portion of the order after checking the System for available shares, and, if applicable, upon return to the System after being routed to an away Trading Center. The proposed rule also specifies that a Market Order that does not include a Book Only, IOC or FOK instruction and cannot be executed in accordance with proposed Exchange Rule 11.10(a)(4) would be eligible for routing pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 11.11.
Under the proposed rules, a Market Order would post to the book in certain instances. Under proposed Exchange Rule 11.10(a)(3)(A), where the NBO/NBB is greater/lesser than the Upper/Lower Price Band, an incoming non-routable buy/sell Market Order would post to the EDGA Book at a price equal to the Upper (Lower) Price Band, unless appended with a TIF instruction of IOC or FOK or a Cancel Back instruction.
Under the proposed rules, there are also certain instances when a Market Order would cancel instead of execute. The proposed rule specifies that if a Market Order with a Book Only instruction is re-priced when the NBO/NBB is greater/less than the Upper/Lower Price Band, the order would be cancelled pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 11.10(a)(4). The Exchange also specifies that, except for a Market Order that include a Destination-on-Open instruction, any portion of a Market Order that would execute at a price more than the greater of $0.50 or five percent worse than the consolidated last sale as published by the responsible single plan processor at the time the order is entered into the System, would be cancelled.
Current Exchange Rule 11.5(a)(1) defines a Limit Order as, “[a]n order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security at a specified price or better” and a “marketable” Limit Order as a “limit order to buy (sell) at or above (below) the lowest (highest) Protected Offer (Bid) for the security.” The term would be relocated to proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(b), and be amended to include additional language describing the operation of the order type and the order type instructions that may be attached thereto. The proposed rule specifies that a Limit Order is eligible for execution during the Pre-Opening Session, Regular Session, and the Post-Closing Session, and could be an Odd Lot, Round Lot or Mixed Lot. A Limit Order could also be appended with the applicable combination of the following order type instructions:
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(b)(7) specifies that a marketable Limit Order would be eligible to be routed pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 11.11, unless it was appended with a Post Only, Book Only or Pegged instruction.
Current Exchange Rule 11.5(d)(1), specifies that the System accepts incoming ISOs (as such term is defined in Regulation NMS) and that to be eligible for treatment as an ISO, the order must be: (1) a Limit Order; (2) marked ISO; and (3) the User entering the order must simultaneously route one or more additional Limit Orders marked ISO, if necessary, to away markets to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotation for the security with a price that is superior to the limit price of the ISO entered in the System. Such orders, if they meet the requirements of the foregoing sentence, may be executed at one or multiple price levels in the System without regard to Protected Quotations at away Trading Centers consistent with Regulation NMS (
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(c) would continue to instruct Members that the Exchange relies on, and it is the Member's responsibility, to properly mark ISOs, to satisfy the compliance requirements of Regulation NMS.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(c)(4) would also specify that incoming ISOs may be submitted during the Pre-Opening Session, Regular Session, and Post-Closing Session. Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(c)(1)–(4) would also state that an incoming ISO will have a default TIF instruction of Day, unless the User selects a TIF instruction of GTT or IOC. Incoming ISOs cannot include a TIF instruction of FOK. The proposed Rule also sets forth that an incoming ISO with a Post Only and TIF instruction of GTT or Day, but without a Price Adjust or Hide Not Slide instruction, would be rejected if, marketable against a resting order with a Displayed instruction. Any unfilled portion of an ISO with a TIF instruction of GTT or Day would be posted at the ISO's limit price on the EDGA Book.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(c) would specify that an ISO with a Post Only instruction and TIF instruction of GTT or Day may also be appended with Regulation NMS or Regulation SHO re-pricing instructions.
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(c)(7) would permit a User to attach an instruction to an outbound ISO in order to permit that ISO to be immediately routed to an away Trading Center.
Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(7) currently defines a MidPoint Peg Order as “[a] limit order whose price is automatically adjusted by the System in response to changes in the NBBO to be pegged to the midpoint of the NBBO.” The term would be relocated to proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(d), and amended to include additional language describing the operation of the order type and the order type instructions that may be attached thereto. The MidPoint Peg Order definition would be amended to specify that it could be a Market Order or a Limit Order, as well as to indicate
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(d)(1) would also specify that a MidPoint Peg Order could be appended with a TIF instruction of Day, FOK, IOC, or GTT. Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(d)(2) specifies that a MidPoint Peg Order could include a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction. Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(d)(3) specifies that MidPoint Peg Orders would default to a Non-Displayed instruction and are not eligible to include a Displayed instruction. Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(d)(5) specifies that, pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 11.11, MidPoint Peg Orders are ineligible for routing unless routed utilizing the RMPT
Pursuant to the proposed rule, MidPoint Peg Orders may only be executed during the Regular Session, and any unexecuted portion of a resting MidPoint Peg Order with a Day or GTT instruction would receive a new time stamp each time it is re-priced in response to changes to the midpoint of the NBBO. However, an incoming or resting MidPoint Peg Order would be ineligible for execution if there was a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation. The ability of the resting or incoming MidPoint Peg Order to execute would resume when the locked/crossed condition was resolved and a new midpoint relative to the NBBO was established. Similarly, MidPoint Peg Orders would be ineligible to execute at a price below the Lower Price Band or above the Upper Price Band. Pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 11.9, all MidPoint Peg Orders would retain their comparative priority based upon order's initial receipt and ranking.
Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(17) currently defines a MidPoint Discretionary Order (“MDO”).
Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(e)(1) would also specify that an MDO could be appended with a TIF instruction of Day or GTT. Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(e)(2) would also specify that an MDO may be entered as a Round Lot or Mixed Lot only. A new time stamp is created for a MDO each time its displayed price is automatically adjusted based on a change in the NBB or NBO, respectively. Proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(e)(4) would specify that, pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 11.11, MidPoint Peg Orders are ineligible for routing.
Pursuant to the proposed rule, MDOs may only be submitted during the Regular Trading Hours. When the EDGA Book is locked or crossed by another market, an MDO will be eligible to join the Exchange BBO when the Exchange BBO equals the NBBO. If an MDO displayed on the Exchange would create a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation, the price of the order will be automatically adjusted by the System by one MPV with no discretion to execute to the midpoint of the NBBO. Similarly, MDOs would only execute at their displayed prices and not within their discretionary ranges when: (1) the price of the Upper Price Band equals or moves below an existing Protected Bid; or (2) the price of the Lower Price Band equals or moves above an existing Protected Offer.
Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(15) currently defines the NBBO Offset Peg Order. The term would be relocated to proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(f) and reformatted, without substantive amendment. The NBBO Offset Peg Order would continue to be defined as a Limit Order that, upon entry, is automatically priced by the System at the Designated Percentage
The proposed rule also sets forth that the price of an NBBO Offset Peg Order bid or offer would automatically adjust to the Designated Percentage away from the current NBB/NBO; or if there is no current NBB/NBO, to the Designated Percentage away from the last reported sale from the responsible single plan processor, upon reaching the Defined Limit.
Under the proposed rule, if a resident NBBO Offset Peg Order was priced based on the last sale reported by the responsible single plan processor and such NBBO Offset Peg Order is established as the NBB/NBO, the NBBO Offset Peg Order would not adjust until either new last sale reported by the responsible single plan processor, or a new NBB/NBO was established by a national securities exchange. However, if a Crossing Quotation existed, the NBBO Peg Offset Order would automatically price at the Designated Percentage
The proposed rule sets forth that NBBO Offset Peg Orders may only include a TIF instruction of Day; may only be Round Lots or Mixed Lots; are defaulted by the System to a Displayed instruction and are not eligible to include a Non-Displayed instruction; and may be submitted at the beginning of the Pre-Opening Session, but are not executable or automatically priced until after the first regular way last sale on the relevant listing exchange for the security, as reported by the responsible single plan processor. In addition the rule sets forth that NBBO Offset Peg Orders would receive a new time stamp each time it re-prices in response to changes in the NBB, NBO, or last reported sale; would be ineligible for routing pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 11.11; and would expire at the end of the Regular Session. Finally, pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.20(d), irrespective of the NBBO Offset Peg Order, and consistent with its obligations, Market Makers would continue to be responsible for entering, monitoring, and re-submitting, as applicable, quotations.
Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(14) currently defines the term Route Peg Order. The term would be relocated to proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(g) and reformatted to conform to other rule changes, without substantive amendment. The Route Peg Order is a passive, resting order that does not remove liquidity or execute at a price inferior to a Protected Quotation. The Route Peg Order would be defined as a non-displayed Limit Order that is eligible for execution at the NBB for a buy order and NBO for a sell order against an order that is in the process of being routed to away Trading Centers with an order size equal to or less than the aggregate size of the Route Peg Order interest available at that price. The proposed rule would specify that notwithstanding its co-designation as a Limit Order, the operation of a Route Offset Peg Order would be governed by proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(g).
The proposed rule would also set forth that Route Peg Orders may only have a TIF instruction of GTT or Day and would be ineligible to include a TIF instruction of IOC or FOK; may only be Round Lots or Mixed Lots; would default to, and could be appended with a Non-Displayed instruction; but not with the Displayed instruction. In addition, the proposed rule sets forth that the Route Peg Order could include a Minimum Execution Quantity but is ineligible for routing pursuant to proposed Exchange Rule 11.11.
The proposed rule also set forth that Route Peg Orders may be entered, cancelled, and cancelled/replaced prior to and during the Regular Session and all unexecuted portions thereof are cancelled at the end of the Regular Session. Route Peg Orders would only be eligible for execution in a given security during the Regular Session, except during the Opening Session and until orders in a given security can be posted on the EDGA Book during the Regular Session. Route Peg Orders would also be ineligible for execution if a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation existed; however the ability of the Route Peg Order to execute would resume once the locked/crossed condition was cleared.
Current Exchange Rule 11.8 sets forth the priority of order executions. The Exchange proposes to relocate the provision to proposed Exchange Rule 11.9 and to amend it to codify and state the following: (1) the priority of orders at certain price points; (2) the priority of Limit Orders with a Reserve Quantity; and (3) certain other conforming and clarifying changes. The Exchange states that its proposed amendments outline current System functionality in the Exchange's Rules.
Under Exchange Rule 11.9(a), orders of Users are first ranked and maintained by the System on the EDGA Book according to their price. Orders at the same price and of the same type are then ranked by the System depending on the time they were entered into the System. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.9 to specify how orders with certain order type instructions are ranked by the System.
Current Exchange Rule 11.8(a)(2) states, in sum, that the System shall execute equally priced trading interest in time priority in the following order: (1) Displayed size of limit orders; (2) Non-displayed limit orders and reserve orders; (3) Discretionary ranges of Discretionary Orders and of Mid-Point Discretionary Orders as set forth in current Exchange Rules 11.5(c)(13) and (c)(17), respectively; and (4) Route Peg Orders as set forth in current Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(14). The Exchange proposes to amend the above priority to state that it applies to equally priced trading interest other than where orders are re-ranked at the Locking Price after a Locking Quotation clears.
The Exchange also proposes to outline a priority of orders for orders that utilize instructions that result in their being re-ranked upon clearance of a Locking Quotation. In such case, the System re-ranks and displays such orders at the Locking Price. The Exchange proposes to include proposed Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(2)(B), which would state that, where an order is re-ranked to the Locking Price after a Locking Quotation clears, the System will re-rank and display such orders at the Locking Price in time priority in the following order: (1) ISO with a TIF instruction of Day that establishes a new NBBO at the Locked Price; (2) Limit Orders to which the Hide Not Slide or Routed and Returned Re-Pricing instruction has been applied; (3) Limit Orders to which the Price Adjust instruction has been applied; and (4) orders with a Pegged instruction.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.9(a)(6) to modify the description of the priority of an order with a Reserve Quantity and to amend certain terms to be consistent with the order type rules under proposed Exchange Rules 11.6 and 11.8.
For both the Fixed Replenishment and Random Replenishment instruction, the displayed quantity receives a new time stamp each time it is replenished from the Reserve Quantity. The Reserve Quantity retains the time stamp of its original entry. Current Exchange Rule 11.8(a)(6) discusses the priority of the Reserve Quantity of an order and states that “[a] new time stamp is created both for the refreshed and reserved portion of the order each time it is refreshed from reserve.” The Exchange proposes to amend this description to state that a new time stamp is created only for the displayed quantity of the order each time it is replenished from Reserve Quantity. In addition, as discussed above in Section III.C.1.l, proposed Exchange Rule 11.8(m)(1) states that a new time stamp is created for the portion of the order with a Displayed instruction each time it is replenished from the Reserve Quantity, while the Reserve Quantity retains the time-stamp of its original entry.
The Commission finds that proposed Exchange Rule 11.9 relating to priority is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Commission finds goods cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
Accordingly, the Commission does not believe that Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 raise any novel regulatory issues and therefore finds that good cause exists to approve the proposal, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, on an accelerated basis.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of YesDTC Holdings, Inc. (“YesDTC”) because it has not filed a periodic report since its Form 10–Q for the period ending June 30, 2011. YesDTC is a Nevada corporation and is currently quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. under the ticker symbol YESD.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of YesDTC. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of YesDTC is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on November 17, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EST on December 1, 2014.
By the Commission.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104–13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes a revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
(OMB) Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202–395–6974, Email address:
(SSA) Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, 3100 West High Rise, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410–966–2830, Email address:
SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than December 19, 2014. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance package by writing to
Supplement to Claim of Person Outside the United States—20 CFR 422.505(b), 404.460, 404.463, and 42 CFR 407.27(c)–0960–0051. Claimants or beneficiaries (both United States (U.S.) citizens and aliens entitled to benefits living outside the United States complete Form SSA–21 as a supplement to an application for benefits. SSA collects the information to determine eligibility for U.S. Social Security benefits for those months an alien beneficiary or claimant is outside the United States, and to determine if tax withholding applies. In addition, SSA uses the information to: (1) Allow beneficiaries or claimants to request a special payment exception in an SSA restricted country; (2) terminate supplemental medical insurance coverage for recipients who request it, because they are, or will be, out of the United States; and (3) allow claimants to collect a lump sum death benefit if the number holder died outside the United States and we do not have information to determine whether the lump sum death benefit is payable under the Social Security Act. The respondents are Social Security claimants, or individuals entitled to Social Security benefits, who are, were, or will be residing outside the United States for three months or longer.
Note: This is a correction notice. SSA published incorrect burden information on September 11, 2014, at 79 FR 54341. We are correcting that oversight now with burden figures based on our most recent management information data.
Type of Request: Revision of an OMB-approved information collection.
A meeting of the Department of State's Advisory Committee on International Law will take place on Monday, December 15, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the George Washington University Law School, Michael K. Young Faculty Conference Center, 716 20th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC. Acting Legal Adviser Mary McLeod will chair the meeting, which will be open to the public up to the capacity of the conference room. The meeting will include discussions on a variety of international law topics.
Members of the public who wish to attend should contact the Office of the Legal Adviser by December 11 at
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice; correction.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission published a document in the
December 5, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.
Miller Senate Office Building, President's Conference Room, 11 Bladen Street, Annapolis, Md. 21401. (The recommended parking and transportation option is to park at the Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium and take the Annapolis Transit Trolley Shuttle from there—for all available parking options, see
Jason E. Oyler, Regulatory Counsel, telephone: (717) 238–0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238–2436.
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Informational presentation of interest to the Lower Susquehanna Subbasin area; (2) resolution concerning FY–2016 federal funding of the Susquehanna Flood Forecast and Warning System and National Streamflow Information Program; (3) rulemaking action to clarify the water uses involved in hydrocarbon development that are subject to the consumptive use regulations, as implemented by the Approval By Rule program; (4) resolution concerning delegation of authority; (5) ratification/approval of contracts/grants; (6) regulatory compliance matters for Lion Brewery, LHP Management, and Southwestern Energy Company; (7) transfer of approval (Docket No. 20081222) from Sunbury Generation LP to Hummel Station LLC; (8) Future Power PA, LLC request for waiver of 18 CFR 806.3 and 806.4; and (9) Regulatory Program projects.
The rulemaking item listed for Commission action was the subject of a public hearing conducted by the Commission on November 6, 2014, and identified in the notice for such hearing, which was published in 79 FR 57850, September 26, 2014. Projects listed for Commission action are those that were the subject of a public hearing conducted by the Commission on November 6, 2014, and identified in the notice for such hearing, which was published in 79 FR 61683, October 14, 2014.
Interested parties are invited to attend the business meeting and encouraged to review the Commission's Public Meeting Rules of Conduct, which are posted on the Commission's Web site,
Pub. L. 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST–R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need for and usefulness of BTS collecting financial data from large certificated air carriers. Large certificated air carriers are carriers that operate aircraft with 61 seats or more, aircraft with 18,001 pounds of payload capacity or more, or operate international air services.
Written comments should be submitted by January 20, 2015.
Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline Information, RTS–42, Room E34, OST–R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001, Telephone Number (202) 366–4406, Fax Number (202) 366–3383 or EMAIL
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number DOT–OST–2014–0031 by any of the following methods:
You may access comments received for this notice at
The Department of Transportation sets and updates the international and mainline Alaska mail rates based on carrier aircraft operating expense, traffic and operational data. Form 41 cost data, especially fuel costs, terminal expenses, and line haul expenses are used in arriving at rate levels. DOT revises the established rates based on the percentage of unit cost changes in the carriers' operations. These updating procedures have resulted in the carriers receiving rates of compensation that more closely parallel their costs of providing mail service and contribute to the carriers' economic well-being.
As a party to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the United States is obligated to provide the International Civil Aviation Organization with financial and statistical data on operations of U.S. air carriers. Over 99 percent of the data filed with ICAO is extracted from the carriers' Form 41 reports.
Fitness determinations are made for both new entrants and established U.S. domestic carriers proposing a substantial change in operations. A portion of these applications consists of an operating plan for the first year (14 CFR Part 204) and an associated projection of revenues and expenses. The carrier's operating costs, included in these projections, are compared against the cost data in Form 41 for a carrier or carriers with the same aircraft type and similar operating characteristics. Such a review validates the reasonableness of the carrier's operating plan.
Form 41 reports, particularly balance sheet reports and cash flow statements play a major role in the identification of vulnerable carriers. Data comparisons are made between current and past periods in order to assess the current financial position of the carrier. Financial trend lines are extended into the future to analyze the continued viability of the carrier. DOT reviews three areas of a carrier's operation: (1) The qualifications of its management team, (2) its disposition to comply with laws and regulations, and (3) its financial posture. DOT must determine whether or not a carrier has sufficient financial resources to conduct its operations without imposing undue risk on the traveling public. Moreover, once a carrier is operating, DOT is required to monitor its continuing fitness.
Senior DOT officials must be kept fully informed as to all current and developing economic issues affecting the airline industry. In preparing financial conditions reports or status reports on a particular airline, financial
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by December 19, 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 and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954–9362, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by December 19, 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 and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954–9362, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by December 24, 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 and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954–9362, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by December 19, 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 and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954–9362, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by December 19, 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 and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954–9362, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by December 19, 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 and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Kathy DePaepe at (405) 954–9362, or by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the thirty-ninth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 206, Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services.
The meeting will be held December 8–12, 2014, 10:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. on Monday (EST), 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Tuesday to Thursday and 8:30 a.m.–11:00 a.m. on Friday.
The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1150 18th St. NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330–0652/(202) 833–9339, fax at (202) 833–9434, or Web site at
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 206. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 232, Airborne Selective Calling Equipment.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the second meeting of RTCA Special Committee 232, Airborne Selective Calling Equipment.
The meeting will be held December 10–12 from 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. on December 10th and 11th, 9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. on December 12th.
The meeting will be held at Boeing Flight Services Training Center Longacres 25–01 Building 1301 SW 16th Street, Renton, Washington 98055.
You may contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833–9339, fax at (202) 833–9434, or Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 216.
• Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks.
• Agenda Overview.
• Review/Approval of Minutes from Plenary #1
• Status of Other SELCAL Industry Activities/Committees
• Review of Selective Calling (SELCAL) Action Items
• Review SC–232 Completion Schedule
• Review of Draft MOPS
• Continue Drafting MOPS
• Other Business.
• Date and Place of Next Meetings.
• 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 Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces that the International Association of Movers (IAM) has applied for an exemption from FMCSA's regulation prohibiting operators of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) from driving following the 14th hour after coming on duty. IAM's exemption request is on behalf of all FMCSA-authorized carriers moving household goods, regardless of membership in IAM or any other professional society. The requested exemption would be used only by drivers who need to move their vehicles from the customer's residence or military base to a safe place for overnight parking when there are delays in completing the job. In no case would the drivers be permitted to drive more than 75 miles or 90 minutes after the 14th hour. FMCSA requests public comment on IAM's application for exemption.
Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2014.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA–2014–0407 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
For information concerning this notice, contact Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202–366–4325. Email:
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The International Association of Movers (IAM) is a global trade association representing more than 2,000 companies in over 170 countries. IAM counts van lines, agents, freight forwarders and brokers among its membership base. IAM members move household goods for a number of Federal agencies and the public. IAM's members provide relocation services throughout North America and at strategic points throughout the world.
IAM is seeking an exemption from the “14-hour rule” in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2), which prohibits a property-carrying CMV driver from driving a CMV after the 14th hour after coming on duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty. IAM's exemption request is on behalf of all FMCSA-authorized carriers moving household goods (HHGs), regardless of membership in IAM or any other professional society. Under IAM's proposal, the exemption would be used only by drivers who need to move their trucks from the customer's residence to a safe place for overnight parking when there are delays in completing the job. The overnight parking location would offer safety for the occupants of the CMV, security for the CMV and its cargo, and avoid creating a safety hazard on local streets. In no case would the driver be permitted to drive more than 75 miles or 90 minutes after reaching the 14th hour. Upon reaching a safe place to park their CMVs, drivers using this exemption would be required to take 10 hours off duty before driving again. The driver must notify the motor carrier each time the extension is used. These log entries would provide verification and a record whenever the exemption is used and would be available during compliance reviews.
IAM contends that operations of its sector of the trucking industry are subject to a multitude of unique circumstances not faced by the majority of the general property and commodity industry. Customers frequently change their plans and expect their movers to accommodate these changes. IAM states that the list of potential unforeseen, impossible-to-plan-for situations that can cause delay is nearly endless. Unanticipated delays, including recently stepped-up security checkpoints within military bases and facilities, a homeowner's schedule (and level of preparedness for a scheduled move), unusually shaped items that need to be packed in-home by the driver and team, and the amount of time off-highway driving and irregular routes faced by the household goods moving industry are among the many factors that require the flexibility requested by IAM. All of these issues can change schedules beyond the original plan developed by the mover.
IAM states that the vast majority of these situations will not impact these drivers' ability to complete residential loading or unloading jobs within the 14-hour rule. However, when rare, unusual, and unforeseen circumstances arise, the rule forces drivers nearing the end of their 14-hour shifts to choose one of two impractical alternatives; either (1) stop a moving crew from completing the loading or unloading of a customer's household goods shipment in order to be able to drive the moving truck from the customer's residence to a place offering safety for the occupants of the CMV, security for the CMV and its cargo, and to avoid creating a safety hazard on local streets, or (2) permit completion of the loading or unloading, but leave the moving truck where it is, typically parked on an unsecured residential street, for at least 10 hours before they are permitted to drive again. Neither choice permits efficient, effective or safe operation.
IAM believes that the requested exemption is comparable to the current regulation permitting certain “short-haul” drivers an increased driving window once per week, and other non-CDL short-haul drivers two such extended duty periods per week. The driving circumstances experienced under this exemption—the relatively short time and distance needed to remove their CMVs from residential areas to safe locations—can be analogous to the “short-haul” situations. IAM acknowledges that all drivers using the requested exemption would still be subject to all of the other Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, including all other hours-of-service requirements.
A copy of IAM's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b)(4), FMCSA requests public comment on IAM's application for an exemption from certain provisions of the driver's HOS rules in 49 CFR part 395. The Agency will consider all comments received by close of business on December 19, 2014. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed in the
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before December 19, 2014.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2014–0141. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel WINKAPEW is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2014–0141 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before December 19, 2014.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2014–0143. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel KATHLEEN is:
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before December 19, 2014.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2014–0144. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23–453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel CATCH AND RELIEF is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2014–0144 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from iHS (WB986–1–11/12/14) for permission to use certain data from the Board's 2013 Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Office of Economics.
The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has determined preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs). To address these risks, the Commission proposes a rule that includes: lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements that specify a minimum level of rollover resistance for ROVs and require that ROVs exhibit sublimit understeer characteristics; occupant retention requirements that would limit the maximum speed of an ROV to no more than 15 miles per hour (mph), unless the seat belts of both the driver and front passengers, if any, are fastened, and would require ROVs to have a passive means, such as a barrier or structure, to limit further the ejection of a belted occupant in the event of a rollover; and information requirements.
Submit comments by February 2, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC–2009–0087, by any of the following methods:
Submit comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) aspects of the proposed rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC or by email:
Caroleene Paul, Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301–987–2225; email:
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is proposing a standard for recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs).
ROVs are motorized vehicles designed for off-highway use with the following features: Four or more pneumatic tires designed for off-highway use; bench or bucket seats for two or more occupants; automotive-type controls for steering, throttle, and braking; and a maximum vehicle speed greater than 30 miles per hour (mph). ROVs are also equipped with rollover protective structures (ROPS), seat belts, and other restraints (such as doors, nets, and shoulder barriers) for the protection of occupants.
ROVs and All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) are similar in that both are motorized vehicles designed for off-highway use, and both are used for utility and recreational purposes. However, ROVs differ significantly from ATVs in vehicle design. ROVs have a steering wheel instead of a handle bar for steering; foot pedals instead of hand levers for throttle and brake control; and bench or bucket seats rather than straddle seating for the occupant(s). Most importantly, ROVs only require steering wheel input from the driver to steer the vehicle, and the motion of the occupants has little or no effect on vehicle control or stability. In contrast, ATVs require riders to steer with their hands and to maneuver their body front to back and side to side to augment the ATV's pitch and lateral stability.
Early ROV models emphasized the utility aspects of the vehicles, but the recreational aspects of the vehicles have become very popular. Currently, there are two varieties of ROVs: Utility and recreational. Models emphasizing utility have larger cargo beds, higher cargo capacities, and lower top speeds. Models emphasizing recreation have smaller cargo beds, lower cargo capacities, and higher top speeds. Both utility and recreational ROVs with maximum speed greater than 30 mph are covered by the scope of this NPR.
There are several types of off-road vehicles that have some characteristics
Unlike ROVs, ATVs are rider interactive. When riding an ATV, the driver must shift his or her weight from side to side while turning, or forward or backward when ascending or descending a hill or crossing an obstacle. Most ATVs are designed for one rider (the driver). On ATVs that are designed for more than one rider, the passenger sits behind the driver and not beside the driver as on ROVs.
As of April 5, 2013, CPSC staff is aware of 550 reported ROV-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2003 and April 5, 2013; there were 335 reported fatalities and 506 reported injuries related to these incidents. To analyze hazard patterns related to ROVs, a multidisciplinary team of CPSC staff reviewed incident reports that CPSC received by December 31, 2011 concerning incidents that occurred between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2011. CPSC received 428 reports of ROV-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2011, from the Injury and Potential Injury Incident (IPII) and In-Depth Investigation (INDP) databases.
ROV-related incidents can involve more than one injury or fatality because the incidents often involve both a driver and passengers. There were a total of 826 victims involved in the 428 incidents. Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, there were a total of 231 reported fatalities and 388 reported injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries (19 percent) could be classified as severe; that is, based on the information available, the victim has lasting repercussions from the injuries received in the incident. The remaining 207 victims were either not injured or their injury information was not known.
Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 76 incidents involved drivers under 16 years of age (18 percent); 227 involved drivers 16 years of age or older (53 percent); and 125 involved drivers of unknown age (29 percent). Of the 227 incidents involving adult drivers, 86 (38 percent) are known to have involved the driver consuming at least one alcoholic beverage before the incident; 52 (23 percent) did not involve alcohol; and 89 (39 percent) have an unknown alcohol status of the driver.
Of the 619 victims who were injured or killed, most (66 percent) were in a front seat of the ROV, either as a driver or passenger, when the incidents occurred. The remaining victims were in the rear of the ROV or in an unspecified location of the ROV.
In many of the ROV-related incidents resulting in at least one death, the Commission was able to obtain more detailed information on the events surrounding the incident through an In-Depth Investigation (IDI). Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 224 involved at least one death. This includes 218 incidents resulting in one fatality, five incidents resulting in two fatalities, and one incident resulting in three fatalities, for a total of 231 fatalities. Of the 224 fatal incidents, 145 (65 percent) occurred on an unpaved surface; 38 (17 percent) occurred on a paved surface; and 41 (18 percent) occurred on unknown terrain.
After CPSC staff determined that a reported incident resulting in at least one death or injury was ROV-related, a multidisciplinary team reviewed all the documents associated with the incident. The multidisciplinary team was made up of a human factors engineer, an economist, a health scientist, and a statistician. As part of the review process, each member of the review team considered every incident and coded victim characteristics, the characteristics of the vehicle involved, the environment, and the events of the incident.
Of the 428 reported ROV-related incidents, 291 (68 percent) involved rollover of the vehicle, more than half of which occurred while the vehicle was in a turn (52 percent). Of the 224 fatal incidents, 147 (66 percent) involved rollover of the vehicle, and 56 of those incidents (38 percent) occurred on flat terrain. The slope of the terrain is unknown in 39 fatal incidents.
A total of 826 victims were involved in the 428 reported incidents, including 231 fatalities and 388 injuries. Of the 231 reported fatalities, 150 (65 percent) died in an incident involving lateral rollover of the ROV. Of the 388 injured victims, 75 (19 percent) were classified as being severely injured; 67 of these victims (89 percent) were injured in incidents that involved lateral rollover of the ROV.
From the 428 ROV-related incidents reviewed by CPSC, 817 victims were reported to be in or on the ROV during the incident, and 610 (75 percent) were known to have been injured or killed. Seatbelt use is known for 477 of the 817 victims; of these, 348 (73 percent) were not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the incident.
Of the 610 fatally and nonfatally injured victims who were in or on the ROV, 433 (71 percent) were partially or fully ejected from the ROV; and 269 (62 percent) of these victims were struck by
Of the 225 fatal victims who were in or on the ROV at the time of the incident, 194 (86 percent) were ejected partially or fully from the vehicle, and 146 (75 percent) were struck by a part of the vehicle after ejection. Seat belt use is known for 155 of the 194 ejected victims; of these, 141 (91 percent) were not wearing a seat belt.
To estimate the number of nonfatal injuries associated with ROVs that were treated in a hospital emergency department, CPSC undertook a special study to identify cases that involved ROVs that were reported through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) from January 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010.
NEISS does not contain a separate category or product code for ROVs. Injuries associated with ROVs are usually assigned to an ATV product category (NEISS product codes 3286—3287) or to the utility vehicle (UTV) category (NEISS product code 5044). A total of 2,018 injuries that were related to ATVs or UTVs were recorded in NEISS between January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010. The Commission attempted follow-up interviews with each victim (or a relative of the victim) to gather more information about the incidents and the vehicles involved. CPSC determined whether the vehicle involved was an ROV based on the make and model of the vehicle reported in the interviews. If the make and model of the vehicle was not reported, staff did not count the case as involving an ROV.
A total of 688 surveys were completed, resulting in a 33 percent response rate for this survey. Of the 688 completed surveys, 16 were identified as involving an ROV based on the make and model of the vehicle involved. It is possible that more cases involved an ROV, but it was not possible to identify them due to lack of information on the vehicle make and model.
The estimated number of emergency department-treated ROV-related injuries occurring in the United States between January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010, is 2,200 injuries. Extrapolating for the year 2010, the estimated number of emergency department-treated, ROV-related injuries is 3,000, with a corresponding 95 percent confidence interval of 1,100 to 4,900.
CPSC staff began investigating ROVs following reports of serious injuries and fatalities associated with the Yamaha Rhino. In March 2009, CPSC staff negotiated a repair program on the Yamaha Rhino 450, 660, and 700 model ROVs to address stability and handling issues with the vehicles.
CPSC staff reviewed reports of ROV-related incidents reported to the CPSC between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2012, involving Yamaha Rhino model vehicles. (The data are only those reported to CPSC staff and are not representative of all incidents.) The number of incidents that occurred by quarters of a year are shown below in Figure 1.
After the repair program was initiated in March 2009, the number of reported incidents involving a Yamaha Rhino ROV decreased noticeably.
CPSC staff also analyzed the 242 Yamaha Rhino-related incidents reported to CPSC and identified 46 incidents in which a Yamaha Rhino vehicle rolled over during a turn on flat or gentle terrain. Staff identified forty-one of the 46 incidents as involving an unrepaired Rhino vehicle. In comparison, staff identified only two of the 46 incidents in which a repaired Rhino vehicle rolled during a turn, and each of these incidents occurred on terrain with a 5 to 10 degree slope. Among these 41 reported incidents, there were no incidents involving repaired Rhinos rolling over on flat terrain during a turn.
The Commission believes the decrease in Rhino-related incidents after the repair program was initiated can be attributed to the vehicle modifications made by the repair program. Specifically, correction of oversteer and improved lateral stability can reduce rollover incidents by reducing the risk of sudden and unexpected increases in lateral acceleration during a turn, and increasing the amount of force required to roll the vehicle over. CPSC believes that lateral stability and vehicle handling have the most effect on rollovers during a turn on level terrain because the rollover is caused primarily by lateral acceleration generated by friction during the turn. Staff's review of rollover incidents during a turn on level ground indicates that repaired Rhino vehicles are less likely than unrepaired vehicles to roll over. CPSC believes this is further evidence that increasing lateral stability and correcting oversteer to understeer contributed to the decrease in Yamaha Rhino incidents.
ROVs are “consumer products” that can be regulated by the Commission under the authority of the CPSA.
Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the procedure the Commission must follow to issue a consumer product safety standard under section 7. In accordance with section 9, the Commission may commence rulemaking by issuing an ANPR; as noted previously, the Commission issued an ANPR on ROVs in October 2009. Section 9 authorizes the Commission to issue an NPR including the proposed rule and a preliminary regulatory analysis in accordance with section 9(c) of the CPSA and request comments regarding the risk of injury identified by the Commission, the regulatory alternatives being considered, and other possible alternatives for addressing the risk.
According to section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, before promulgating a consumer product safety rule, the Commission must consider, and make appropriate
According to section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA, to issue a final rule, the Commission must find that the rule is “reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with such product” and that issuing the rule is in the public interest.
Other provisions of the CPSA also authorize this rulemaking. Section 27(e) provides the Commission with authority to issue a rule requiring consumer product manufacturers to provide the Commission with such performance and technical data related to performance and safety as may be required to carry out the CPSA and to give such performance and technical data to prospective and first purchasers.
Based on incident data, vehicle testing, and experience with the Yamaha Rhino repair program, the Commission believes that improving lateral stability (by increasing rollover resistance) and improving vehicle handling (by correcting oversteer to understeer) are the most effective approaches to reducing the occurrence of ROV rollover incidents. ROVs with higher lateral stability are less likely to roll over because more lateral force is necessary to cause rollover than an ROV with lower lateral stability. ROVs exhibiting understeer during a turn are less likely to rollover because steering control is stable and the potential for the driver to lose control is low.
The Commission believes that when rollovers do occur, improving occupant protection performance (by increasing seat belt use) will mitigate injury severity. CPSC's analysis of ROV incidents indicates that 91 percent of fatally ejected victims were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the incident. Increasing seat belt use, in conjunction with better shoulder retention performance, will significantly reduce injuries and deaths associated with an ROV rollover event.
To address these hazards, the Commission is proposing requirements for:
• A minimum level of rollover resistance of the ROV when tested using the J-turn test procedure;
• A hang tag providing information about the vehicle's rollover resistance on a progressive scale;
• Understeer performance of the ROV when tested using the constant radius test procedure;
• Limited maximum speed of the ROV when tested with occupied front seat belts unbuckled; and
• A minimum level of passive shoulder protection when using a probe test.
In February 2010, the Commission contracted SEA, Limited (SEA) to conduct an in-depth study of vehicle dynamic performance and static rollover measures for ROVs. SEA evaluated a sample of 10 ROVs that represented the recreational and utility oriented ROVs available in the U.S. market that year. SEA tested and measured several characteristics and features that relate to the rollover performance of the vehicles and to the vehicle's handling characteristics.
In 2011, SEA designed and built a roll simulator to measure and analyze occupant response during quarter-turn roll events of a wide range of machines, including ROVs. The Commission contracted with SEA to conduct occupant protection performance evaluations of seven ROVs with differing occupant protection designs.
Following are definitions of basic terms used in this section.
• Lateral acceleration: acceleration that generates the force that pushes the vehicle sideways. During a turn, lateral acceleration is generated by friction between the tires and surface. Lateral acceleration is expressed as a multiple of free-fall gravity (g).
• Two-wheel lift: point at which the inside wheels of a turning vehicle lift off the ground, or when the uphill wheels of a vehicle on a tilt table lift off the table. Two-wheel lift is a precursor to a rollover event. We use the term “two-wheel lift” interchangeably with “tip-up.”
• Threshold lateral acceleration: minimum lateral acceleration of the vehicle at two-wheel lift.
• Untripped rollover: rollover that occurs during a turn due solely to the lateral acceleration generated by friction between the tires and the road surface.
• Tripped rollover: rollover that occurs when the vehicle slides and strikes an object that provides a pivot point for the vehicle to roll over.
CPSC and SEA evaluated the static measurements of the static stability factor (SSF) and tilt table ratio (TTR) to compare lateral stability of a group of 10 ROVS.
SSF approximates the lateral acceleration in units of gravitational acceleration (g) at which rollover begins in a simplified vehicle that is assumed to be a rigid body without suspension movement or tire deflections. NHTSA uses rollover risk as determined by dynamic test results and SSF values to evaluate passenger vehicle rollover resistance for the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).
SEA measured track width and CG height values for the sample group of 10 ROVs. SEA used their Vehicle Inertia Measurement Facility (VIMF), which incorporates the results of five different tests to determine the CG height. SEA has demonstrated that VIMF CG height measurements are repeatable within ±0.5 percent of the measured values.
SEA conducted tilt table tests on the ROV sample group. In this test, the vehicles in various loaded conditions were placed on a rigid platform, and the angle of platform tilt was increased (see Figure 3) until both upper wheels of the vehicle lifted off the platform. The platform angle at two-wheel lift is the Tilt Table Angle (TTA). The trigonometric tangent of the TTA is the Tilt Table Ratio (TTR). TTA and TTR are used to evaluate the stability of the vehicle. Larger TTA and TTR generally correspond to better lateral stability, except these measures do not account for dynamic tire deflections or dynamic suspension compliances. Tilt testing is a quick and simple static test that does not require sophisticated instrumentation. Tilt testing is used as a rollover metric in the voluntary standards created by the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI). TTA and TTR values measured by SEA are shown in Table 2.
Because ROVs are designed with long suspension travel and soft tires for off-road performance, staff was concerned that SSF and TTR would not accurately characterize the dynamic lateral stability of the vehicle. Therefore, CPSC's contractor, SEA, conducted dynamic J-turn tests to determine whether SSF or TTR measurement corresponded with actual dynamic measures for lateral stability.
In 2001, NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test (also called drop-throttle J-turn testing and step-steer testing) as a method to measure rollover resistance of automobiles. NHTSA found the J-turn test to be the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with low rollover resistance. Specifically, the J-turn test is objective because a programmable steering machine turns the steering wheel during the test, and the test results show that the vehicle speed, lateral acceleration, and roll angle data observed during J-turn tests were highly repeatable.
J-turn tests are conducted by driving the test vehicle in a straight path, releasing (dropping) the throttle, and rapidly turning the steering wheel to a specified angle once the vehicle slows to a specified speed. The steering wheel angle and vehicle speed are selected to produce two-wheel lift of the vehicle. Outriggers, which are beams that extend to either side of a vehicle, allow the vehicle to roll but prevent full rollover. The sequence of events in the test procedure is shown in Figure 4. SEA conducted drop-throttle J-turn tests to measure the minimum lateral accelerations necessary to cause two-wheel lift (shown in Step 3 of Figure 4) for each vehicle. Side loading of the vehicle occurs naturally as a result of the lateral acceleration that is created in the J-turn and this lateral acceleration can be measured and recorded. The lateral acceleration produced in the turn is directly proportional to the side loading force acting to overturn the vehicle according to the equation F = (m)(A
SEA conducted the J-turn testing at 30 mph. A programmable steering controller input the desired steering angles at a steering rate of 500 degrees per second for all vehicles. The chosen steering rate of 500 degrees per second is high enough to approximate a step input, but still within the capabilities of a driver. (A step input is one that happens instantly and requires no time to complete. For steering input, time is required to complete the desired steering angle, so a steering step input is approximated by a high angular rate of steering input.) SEA conducted preliminary tests by starting with a relatively low steering angle of 80 to 90 degrees and incrementally increasing the steering angle until two-wheel lift was achieved. When SEA determined the steering angle that produced a two-wheel lift, SEA conducted the test run for that vehicle load condition. For each test run, SEA recorded the speed, steering angle, roll rate, and acceleration in three directions (longitudinal, lateral, and vertical). SEA processed and plotted the data to determine the minimum lateral acceleration required for two-wheel lift of the vehicle.
The J-turn test is a direct measure of the minimum or threshold lateral acceleration required to initiate a rollover event, or tip-up of the test vehicle when turning. ROVs that exhibit higher threshold lateral acceleration have a higher rollover resistance or are more stable than ROVs with lower threshold lateral accelerations. Each of the 10 ROVs tested in the study by SEA exhibited untripped rollover in the J-turn tests at steering wheel angles ranging from 93.8 to 205 degrees and lateral accelerations ranging from 0.625 to 0.785 g. Table 3 shows the vehicles arranged in ascending order for threshold lateral acceleration (A
SEA also conducted J-turn tests on four ROVs to measure the repeatability of the lateral acceleration measurements and found the tests to be very repeatable.
Comparison of the SSF, TTR, and A
•
•
•
•
SAE International (formerly Society of Automotive Engineers) standard, SAE J266, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice,
SEA used the constant radius test method, described in SAE J266, to evaluate the sample ROVs' handling characteristics. The test consists of driving each vehicle on a 100 ft. radius circular path from very low speeds, up to the speed where the vehicle experiences two-wheel lift or cannot be maintained on the path of the circle. The test vehicles were driven in the clockwise and counterclockwise directions. For a constant radius test, “understeer” is defined as the condition when the steering wheel angle required to maintain the circular path increases as the vehicle speed increases because the vehicle is turning less than intended. “Neutral steer” is defined as the condition when the steering wheel angle required to maintain the circular path is unchanged as the vehicle speed increases. “Oversteer” is defined as the condition when the average steering wheel input required to maintain the circular path decreases as the vehicle speed increases because the vehicle is turning more than intended.
SEA tested 10 ROVs; five of those vehicles (A, D, F, I, and J) exhibited sub-limit transitions to oversteer when tested on asphalt (see Figure 6). The five remaining vehicles (B, C, E, G, and H) exhibited a sub-limit understeer condition for the full range of the test.
SAE J266, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice,
Figure 7 shows SIS test data plotted of lateral acceleration versus time for Vehicle A and Vehicle H. Vehicle H is the same model vehicle as Vehicle A, but Vehicle H is a later model year, where the sub-limit oversteer has been corrected to understeer.
Plots from the ROV SIS tests in Figure 7 illustrate a sudden increase in lateral acceleration that is found only in vehicles that exhibit sub-limit oversteer. The sudden increase in lateral acceleration is exponential and represents a dynamically unstable
When Vehicle A reached its dynamically unstable condition, the lateral acceleration suddenly increased from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (difference of 0.19 g) in less than 1 second, and the vehicle rolled over. (Outriggers on the vehicle prevented full rollover of the vehicle.) In contrast, Vehicle H never reached a point where the lateral acceleration increases exponentially because the condition does not develop in understeering vehicles.
SEA test results indicate that ROVs that exhibited sub-limit oversteer also exhibited a sudden increase in lateral acceleration that caused the vehicle to roll over. An ROV that exhibits this sudden increase in lateral acceleration is directionally unstable and uncontrollable.
Plots of the vehicle path during SIS tests illustrate further how an oversteering ROV (Vehicle A) will roll over earlier in a turn than an understeering ROV (Vehicle H), when the vehicles are operated at the same speed and steering rate (see Figure 8). Vehicle A and Vehicle H follow the same path until Vehicle A begins to oversteer and its turn radius becomes smaller. Vehicle A becomes dynamically unstable, its lateral acceleration increases exponentially, and the vehicle rolls over suddenly. In contrast, Vehicle H continues to travel 300 more feet in the turn before the vehicle reaches its threshold lateral acceleration and rolls over. A driver in Vehicle H has more margin (in time and distance) to correct the steering to prevent rollover than a driver in Vehicle A because Vehicle H remains in understeer during the turn, while Vehicle A transitions to oversteer and becomes dynamically unstable.
The Commission believes that tests conducted by SEA provide strong evidence that sub-limit oversteer in ROVs is an unstable condition that can lead to a rollover incident, especially given the low rollover resistance of ROVs. All ROVs that exhibited sub-limit oversteer reached a dynamically unstable condition during a turn where the increase in lateral acceleration suddenly became exponential. The CPSC believes this condition can contribute to ROV rollover on level ground, and especially on pavement.
The open compartment configuration of ROVs is intentional and allows for easy ingress and egress, but the configuration also increases the likelihood of complete or partial ejection of the occupants in a rollover event. ROVs are equipped with a ROPS, seat belts, and other restraints for the protection of occupants (see Figure 9). Occupants who remain in the ROV and surrounded by the ROPS, an area known as the protective zone, are generally protected from being crushed by the vehicle during a quarter-turn rollover. Seat belts are the primary restraint for keeping occupants within the protective zone of the ROPS.
There are no standardized tests to evaluate the occupant protection performance of ROVs. However, a test to evaluate occupant protection performance in ROVs should be based on simulations of real vehicle rollover. In a rollover event, the vehicle experiences lateral acceleration and lateral roll. A valid simulation of an ROV rollover will reproduce the lateral acceleration and the roll rate experienced by an ROV during a real rollover event.
From the 428 ROV-related incidents reviewed by the Commission, 817 victims were reported to be in or on the ROV at the time of the incident, and 610 (75 percent) were known to have been injured or killed. Seatbelt use is known for 477 of the 817 victims; of these, 348 (73 percent) were not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the incident.
Of the 610 fatal and nonfatal victims who were in or on the ROV at the time of the incident, 433 (71 percent) were ejected partially or fully from the ROV, and 269 (62 percent) of these victims were struck by a part of the vehicle, such as the roll cage or side of the ROV, after ejection. Seat belt use is also known for 374 of the 610 victims; of these, 282 (75 percent) were not wearing a seat belt.
Of the 225 fatal victims who were in or on the ROV at the time of the incident, 194 (86 percent) were ejected partially or fully from the vehicle, and 146 (75 percent) were struck by a part of the vehicle after ejection. Seat belt use is known for 155 of the 194 ejected victim; of these, 141 (91 percent) were not wearing a seat belt.
A total of 826 victims were involved in the 428 ROV-related incidents reviewed the Commission's multidisciplinary team. Of these victims, 353 (43 percent) were known to be driving the ROV, and 203 (24 percent) were known to be a passenger in the front seat of the ROV. Of the 231 reported fatalities, 141 (61 percent) were the driver of the ROV, and 49 (21 percent) were the right front passenger in an ROV.
ROHVA also performed an analysis of hazard and risk issues associated with ROV-related incidents and determined that lack of seat belt use is the top incident factor.
CPSC staff reviewed the substantial body of literature on seat belt use in automobiles. (See Tab I of staff's briefing package.) Although seat belts are one of the most effective strategies for avoiding death and injury in motor vehicle crashes, seat belts are only effective if they are used.
Strategies for increasing seat belt use in passenger vehicles date to January 1, 1972, when NHTSA required all new cars to be equipped with passive restraints or with a seat belt reminder system that used a visual flashing light and audible buzzer that activated continuously for one minute if the vehicle was placed in gear with occupied front seat belts not belted. In 1973, NHTSA required that all new cars be equipped with an ignition interlock that allowed the vehicle to start only if the driver was belted. The ignition interlock was meant to be an interim measure until passive airbag technology matured, but public opposition to the technology led Congress to rescind the legislation and to prohibit NHTSA from requiring either ignition interlocks or continuous audible warnings that last more than 8 seconds. NHTSA then revised the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) to require a
Work by NHTSA indicates seat belt users can be separated loosely into three categories: Full-time users, part-time users, and nonusers. Part-time users and nonusers give different reasons for not wearing seat belts. Part-time seat belt users consistently cite forgetfulness and perceived low risk, such as driving short distances or on familiar roads, as reasons for not using seat belts.
One approach to increasing vehicle occupant seat belt use is to provide in-vehicle reminders to encourage occupants to fasten their seat belts. However, possible systems vary considerably in design, intrusiveness, and, most importantly, effectiveness.
Observational studies of cars equipped with the original NHTSA-required seat belt reminders found no significant difference in seat belt use among vehicles equipped with the continuous one minute visual-audio system and vehicles not equipped with the reminder system.
A national research project by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute endeavored to promote safety belt use in the United States by developing an effective in-vehicle safety belt reminder system.
1. The full-time safety belt user should not notice the system.
2. It should be more difficult to cheat on the system than to use the safety belt.
3. Permanent disconnection of the system should be difficult.
4. The system should be reliable and have a long life.
5. Crash and injury risk should not be increased as a result of the system.
6. System design should be based on what is known about the effectiveness and acceptability of system types and elements.
7. System design should be compatible with the manufacturer's intended purpose/goals for the system.
NHTSA conducted a study of enhanced seatbelt reminder (ESBR) effectiveness that compared results of controlled experiments with field observations of actual seat belt use. Among the findings of the ESBR effectiveness report are: (1) Systems with only visual reminders are not effective; (2) ESBR systems, in general, promote greater seat belt use by 3 to 4 percentage points; (3) more annoying systems are more effective, but that creates the challenge of designing an effective system that is acceptable; (4) potential gains in seat belt use not only come from simply reminding users, but also from motivating users, such as equating seat belt use with elimination of an annoyance; and (5) the positive effects of ESBRs on belt use were more pronounced for the low belt-use propensity groups.
In 2013, BRP introduced the Can-Am Maverick vehicle as a sport-oriented ROV that also includes a seat belt speed limiter system. CPSC staff did not test the Maverick vehicle because a sample vehicle was not available for testing.
In 2014, Polaris Industries (Polaris) announced that model year 2015 Ranger and RZR ROVs will include a seatbelt system that limits the speed of the vehicle to 15 mph if the seatbelt is not engaged. (Retrieved at:
Studies of seat belt reminder systems on automobiles are an appropriate foundation for ROV analysis because ROVs are typically driven by licensed drivers and the seating environment is similar to an automobile. Staff decided to obtain data on ROV users' experience and acceptance of seat belt reminders to validate the analysis.
CPSC staff was not aware of any studies that provide data on the effectiveness of seat belt reminder systems on ROVs or user acceptance of such technologies. Therefore, the CPSC contracted Westat, Inc. (Westat), to conduct focus groups with ROV users to explore their opinions of seat belt speed-limitation systems on ROVs. Phase 1 of the effort involved
Results of Phase 1 of the Westat study indicate that participants:
• Admit to being part-time seat belt users;
• cite familiarity and low-risk perception as reasons for not wearing seat belts;
• value easy ROV ingress and egress over seat belt use;
• generally travel around 5 mph when driving on their own property, and overall, drive 15 to 30 mph for typical use;
• had a mixed reaction to the speed-limitation technology at 10 mph;
• were more accepting of the speed-limitation technology if the speed was raised to 15 mph or if the system was tied to a key control.
Phase 2 of the Westat study is ongoing, and a report of the results is expected by December 2014. The results will provide data on ROV users' acceptance of a seat belt speed limitation technology with a threshold speed of 10 mph, 15 mph, and 20 mph. CPSC believes the results will provide additional rationale for determining a threshold speed for a seat belt speed limitation technology that balances users acceptance (as high a speed as possible) with safe operation of the ROV without seat belt use (as low a speed as possible).
To explore occupant protection performance testing for a product for which no standard test protocol exists, CPSC staff contracted Active Safety Engineering (ASE) to conduct two exploratory pilot studies to evaluate potential test methods. After completion of the pilot studies, CPSC staff contracted SEA, Limited (SEA) to conduct occupant protection performance evaluation tests, based on a more advanced test device designed by SEA.
ASE used a HYGE
In a follow-up pilot study, ASE used a deceleration platform sled rather than a HYGE
An unbelted ATD ejected fully from the vehicle during tests conducted at the rollover threshold of the ROV. In comparison, a belted ATD partially ejected from the vehicle during tests conducted at the same lateral acceleration. These exploratory tests with belted and unbelted occupants indicate the importance of using seat belts to prevent full ejection of the occupant during a rollover event.
SEA designed and built a roll simulator to measure and analyze occupant response during quarter-turn roll events of a wide range of machines, including ROVs. The SEA roll simulator produces lateral accelerations using a deceleration sled and produces roll rates using a motor to rotate the test sled (see Figure 10).
SEA simulated tripped and untripped rollovers of seven sample ROVs using belted and unbelted ATD occupants. Plots of the head excursion data indicate how well the vehicle's occupant protection features retain the occupant inside the protective zone of the ROPS during a roll simulation (see Figure 11). Head displacement plots above the ROPS Plane indicate the occupant's head stayed inside the ROPS zone, and plots below the ROPS Plane indicate that the occupant's head moved outside the ROPS zone.
The SEA roll simulator test results indicate that five of the seven ROVs tested allowed a belted occupant's head to eject outside the ROPS of the vehicle during a quarter-turn rollover simulation. The occupant protection
CPSC staff analysis of the SEA roll simulator test results indicates that vehicles with the best occupant protection performance restricted movement of the occupant with combinations of quick-locking seat belts, passive coverage in the hip and shoulder areas of the occupant, and large ROPS zones around the occupant's head. Rollover tests indicate that a seat belt is effective at preventing full occupant ejection, but in some cases where the seat belt does not lock quickly, partial occupant ejection still occurs. However, when a seat belt is used in conjunction with a passive shoulder barrier restraint, testing indicates that the occupant remains within the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS during quarter-turn rollover events.
The SEA roll simulator test results also indicate that unbelted occupants are partially or fully ejected from all vehicles, regardless of the presence of other passive restraints, such as hip restraints or shoulder restraints. Although passive shoulder barriers may not provide substantial benefit for occupant protection in unbelted rollovers, the roll simulator test results indicate that shoulder restraints significantly improved occupant containment when used in conjunction with a seat belt.
Although the SEA roll simulator is the most advanced test equipment viewed by the Commission, to date, and the test results provide clear evidence of occupant head excursion, not enough test data have been generated to base dynamic occupant protection performance test requirements on a device like the roll simulator. Therefore, the Commission is using the roll simulator test results to focus on occupant protection requirements that maximize occupant retention through seat belt use with passive shoulder restraint.
CPSC staff tested 10 sample ROVs to the occupant retention system (ORS) zone requirements specified in ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011. Requirements are specified for Zone 1—Leg/Foot, Zone 2—Shoulder/Hip, Zone 3—Arm/Hand, and Zone 4—Head/Neck. CPSC focused on the requirements for Zone 2 because occupant ejection occurs in this zone.
ANSI/ROHVA Zone 2—Shoulder/Hip requirements allow the vehicle to pass one of two different test methods to meet that zone's requirement. Under the first option, a construction-based method defines an area near the occupant's side that must be covered by a passive barrier. The test involves applying a 163-lbf. load at a point in the defined test area without failure or deformation of the barrier. Under the second option, a performance-based method specifies a tilt table test with a vehicle occupied by a belted test dummy. When the vehicle is tilted to 45 degrees on the tilt table, the ejection of the dummy must not exceed 5 inches beyond the vehicle width.
Results of CPSC tests indicate that only four of 10 vehicles passed the construction-based test requirements, and eight of 10 vehicles passed the performance-based test requirements.
CPSC measured the difference between the outermost point of the ROV and the outermost point on the ROPS near the occupant's head (see Figure 12). On one vehicle, the vehicle's maximum width was 6.75 inches outside the maximum ROPS width near the occupant's head. Because the requirement is based on a 5-inch limitation beyond the vehicle width, the occupant's torso could be 11.75 inches (6.75 inches plus 5 inches) outside of the vehicle ROPS and still meet the performance-based requirement.
CPSC also compared the occupant head excursion relative to the torso excursion during the tilt table tests. Due to occupant rotation during the tests, the maximum head displacement exceeded the torso displacement by up to 3 inches. The discrepancy between head and torso displacement and between the vehicle width and ROPS' width can result in occupant head ejection that is 14.75 inches (11.75 inches plus 3 inches) outside the protective zone of the ROPS and still meet the performance-based requirement.
Two different organizations developed separate voluntary standards for ROVs. The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) developed ANSI/ROHVA 1,
ROHVA member companies include: Arctic Cat, BRP, Honda, John Deere, Kawasaki, Polaris, and Yamaha. Work on ANSI/ROHVA 1 started in 2008, and work completed with the publication of ANSI/ROHVA 1–2010. The standard was immediately opened for revision, and a revised standard, ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011, was published in July 2011.
OPEI member companies include: Honda, John Deere, Kawasaki, and Yamaha. Work on ANSI/OPEI B71.9 was started in 2008, and work was completed with the publication of ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 in March 2012.
Both voluntary standards address design, configuration, and performance aspects of ROVs, including requirements for accelerator and brake controls; service and parking brake/parking mechanism performance; lateral and pitch stability; lighting; tires; handholds; occupant protection; labels; and owner's manuals.
CPSC staff participated in the canvass process used to develop consensus for ANSI/ROHVA 1 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9. From June 2009 to the present, CPSC staff has engaged actively with ROHVA and OPEI through actions that include the following:
• Sending correspondence to ROHVA and OPEI with comments on voluntary standard ballots that outlined CPSC staff's concerns that the voluntary standard requirements for lateral stability are too low, that requirements for vehicle handling are lacking, and that requirements for occupant protection are not robust;
• Participating in public meetings with ROHVA and OPEI to discuss development of the voluntary standard and to discuss static and dynamic tests performed by contractors on behalf of CPSC staff;
• Sharing all CPSC contractor reports with test results of static and dynamic tests performed on ROVs by making all reports available on the CPSC Web site;
• Requesting copies of test reports on dynamic tests performed on ROVs by ROHVA for CPSC staff to review;
• Demonstrating dynamic test procedures and data collection to ROHVA and OPEI at a public meeting at an outdoor test facility in East Liberty, OH; and
• Submitting suggested changes and additions to the ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 voluntary standard to improve lateral stability, vehicle handling, and occupant protection (OPEI was copied).
ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 was published in July 2011, without addressing CPSC staff's concerns. CPSC staff requested, but has not received reports or test results of static or dynamic tests conducted by contractors on behalf of ROHVA.
ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 was published in March 2012, without addressing CPSC staff's concerns.
On August 29, 2013, CPSC staff sent a letter to ROHVA with suggested modifications to the voluntary standard requirements to address staff's concerns. CPSC staff sent a courtesy copy of the August 29, 2013 recommendation letter to OPEI. On November 27, 2013, ROHVA responded that ROHVA plans to adopt less stringent versions of CPSC staff's suggested requirements to improve the lateral stability and occupant protection performance of ROVs. On March 13, 2014, ROHVA sent CPSC staff the Canvass Draft of proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011. Staff responded to the Canvass Draft on May 23, 2014, and summarized why staff believes ROHVA's proposed requirements will not reduce the number of deaths and injuries from ROVs. The discussion below also provides that explanation. On September 24, 2014, ANSI approved the proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011, which is identical to the Canvass Draft. ROHVA has advised that the revised standard will soon be published as ANSI/ROHVA 1–2014. In addition, CPSC staff met with representatives from ROHVA and OPEI on October 23, 2014. Following is a link to the video of this meeting:
On February 21, 2014, OPEI sent a letter to CPSC staff requesting that the CPSC exclude from CPSC's rulemaking efforts multipurpose off-highway utility vehicles (MOHUVs) that meet the ANSI/OPEI B71.9–12 standard requirements. We address this request in the response to comments section of this preamble (Section VIII).
In this section, we summarize the provisions of the voluntary standards that are related to the specific requirements the Commission is proposing and we assess the adequacy of these voluntary standard provisions.
ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9 include similar provisions to address static lateral stability and differing provisions to address dynamic lateral stability:
Furthermore, all of the ROVs tested pass the K
Furthermore, all of the ROVs tested passed the minimum 30 degree TTA requirement specified by ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011. The ROV with the lowest rollover resistance, as directly measured by threshold lateral acceleration at rollover (Vehicle D, A
The CPSC believes the ANSI/ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI tilt table requirement does not detect inadequate rollover resistance. The TTA requirement in the voluntary standard does not correlate to the actual rollover resistance of ROVs, allows a vehicle that was part of repair program to pass the test without having undergone the repair, and provides no incentive for manufacturers to improve the lateral stability of ROVs. The CPSC believes the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover is a direct measure of rollover resistance, and its use would eliminate the need for a tilt table test requirement.
CPSC staff contracted SEA to conduct constant steer angle testing, as specified by the ROHVA standard, on vehicles A, F, and J of the ROV study.
The Commission is concerned that ROVs with low lateral stability can pass ROHVA's dynamic stability requirement because the small turn radius limits the ROV's speed and prevents generation of the lateral accelerations necessary to assess rollover resistance (as shown by the results for Vehicle F). The Commission is also concerned that the effects of oversteer can allow an ROV to pass the test because maximum speed is reached by vehicle spinout (as shown by the results for Vehicle J).
NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test protocol as a method to measure the rollover resistance of automobiles.
OPEI's use of the J-turn maneuver does not measure the lateral acceleration at two-wheel lift that produces ROV rollover. There is no correspondence between the proposed ANSI/OPEI dynamic stability requirement and ROV lateral stability because the 180-degree steering wheel input does not correspond to a turning radius. For example, an ROV with a low steering ratio will make a sharper turn at 180 degrees of steering wheel input than an ROV with a high steering ratio. (The steering ratio relates the amount that the steering wheel is turned to the amount that the wheels of the vehicle turns. A higher steering ratio means the driver turns the steering wheel more to get the vehicle wheels to turn, and a lower steering ratio means the driver turns the steering wheel less to get the vehicle wheels to turn.) In the proposed ANSI/ROHVA J-turn test, a vehicle with a larger steering ratio will make a wider turn and generate less lateral acceleration than a vehicle with a smaller steering ratio.
The steering ratio is set by the ROV manufacturer and varies depending on make and model. SEA measured the steering ratios of the 10 sample ROVs that were tested (see Figure 13). If the dynamic lateral stability requirement is defined by a steering wheel angle input, a manufacturer could increase the steering ratio of a vehicle to meet the requirement rather than improve the vehicle's stability.
CPSC staff contracted SEA to conduct J-turn testing, as specified by the ANSI/OPEI standard, on vehicles A, F, and J (see Table 7).
CPSC is concerned that ROVs with low lateral stability can pass OPEI's dynamic stability requirement because an ROV that was part of a repair program (Vehicle A) to increase its roll resistance passed the ANSI/OPEI stability test. When the ANSI/OPEI J-turn maneuver was conducted just one mile above the requirement at 21 mph, Vehicle A failed. Similarly, when the maneuver was conducted at 22 mph, Vehicle F and Vehicle J failed. These results indicate that the parameters of the test protocol allow most ROVs to pass.
NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test protocol as a method to measure rollover resistance of automobiles and determined that the J-turn test is the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with low rollover resistance.
ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9 both lack provisions to address vehicle handling:
ROVs that understeer in sub-limit conditions do not exhibit a sudden increase in lateral acceleration. Therefore, the CPSC concludes that ROVs should be required to operate in understeer at sub-limit conditions based on the associated inherent dynamic stability of understeering ROVs and the smaller burden of steering correction it places on the average driver who is familiar with driving a passenger vehicle that operates in sub-limit understeer.
SIS tests conducted by SEA that illustrate the sudden increase in lateral acceleration that is found only in vehicles that exhibit sub-limit oversteer. The sudden increase in lateral acceleration is exponential and represents a dynamically unstable condition. This condition is undesirable because it can cause a vehicle with low lateral stability (such as an ROV) to roll over suddenly.
In Figure 14, Vehicle A is an ROV that transitions to oversteer; Vehicle H is the same model ROV, but a later model year in which the oversteer has been corrected to understeer.
When Vehicle A reached its dynamically unstable condition, the lateral acceleration suddenly increased in less than 1 second, and the vehicle rolled over. In contrast, Vehicle H never reaches a dynamically unstable condition because the condition does not develop in understeering vehicles. The increase in Vehicle H's lateral acceleration remains linear, and Vehicle H rolls over more than 5 seconds later than Vehicle A.
ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011and ANSI/OPEI B71.9 include similar provisions to address occupant retention during a rollover event.
The Commission's analysis of ROV-related incidents indicates that 91 percent of fatal victims, and 73 percent of all victims (fatal and nonfatal), were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the incident. Without seat belt use, occupants experience partial to full ejection from the ROV, and many occupants are struck by the ROV after ejection. Based on review of ROV incident data and CPSC's testing described above, the Commission believes that many ROV deaths and injuries can be eliminated if occupants are wearing seat belts.
Automotive researchers have developed technology that motivates drivers to buckle seat belts by making it more difficult to drive faster than 20–25 mph if the driver's seat belt is not buckled.
Given the low seat belt use rate in ROV-related incidents, as well as the substantial potential reduction in injuries and deaths if seat belt use were higher, the CPSC believes that the requirement for seat belt reminders should be more stringent and should incorporate the most recent advances in technology developed in the automotive and ROV market.
CPSC staff also believes the construction-based test method for Zone 2 is inadequate because the specified point of application (a single point) and 3-inch diameter test probe do not accurately represent contact between an occupant and the vehicle during a rollover event. Specifying a single point does not ensure adequate coverage because a vehicle with a passive barrier at only that point would pass the test. Similarly, a 3 inch diameter probe does not represent the upper arm of an occupant and therefore does not ensure adequate coverage.
In this section, we describe and respond to comments to the ANPR for ROVs. We present a summary of each of the commenter's topics, followed by the Commission's response. The Commission received 116 comments. The comments can be viewed on:
Joint comments submitted on behalf of Arctic Cat Inc., Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (Companies);
Carr Engineering, Inc. (CEI);
The OPEI/ANSI B 71.9 Committee (Committee); and
ROHVA.
The respondents were ROV manufacturers and their associations, consultants to ROV manufacturers, and more than 110 consumers. Eighteen commenters supported developing regulatory standards for ROVs. The other commenters opposed rulemaking action. The commenters raised issues in five areas:
• Voluntary standard activities,
• Static stability metrics,
• Vehicle handling,
• Occupant protection, and
• Consumer behavior.
The comment topics are separated by category.
1.
CPSC believes the history of engagement with ROHVA, as detailed above, shows that CPSC staff has tried to work with ROHVA to improve the voluntary standard requirements to address low lateral stability, lack of vehicle handling requirements, and inadequate occupant protection requirements. The Commission does not believe deferring to ROHVA will address those areas of concern because, although ROHVA has made changes to the voluntary standard, the requirements still do not improve the lateral stability of ROVs, do not eliminate sub-limit oversteer handling, and do not improve occupant protection in a rollover event.
2.
Lastly, the occupant protection requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 are not based on valid occupant protection performance tests that simulate conditions of vehicle rollover. ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 does not include any performance requirements for occupant protection. ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 includes performance requirements based on static tilt tests that allow unacceptable occupant head ejection beyond the protective zone of the vehicle ROPS.
3.
“MOHUVs,” as defined by ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012, are vehicles with four or more wheels, a steering wheel, non-straddle seating, and maximum speed between 25 and 50 mph. Therefore, the Commission believes that an MOHUV that exceeds 30 mph is an ROV that is subject to the scope of the proposed rulemaking. The differences cited by OPEI between work-utility vehicles and recreational vehicles,
1.
2.
A subsequent study of SSF trends in automobiles found that SSF values increased for all vehicles after 2001, particularly SUVs, and SUVs tended to have the worst SSF values in the earlier years. NHTSA's intention that manufacturers improve the lateral stability of passenger vehicles was achieved through the NCAP rating, a rating based predominantly on the SSF value of the vehicle.
Based on dynamic stability tests conducted by SEA and improvements in the Yamaha Rhino after the repair program was initiated, the Commission believes that setting a minimum rollover resistance value for ROVs can improve the lateral stability of the current market of ROVs, without forcing radical designs or elimination of any models. The Commission also believes continued increase in ROV lateral stability can be achieved by making the value of each model vehicle's threshold lateral
3.
The Commission compared the actual lateral acceleration at rollover threshold of several ROVs, as measured by the J-turn test, and found that the static measures (whether K
4.
The Commission believes that the tilt table requirement in ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 does not adequately address lateral stability in ROVs. A comparison of how the vehicles would rank if the TTA were used instead of the direct measurement of lateral acceleration at rollover (A
Direct dynamic measurement of the vehicle's resistance to rollover is possible with ROVs. Therefore, the Commission believes that J-turn testing to determine the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover should be used as the standard requirement to determine lateral stability.
5.
CPSC believes the ANSI/ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI tilt table requirement is a requirement that all ROVs can pass and will not promote improvement among vehicles that have lower rollover resistance. The TTA requirement in the voluntary standard does not correlate to the actual rollover resistance of ROVs; the requirement allows the Yamaha Rhino to pass the test without having undergone the repair; and the requirement provides no incentive for manufacturers to improve the lateral stability of ROVs. The Commission believes that the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover value is a direct measure for rollover resistance, and its use would eliminate the need for tilt table testing as a requirement.
6.
1.
2.
CEI states that their tests demonstrate that ROVs that exhibit oversteer are not unstable. However, testing performed by SEA shows that oversteering ROVs can exhibit a sudden increase in lateral acceleration resulting in a roll over. Plots from SIS tests illustrate this sudden increase in lateral acceleration, which is found only in vehicles that exhibit sub-limit oversteer (see Figure 15). Vehicle A is an ROV that transitions to oversteer; Vehicle H is the same model ROV, but a later model year in which the oversteer has been corrected to understeer.
When Vehicle A reached its dynamically unstable condition, the lateral acceleration suddenly increased from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (difference of 0.19 g) in less than 1 second, and the vehicle rolled over. (Outriggers on the vehicle prevented full rollover of the vehicle.) In contrast, Vehicle H never reached a dynamically unstable condition because the condition does not develop in understeering vehicles. The increase in Vehicle H's lateral acceleration remains linear, and the lateral acceleration increase from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (same difference of 0.19 g) occurs in 5.5 seconds. A driver in Vehicle H has more margin to correct the steering to prevent rollover than a driver in Vehicle A because Vehicle H remains in understeer during the turn, while Vehicle A transitions to oversteer and becomes dynamically unstable.
SEA test results indicate that ROVs that exhibited sub-limit oversteer also exhibited a sudden increase in lateral acceleration that caused the vehicle to roll over. An ROV that exhibits this sudden increase in lateral acceleration is directionally unstable and uncontrollable.
3.
4.
A significant body of research has been developed over many years regarding the science of vehicle dynamic handling and control. The Commission has reviewed technical papers regarding vehicle handling research and finds no agreement with the statement that “a vehicle in an oversteer condition will generally follow the path and allow directional control of the vehicle to be maintained longer.” In fact, the Commission's research finds universal characterization of sub-limit oversteer as directionally unstable, highly undesirable, and dynamically unstable at or above the
Likewise, limit oversteer is described by the Companies as the result of the driver “operating the vehicle in a turn at a speed beyond what is safe and reasonable for that turn or applying excessive power in a turn.” A vehicle in limit oversteer is essentially sliding with the rear of the vehicle rotating about the yaw axis. A vehicle in a slide is susceptible to a tripped rollover. ROVs have low rollover resistance and are at high risk of a violent, tripped rollover. Autonomous vehicle testing by SEA has duplicated these limit oversteer conditions and found that tripped rollovers can create in excess of 2 g to 3 g of instantaneous lateral acceleration, which produces a violent rollover event. CPSC's evaluation indicates that eliminating sub-limit oversteer will reduce unintentional transitions to limit oversteer.
The Commission does not agree that producing power oversteer by spinning the rear wheels is a necessity for negotiating low-friction, off-highway surfaces. Drifting or power oversteering is a risky practice that presents tripped rollover hazards and does not improve the vehicle's controllability. However, the practice of power oversteering is the result of driver choices that are not under the control of the manufacturer or the CPSC, and will not be significantly affected by the elimination of sub-limit oversteer.
5.
The Commission believes that sub-limit oversteer is an unstable condition that can lead to a rollover incident. Based on the Yamaha Rhino repair program and the SEA test results indicating that half of the sample ROVs tested already exhibit sub-limit understeer, the CPSC believes that ROVs can be designed to understeer with minimum cost and without diminishing the utility or recreational value of this class of vehicle.
6.
Of the 428 ROV-related incidents reviewed by the CPSC, 291 (68 percent) involved lateral rollover of the vehicle, and more than half of these (52 percent) occurred while the vehicle was turning. Of the 147 fatal incidents that involved rollover, 26 (18 percent) occurred on a paved surface. A vehicle exhibiting oversteer is most susceptible to rollover in a turn where the undesirable sudden increase in lateral acceleration can cause rollover to occur quickly, especially on paved surfaces, where an ROV can exhibit an untripped rollover.
The Commission believes that improving the rollover resistance and vehicle steering characteristics of ROVs is a practical strategy for reducing the occurrence of ROV rollover events.
1.
After reviewing the literature regarding automotive seat belts, the Commission believes that an 8-second reminder light, as required in ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012, is not adequate to increase meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs because the system is not intrusive enough to motivate drivers and passengers to wear their seat belts. Results from past studies on automotive seat belt reminders conclude that visual reminders are ineffective. Numerous studies conclude further that effective reminder systems have to be intrusive enough to motivate users to buckle their seat belts. The more intrusive reminders are more effective at changing user behavior, as long as the reminder is not so intrusive that users bypass the system.
Based on literature and results from the Westat study, the Commission believes that a seat belt speed limiting system that restricts the maximum speed of the vehicle to 15 mph, if the driver seat and any occupied front seats are not buckled, is the most effective method to increase meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs. The system is transparent to users at speeds of 15 mph and below, and the system consistently motivates occupants to buckle their seat belts to achieve speeds above 15 mph.
2.
A more robust seat belt reminder system than the current voluntary standard requirement for a visual reminder light is necessary to motivate users to wear their seat belts because automotive studies of seat belt reminders indicate that visual reminders do not increase seat belt use. Dynamic rollover tests of ROVs indicate that a three-point seat belt, in conjunction with a passive shoulder restraint, is effective in restraining an occupant inside the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS during a quarter-turn rollover.
3.
The SEA roll simulator is the most accurate simulation of an ROV rollover event because it has been validated by measurements taken during actual ROV rollovers. Rollover tests indicate that a seat belt, used in conjunction with a passive shoulder barrier, is effective at restraining occupants within the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS during quarter-turn rollover events.
1.
A review of the incident data shows no indication that the majority of rollover incidents are caused by drivers who “purposely push the vehicle to and beyond its limits by engaging in stunts, racing, and intentional use of extreme environments.” An analysis of the reported ROV incidents indicates that many of the details of the circumstances of the event, such as vehicle speed or terrain slope, are not known. In cases in which details of the event are known, roughly 50 percent of the fatal lateral rollover incidents occurred on flat or gentle slope terrain; and 14 percent occurred at speeds below 20 miles per hour. Twenty-seven percent of the drivers in fatal rollover incidents are children under 16 years of age; and 33 percent of all ROV-related fatalities are children under 16 years of age.
2.
CPSC conducted a special study in 2010, in which all cases coded as ATVs or UTVs were selected for telephone interviews to gather information about the product involved. Sixteen of the 668 completed surveys had responses that identified the vehicle as an ROV. Staff's analysis shows that many ROVs are coded as ATVs; many UTVs are also coded as ATVs; and identification of ROVs and UTVs is difficult because the NEISS narratives often do not include enough information to identify the product. The miscoding rate for UTVs and ROVs is high, and most likely, the miscoding is due to consumer-reported information in the emergency department.
The CPSC added the UTV product code 5044 to the NEISS in 2005. In the years 2005 to 2008 (the years cited in the joint comment document), the UTV product code had mostly out-of-scope records, with a large number of utility trailers and similar records. After these out-of-scope records are removed, the only viable estimate is obtained by aggregating the cases across 2005 to 2008, to get an estimated 1,300 emergency department-treated injuries related to UTVs (see Tab K, Table 1). This estimate is considerably less than the estimate reported by Heiden in the joint comment. This estimate also does not include the UTV-related injuries that were miscoded as ATVs in the ATV product codes.
As the years have passed and the UTV product code is being used more as intended, a completely different picture is seen for UTVs. From 2009 to 2012, there are an estimated 6,200 emergency department-treated, UTV-related injuries (which can be attributed to an increase in the number of UTV-related injuries, a larger portion of injuries being identified in NEISS as UTVs, or a combination of all of these and other factors not identified). Of these estimated 6,200 injuries, only 80.2 percent are treated and released. The proportion of treated and released injuries for UTVs is significantly below the proportion of treated and released for all consumer products (92.0 percent of estimated consumer product-related, emergency department-treated injuries
In conclusion, data are insufficient to support the argument that UTV injuries are not as severe as those associated with other products. As more data have become available in recent years, it appears that about 80 percent of the injuries associated with UTVs have been treated and released as compared to about 92 percent of the injuries associated with all consumer products.
3.
The analysis of IDIs summarized in the comments from the Companies does not define “excessive speed,” “dangerous maneuver,” or “sharp turn.” In fact, in other places in the comments, the companies mention: “There is also no evidence suggesting that speed is an important factor in preventing accidents.” The companies also state: “Tight steering turn capability is an important feature in certain ROVs, particularly those for trail use, because of the need to respond quickly to avoid obstacles and trail-edge drop-offs, and otherwise navigate in these off-highway terrains” Thus, there is ambiguity in what the definitions could mean in the analysis of the IDIs (When is the vehicle at an excessive speed? When is a turn too sharp? When is a maneuver dangerous?). The Commission's approach to analyzing the 428 incidents summarized in the reports available in the NPR briefing package is to consider the sequence of events, the vehicle, the driver, any passenger, and environment characteristics across all incidents. All definitions are set and used consistently by the multidisciplinary review team to understand the hazard patterns and incident characteristics across all incidents, not to set responsibility in one place or another.
4.
An analysis of the reported ROV incidents indicates that many of the details of an event, such as vehicle speed or terrain slope, are not known. Where details of the event are known, roughly 50 percent of the fatal lateral rollover incidents occurred on flat or gentle slope terrain, and 14 percent occurred at speeds below 20 miles per hour. Twenty-seven percent of the drivers in fatal rollover incidents are children under 16 years of age; and 33 percent of all ROV-related fatalities are children under 16 years of age. There is no indication that the majority of rollover incidents are caused by drivers who intentionally drive under extreme conditions.
Regarding seat belt use, results from past studies on automotive seat belt reminders conclude that visual seat belt reminders are ineffective. Numerous studies further conclude that effective reminder systems have to be intrusive enough to motivate users to buckle their seat belts. The more intrusive reminders are more effective at changing user behavior, as long as the reminder is not so intrusive that users bypass the system.
The Commission believes that a seat belt speed-limiting system that restricts the maximum speed of the vehicle to 15 mph if the driver seat and any occupied front seats are not buckled is the most effective method to increase meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs. The system is transparent to users at speeds of 15 mph and below, and the system consistently motivates occupants to buckle their seat belts to achieve speeds above 15 mph.
The proposed standard would apply to “recreational off-highway vehicles” (ROVs), as defined, which would limit the scope to vehicles with a maximum speed greater than 30 mph. The proposed standard would include requirements relating to lateral acceleration, vehicle handling, and occupant protection. The requirements are intended to reduce or eliminate an unreasonable risk of injury associated with ROVs. The proposed standard would specifically exclude “golf cars,” “all-terrain vehicles,” “fun karts,” “go karts,” and “light utility vehicles,” as defined by the relevant voluntary standards. The Commission proposes two compliance dates: ROVs would be required to comply with the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements (§§ 1422.3 and 1422.4) 180 days after publication of the final rule in the
The proposed standard would provide that the definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051) apply. In addition, the proposed standard would include the following definitions:
• “Recreational off-highway vehicle”—a motorized vehicle designed for off-highway use with the following features: Four or more wheels with pneumatic tires; bench or bucket seating for two or more occupants; automotive-type controls for steering, throttle, and braking; rollover protective structures (ROPS); occupant restraint; and maximum speed capability greater than 30 mph.
• “two-wheel lift”—point at which the inside wheels of a turning vehicle lift off the ground, or when the uphill wheels of a vehicle on a tilt table lift off the table. Two-wheel lift is a precursor to a rollover event. We use the term “two-wheel lift” interchangeably with “tip-up.”
• “threshold lateral acceleration”—minimum lateral acceleration of the vehicle at two-wheel lift.
The proposed rule would require that all ROVs meet a minimum requirement for lateral stability. The dynamic lateral stability requirement would set a minimum value for the lateral acceleration at rollover of 0.70 g, as determined by a 30 mph drop-throttle J-turn test. The 30 mph drop-throttle J-turn test uses a programmable steering controller to turn the test vehicle traveling at 30 mph at prescribed steering angles and rates to determine the minimum steering angle at which two-wheel lift is observed. These are the conditions and procedures that were used in testing with SEA. Under the proposed requirements, the data collected during these tests are analyzed to compute and verify the lateral acceleration at rollover for the vehicle. The greater the lateral acceleration value, the greater is the resistance of the ROV to tip or roll over.
The J-turn test is the most appropriate method to measure the rollover resistance of ROVs because the J-turn test has been evaluated by NHTSA as the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with low rollover resistance. As discussed previously, static metrics, such as SSF and TTR, cannot be used to evaluate accurately ROV rollover resistance because static tests are unable to account fully for the dynamic tire deflections and suspension compliance exhibited by ROVs during a J-turn maneuver. The Commission also verified that the J-turn test is objective and repeatable for ROVs by conducting numerous J-turn tests on several ROVs.
As explained above, testing conducted by CPSC staff and SEA supports the proposed requirement that ROVs demonstrate a minimum threshold lateral acceleration at rollover of 0.70 g or greater in a J-turn. Results of J-turn tests performed on a sample of 10 ROVs available in the U.S. market indicate that six of the 10 ROVs tested measured threshold lateral accelerations below 0.70 g (values ranged from 0.625 g to 0.690 g). The Commission believes that minor changes to vehicle suspension and/or track width spacing, similar to the changes in the Yamaha Rhino repair program, can increase the threshold lateral acceleration of these vehicles to 0.70 g or greater. The Yamaha repair program improved the rollover resistance of the Yamaha Rhino from 0.670 g (unrepaired Yamaha Rhino) to 0.705 g (repaired Yamaha Rhino).
Based on CPSC's evaluation of ROV testing and the decrease in injuries and deaths associated with Yamaha Rhino vehicles after the repair program was implemented, the Commission believes that improving the rollover resistance of all ROVs can reduce injuries and deaths associated with ROV rollover events.
The Commission is proposing a requirement that ROV manufacturers provide technical information for consumers on a hangtag at the point of purchase.
As discussed previously, the Commission is proposing a requirement that ROVs meet a minimum lateral acceleration of 0.70 g at rollover, as identified by J-turn testing. The Commission proposes requiring a hangtag on each ROV that would state the actual measured lateral acceleration at rollover (as identified by the J-turn testing) of each ROV model. The Commission believes that the hang tag will allow consumers to make informed decisions on the comparative lateral stability of ROVs when making a purchase and will provide a competitive incentive for manufacturers to improve the rollover resistance of ROVs.
The proposed rule specifies the content and format for the hang tag, and includes an example hang tag. Under the proposal, the hang tag must conform in content, form, and sequence as specified in the proposed rule.
The Commission proposes the following ROV hangtag requirements:
• Content. Every ROV shall be offered for sale with a hangtag that graphically illustrates and textually states the lateral acceleration threshold at rollover for that ROV model. The hangtag shall be attached to the ROV and may be removed only by the first purchaser.
• Size. Every hangtag shall be at least 15.24 cm (6 inches) wide by 10.16 cm (4 inches) tall.
• Attachment. Every hangtag shall be attached to the ROV and be conspicuous to a person sitting in the driver's seat; and the hangtag shall be removable only with deliberate effort.
• Format. The hang tag shall provide all of the elements shown in the example hangtag (see Figure 16).
Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to require, by rule, that manufacturers of consumer products provide to the Commission performance and technical data related to performance and safety as may be required to carry out the purposes of the CPSA, and to give notification of such performance and technical data at the time of original purchase to prospective purchasers and to the first purchaser of the product. 15 U.S.C. 2076(e)). Section 2 of the CPSA provides that one purpose of the CPSA is to “assist consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of consumer products.” 15 U.S.C. 2051(b)(2).
Other federal government agencies currently require on-product labels with information to help consumers in making purchasing decisions. For example, NHTSA requires automobiles to come with comparative information on vehicles regarding rollover resistance. 49 CFR 575.105. NHTSA believes that consumer information on the rollover risk of passenger cars would influence consumers to purchase vehicles with a lower rollover risk and inspire manufacturers to produce vehicles with a lower rollover risk.
EnergyGuide labels, required on most appliances, are another example of federally-mandated labels to assist consumers in making purchase decisions. 16 CFR part 305. Detailed operating cost and energy consumption information on these labels allows consumers to compare competing models and identify higher efficiency products. The EnergyGuide label design was developed based on extensive consumer research and following a two-year rulemaking process.
Like NHTSA rollover resistance information and EnergyGuide labels, the proposed ROV hang tags are intended to provide important information to consumers at the time of purchase. Providing the value of each ROV model vehicle's threshold lateral acceleration to consumers will assist consumers with evaluating the comparative safety of the vehicles in terms of resistance to rollover. Requiring that ROV lateral acceleration test results be stated on a hangtag may motivate manufacturers to increase the performance of their ROV to achieve a higher reportable lateral acceleration, similar to incentives created as a result of NHTSA's NCAP program.
The proposed hangtag is based, in part, on the point-of-purchase hangtag requirements for ATVs. ATVs must have hangtags that include general warning information regarding operation and operator and passenger requirements, as well as behavior that is warned against. Most ROV manufacturers are also manufacturers of ATVs. Accordingly, ROV manufacturers are likely to be familiar with the hangtag requirements for ATVs. The ANSI/SVIA 1–2010 voluntary standard that applies to ATVs requires ATVs to be sold with a hangtag that is to be removed only by the purchaser and requires ATV hangtags to be 6-inches tall x 4-inches wide. Because ROV manufacturers are likely to be familiar with the hangtag requirements for ATVs, the Commission is proposing the same size requirements for ROV hang tags.
The hang tag graph draws its format from well-recognized principles in effective warnings. When presenting graphical information, it is important to include labels so that the data can be understood. Graphs should have a unique title, and the axes should be fully labeled with the units of measurement. Graphs should also be distinguished from the text, by adding white space, or enclosing the graphs in a box.
(1) The ROV
(2) Graph label, “Better,” indicates that the higher the value (as shading increases to the right), the higher the ROV's resistance to rolling over during a turn on a flat surface.
(3) The Manufacturer, Model, Model number, Model year help the consumer identify the exact ROV described by the label. Likewise, the EnergyGuide label provides information on the manufacturer, model, and size of the product so that consumers can identify exactly what appliance the label describes.
(4) Textual information. Technical communication that includes graphs should also include text to paraphrase the importance of the graphic and explain how to interpret the information presented.
(5) Linear scale, and anchor showing minimally acceptable value on the scale. Currently, the EnergyGuide label uses a linear scale with the lowest and highest operating costs for similar models so that consumers can compare products; the yearly operating cost for the specific model is identified on the linear scale.
(6) Scale starts at 0.65 g to allow a shaded bar for those ROVs meeting only the minimally acceptable lateral acceleration value.
The proposed rule would require that all ROVs meet a vehicle handling requirement, which requires that ROVs exhibit understeer characteristics. The understeer requirement would mandate that ROVs exhibit understeer characteristics in the sublimit range of the turn circle test. The test for vehicle handling or understeer performance involves driving the vehicle around a 100-foot radius circle at increasing speeds, with the driver making every effort to maintain compliance of the vehicle path relative to the circle. SEA testing was based on a 100-foot radius circle. Data collected during these tests are analyzed to determine whether the vehicle understeers through the required range. The proposed rule would require that all ROVs exhibit understeer for values of ground plane lateral acceleration from 0.10 to 0.50 g.
The CPSC believes that the constant radius test is the most appropriate method to measure an ROV's steering gradient because SAE J266, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, Steady-State Directional Control Test Procedures for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, establishes the constant radius test as a method to measure understeer/oversteer in passenger cars. The test procedures are also applicable to ROVs because ROVs are similar to cars, have four steerable wheels and a suspension system, and thus, ROVs obey the same principles of motion as automobiles.
The Commission believes that the appropriate lateral acceleration range to measure steering gradient is from 0.10 g to 0.50 g because SEA test results indicate that spurious data occur at the beginning and end of a constant radius test conducted up to vehicle rollover. Data collected in the range of 0.10 g to 0.50 g of lateral acceleration provide the most accurate plots of the vehicle's steering characteristic.
Tests conducted by SEA show that ROVs in sub-limit oversteer transition to a condition where the lateral acceleration increases suddenly and exponentially. Based on testing and relevant literature, the CPSC believes that this condition can lead to untripped ROV rollovers or may cause ROVs to slide into limit oversteer and experience tripped rollover. Ensuring sub-limit understeer eliminates the potential for sudden and exponential increase in lateral acceleration that can cause ROV rollovers.
The decrease in Rhino-related incidents after the repair program was initiated and the low number of vehicle rollover incidents associated with repaired Rhino vehicles are evidence that increasing the lateral stability of an ROV and correcting oversteer characteristics to understeer reduces the occurrence of ROV rollover on level terrain. In particular, the Commission believes the elimination of runaway lateral acceleration associated with oversteer contributed to a decrease in Rhino-related rollover incidents.
As mentioned previously, ROVs can be designed to understeer in sub-limit operation with minimum cost and without diminishing the utility or recreational value of this class of vehicle. Half of the vehicles CPSC tested already exhibit sub-limit understeer condition for the full range of the test, and this includes both utility and recreational model ROVs.
The proposed rule includes two requirements that are intended to keep the occupant within the vehicle or the ROPs. First, each ROV would be required to have a means to restrict occupant egress and excursion in the shoulder/hip zone defined by the proposed rule. This requirement could be met by a fixed barrier structure or structure on the ROV or by a barrier or structure that can be put into place by the occupant using one hand in one operation, such as a door. Second, the proposed rule would require that the speed of an ROV be limited to a maximum of 15 mph, unless the seat belts for both the driver and any front seat passengers are fastened. The purpose of these requirements is to prevent deaths and injury incidents, especially incidents that involve full or partial ejection of the rider from the vehicle.
The Commission proposes a performance requirement that limits the maximum speed that an ROV can attain to 15 mph or less when tested with unbuckled front seat belts during the maximum speed test. Section 5 of ANSI/
As discussed in section V of this preamble, results of the CPSC's exploratory testing of belted and unbelted occupants in simulated ROV rollover events indicate that seat belt use is required to retain occupants within the vehicle. This conclusion corresponds with the incident data for ROV rollovers, in which 91 percent of the fatal victims who were partially or fully ejected from the vehicle were not wearing seat belts. Of the incidents that involved occupant ejection, many occupants were injured when struck by the vehicle after ejection. The Commission believes that many of the ROV occupant ejection deaths and injuries can be eliminated if occupants wear seat belts.
Studies have shown that automobile seat belt reminders do not increase seat belt use, unless the reminders are aggressive enough to motivate users to buckle seat belts without alienating the user into bypassing or rejecting the system. Based on the Commission's testing and literature review and the low seat belt use rates in ROV-related incidents, the Commission believes that a seat belt speed limiting system that restricts the maximum speed of the vehicle to 15 mph if any occupied front seats are not buckled, is the most effective method to increase seat belt use rates in ROVs.
The Commission believes that in-vehicle technology that limits the speed of the ROV if the front occupied seats are not buckled will be accepted by ROV users because the technology does not interfere with the operation of the ROV below the threshold speed, and users will be motivated to wear seat belts if they wish to exceed the threshold speed. This conclusion is based on automotive studies that show drivers accepted a system that reduced vehicle function (
The Commission also believes that speed-limitation technology will be accepted by ROV users because the technology is already included on the BRP Can-Am Commander and Can-Am Maverick model ROVs, and the manufacturer with the largest ROV market share, Polaris, announced that it will introduce the technology on model year 2015 Ranger and RZR ROVs.
The Commission's literature review concludes that intrusive reminders are effective at changing user behavior, as long as the reminder is not so intrusive that users bypass the system. Limitation of vehicle speed is the intrusive reminder for ROV users to buckle their seat belt; therefore, the Commission believes that the threshold speed for a seat belt speed-limitation system should be as high as possible to gain user acceptance (and reduce bypass of the system), but low enough to allow relatively safe operation of the vehicle.
The Commission believes 15 mph is the appropriate speed threshold for a seat belt speed-limitation system. Based on information about ROVs and vehicles similar to ROVs, the Commission concludes that ROVs can be operated relatively safely at 15 mph. For example:
• ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1–2004, American National Standard for Golf Carts—Safety and Performance Specifications, specifies the maximum speed for golf carts at 15 mph. This standard establishes 15 mph as the maximum acceptable speed for unbelted drivers and passengers (golf carts do not have seat belts or ROPS) in vehicles that are often driven in off-road conditions.
• SAE J2258, Surface Vehicle Standard for Light Utility Vehicles, specifies a speed of 15 mph as acceptable for a vehicle, with a lateral stability of at least 25 degrees on a tilt table test, without seat belts or ROPS. This standard also establishes 15 mph as the maximum acceptable speed for unbelted drivers and passengers in vehicles that are driven in off-road conditions.
• Polaris Ranger and RZR model year 2015 ROVs will be equipped with a seat belt speed limiter that limits the vehicle speed to 15 mph if the driver's seat belt is not buckled. The decision by the largest manufacturer of ROVs establishes 15 mph as the maximum acceptable speed for unbelted ROV drivers.
Additionally, the principles of physics support this conclusion. The fundamental relationship between speed and lateral acceleration is:
The minimum proposed lateral acceleration threshold at rollover for ROVs is 0.70 g, and the typical turn radius of an ROV is 16 feet.
Based on CPSC's study and the experience of some ROVs that have speed limitations, the Commission believes that ROV users are likely to accept a 15 mph threshold speed limitation. The following reasons support this conclusion:
• Results of Westat's Phase 1 focus group study of ROV users indicate that ROV users value easy ingress and egress from an ROV and generally drive around 15 mph to 30 mph during typical use of the ROV. Users had mixed reactions to a speed threshold of 10 mph and were more accepting of a speed-limitation technology if the threshold speed was 15 mph.
• There are many situations in which an ROV is used at slow speeds, such as mowing or plowing, carrying tools to jobsites, and checking property. The Commission believes that a speed-limitation threshold of 15 mph allows the most latitude for ROV users to perform utility tasks where seat belt use is often undesired.
• The Commission believes that ROV user acceptance of a seat belt speed-limitation system will be higher at 15 mph than the speed threshold of 9 mph on the Commander ROV. Although BRP continues to sell the Can-Am Commander and Can-Am Maverick ROVs with speed limitations set at around 10 mph, focus group responses indicate that many ROV users believe that 10 mph is too low a speed limit to
CPSC is proposing a performance requirement that ROVs pass a probe test at a defined area near the ROV occupants' shoulder. The probe test is the most appropriate method to measure the occupant protection performance in the shoulder area of the ROV because various forms of the probe test are already used in the voluntary standard for ROVs and ATVs to determine occupant protection performance.
The test applies a probe with a force of 163 lbs., to a defined area of the vehicle's ROPS near the ROV occupants' shoulder. The vertical and forward locations for the point of application of the probe are based upon anthropometric data. The probe dimensions are based on the upper arm of a 5th percentile adult female, and the dimensions of a 5th percentile adult female represent the smallest size occupant that may be driving or riding an ROV. The 163 lb. force application represents a 50th percentile adult male occupant pushing against the barrier during a rollover event. The probe is applied for 10 seconds and the vehicle structure must absorb the force without bending more than 1 inch.
After exploring several methods to test occupant protection performance of ROVs during a rollover event, CPSC believes the SEA roll simulator is the most accurate simulation of a rollover because the roll simulator is able to reproduce the lateral acceleration and roll rate experienced by ROVs in rollover events. SEA conducted simulations of tripped and untripped rollovers on ROVs with belted and unbelted ATD occupants. CPSC's analysis of SEA's test results indicate that the best occupant retention performance results, where occupants remain within the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS, occurred when a seat belt is used in conjunction with a passive shoulder barrier restraint.
The proposed rule contains anti-stockpiling provisions to prohibit excessive production or importation of noncomplying ROVs during the period between the final rule's publication and its effective date. Anti-stockpiling provisions typically exist to prevent the production or importation of significant numbers—significantly beyond typical rates—of noncomplying products that can be sold after the effective date of a safety standard, which could present an unreasonable risk of injury to consumers. In order to balance the protection of consumers and the burden to manufacturers and importers of compliance with the effective date of a rule, a production limit is typically set at some minimal percentage above a single year's production rate as selected by the manufacturer or importer. This allows the manufacturer or importer to select the date most conductive to compliance, even if production or importation occurs at an unusually robust pace during the selected period.
The prohibited stockpiling provision herein limits the production or importation of noncomplying products to 10% of the amount produced or imported in any 365-day period designated, at the option of each manufacturer or importer, beginning on or after October 1, 2009, and ending on or before the date of promulgation of the rule.
In accordance with the requirements of the CPSA, we are proposing to make the findings stated in section 9 of the CPSA. The proposed findings are discussed in section XVI of this preamble.
The Commission is proposing to issue a rule under sections 7 and 9 of the CPSA. The CPSA requires that the Commission prepare a preliminary regulatory analysis and that the preliminary regulatory analysis be published with the text of the proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(c). The following discussion is extracted from staff's memorandum, “Draft Proposed Rule Establishing Safety Standard for Recreational Off-Road Vehicles: Preliminary Regulatory Analysis.”
The CPSC is issuing a proposed rule for ROVs. This rulemaking proceeding was initiated by an ANPR published in the
Following is a preliminary regulatory analysis of the proposed rule, including a description of the potential costs and potential benefits. Each element of the proposed rule is discussed separately. For some elements, the benefits and costs cannot be quantified in monetary terms. Where this is the case, the potential costs and benefits are described and discussed conceptually.
The number of manufacturers marketing ROVs in the United States has increased substantially in recent years. The first utility vehicle that exceeded 30 mph, thus putting the utility vehicle in the ROV category, was introduced in the late 1990s. No other manufacturer offered an ROV until 2003. In 2013, there were 20 manufacturers known to CPSC to be supplying ROVs to the U.S. market. One manufacturer accounted for about 60 percent of the ROVs sold in the United States in 2013. Another seven manufacturers, including one based in China, accounted for about 36 percent of the ROVs sold in the same year. None of these seven manufacturers accounted for more than 10 percent of the market. The rest of the market was divided among about 12 other manufacturers, most of which were based in China or Taiwan.
About 92 percent of ROVs sold in in the United States are manufactured in North America. About 7 percent of the ROVs sold in the United States are
Seven recreational vehicle manufacturers, which together account for more than 90 percent of the ROV market, established ROHVA. The stated purpose of ROHVA is “to promote the safe and responsible use of recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs) manufactured or distributed in North America.” ROHVA is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to develop voluntary standards for ROVs. ROHVA members have developed a voluntary standard (ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011) that sets some mechanical and performance requirements for ROVs. Some ROV manufacturers that emphasize the utility applications of their vehicles have worked with the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) to develop another ANSI voluntary standard that is applicable to ROVs (ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012). This voluntary standard also sets mechanical and performance requirements for ROVs. The requirements of both voluntary standards are similar, but not identical.
The average manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) of ROVs in 2013 was approximately $13,100, with a range of about $3,600 to $20,100. The average MSRP for the eight largest manufacturers (in terms of market share) was about $13,300. The average MSRP of ROVs sold by the smaller, mostly Chinese manufacturers was about $7,900.
The retail prices of ROVs tend to be somewhat higher than the retail prices of other recreational and utility vehicles. The MSRPs of ROVs are about 10 percent higher, on average, than the MSRPs of low-speed utility vehicles. A comparison of MSRPs for the major manufacturers of ATVs and ROVs indicates that ROVs are priced about 10 percent to 35 percent higher than ATVs offered by the same manufacturer.
Sales of ROVs have increased substantially since their introduction. In 1998, only one firm manufactured ROVs, and fewer than 2,000 units were sold. By 2003, when a second major manufacturer entered the market, almost 20,000 ROVs were sold. The only dip in sales occurred around 2008, which coincided with the worst period of the credit crisis and a recession that also started about the same time. In 2013, an estimated 234,000 ROVs were sold by 20 different manufacturers.
The number of ROVs available for use has also increased substantially. Because ROVs are a relatively new product, we do not have specific information on the expected useful life of ROVs. However, using the same operability rates that CPSC uses for ATVs, we estimate that there were about 570,000 ROVs available for use in 2010.
Most ROVs are sold through retail dealers. Generally, dealers that offer ROVs also offer other products, such as motorcycles, scooters, ATVs, and similar vehicles. ROVs are also sold through dealers that carry farm equipment or commercial turf management supplies.
While sales of ROVs have increased over the last several years, sales of competing vehicles have leveled off, or declined. Low-speed utility vehicles have been on the market since the early 1980s. Their sales increased from about 50,000 vehicles in 1998, to about 150,000 vehicles in 2007. In 2011, however, sales fell to about 110,000 vehicles. A substantial portion of these sales were for commercial applications rather than consumer applications.
After several years of rapid growth, U.S. sales of ATVs peaked in 2006, when more than 1.1 million ATVs were sold.
One factor that could account for part of the decline in ATV sales is that after many years of increasing sales, the market may be saturated. Consequently, a greater proportion of future sales will likely be replacement vehicles or vehicles sold due to population growth. Another factor could be the increase in sales of ROVs. Some riders find that ROVs offer a more comfortable or easier ride, and ROVs are more likely to appeal to people who prefer the bench or bucket seating on ROVs over the straddle seating of ATVs. It is also easier to carry passengers on ROVs. Most ATVs are not intended to carry passengers, and the side-by-side seating offered by ROVs appears to be preferred over the tandem seating on the few ATVs intended to carry passengers.
Of the several types of vehicles that could be substitutes for ROVs, go-karts appear to be the smallest market segment. After increasing sales for several years, go-kart sales peaked at about 109,000 vehicles in 2004. Sales of go-karts have since declined significantly. In 2013, fewer than 20,000 units were sold. However, many of these are aimed at young riders or intended for use on tracks or other prepared surfaces and would not be reasonable substitutes for ROVs for some purposes.
The intent of the proposed rule is to reduce the risk of injury and death associated with incidents involving ROVs. Therefore, any benefits of the proposed rule could be measured as a
To estimate the number of nonfatal injuries associated with ROVs that were treated in hospital emergency departments, CPSC undertook a special study to identify cases that involved ROVs that were reported through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) from January 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010. NEISS is a stratified national probability sample of hospital emergency departments that allows the Commission to make national estimates of product-related injuries. The sample consists of about 100 of the approximately 5,400 U.S. hospitals that have at least six beds and provide 24-hour emergency service.
NEISS does not contain a separate product code for ROVs. Injuries associated with ROVs are usually assigned to either an ATV product code (NEISS product codes 3286–3287) or to the utility vehicle category (NEISS product code 5044). Therefore, the Commission reviewed all NEISS cases that were coded as involving an ATV or a UTV that occurred during the first 8 months of 2010 and attempted follow-up interviews with each victim (or a relative of the victim) to gather more information about the incidents and the vehicles involved. The Commission determined whether the vehicle involved was an ROV based on the make and model of the vehicle reported in the interviews. If the make and model of the vehicle was not reported, the case was not counted as an ROV. Out of 2,018 NEISS cases involving an ATV or UTV during the study period, a total of 668 interviews were completed for a response rate of about 33 percent. Sixteen of the completed interviews were determined to involve an ROV. To estimate the number of ROV-related injuries initially treated in an emergency department in 2010, the NEISS weights were adjusted to account for both non-response and the fact that the survey only covered incidents that occurred during the first 8 months of the year. Variances were calculated based on the adjusted weights. Based on this work, the Directorate for Epidemiology estimated that there were about 3,000 injuries (95 percent confidence interval of 1,100 to 4,900) involving ROVs in 2010 that were initially treated in hospital emergency departments.
NEISS injury estimates are limited to injuries initially treated in hospital emergency departments. NEISS does not provide estimates of the number of medically attended injuries that were treated in other settings, such as physicians' offices, ambulatory care centers, or injury victims who bypassed the emergency departments and were directly admitted to a hospital. However, the Injury Cost Model (ICM), developed by CPSC for estimating the societal cost of injuries, uses empirical relationships between cases initially treated in hospital emergency departments and cases initially treated in other medical settings to estimate the number of medically attended injuries that were treated outside of a hospital emergency department.
In addition to the nonfatal injuries, there are fatal injuries involving ROVs each year. As of April 5, 2013, the Commission had identified 49 fatalities involving ROVs that occurred in 2010, or about 0.9 deaths per 10,000 ROVs in use ((49 ÷ 570,000) × 10,000). The actual number of deaths in 2010 could be higher because reporting is ongoing for 2010. Overall, CPSC has counted 335 ROV deaths that occurred from January 1, 2003 to April 5, 2013. There were no reported deaths in 2003, when relatively few ROVs were in use. As of April 5, 2013, there had been 76 deaths reported to CPSC that occurred in 2012.
The CPSC's ICM provides comprehensive estimates of the societal costs of nonfatal injuries. The ICM is fully integrated with NEISS and provides estimates of the societal costs of injuries reported through NEISS. The major aggregated components of the ICM include: Medical costs; work losses; and the intangible costs associated with lost quality of life or pain and suffering.
Medical costs include three categories of expenditure: (1) Medical and hospital costs associated with treating the injury victim during the initial recovery period and in the long run, the costs associated with corrective surgery, the treatment of chronic injuries, and rehabilitation services; (2) ancillary costs, such as costs for prescriptions, medical equipment, and ambulance transport; and (3) costs of health insurance claims processing. Cost estimates for these expenditure categories were derived from a number of national and state databases, including the National Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project—National Inpatient Sample and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, both sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Work loss estimates, based on information from the National Health Interview Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as a number of published wage studies, include: (1) The forgone earnings of parents and visitors, including lost wage work and household work, (2) imputed long term work losses of the victim that would be associated with permanent impairment, and (3) employer productivity losses, such as the costs incurred when employers spend time juggling schedules or training replacement workers. The earnings estimates were updated most recently with weekly earnings data from the Current
Intangible, or non-economic, costs of injury reflect the physical and emotional trauma of injury as well as the mental anguish of victims and caregivers. Intangible costs are difficult to quantify because they do not represent products or resources traded in the marketplace. Nevertheless, they typically represent the largest component of injury cost and need to be accounted for in any benefit-cost analysis involving health outcomes.
In addition to estimating the costs of injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments and reported through NEISS, the Injury Cost Model uses empirical relationships between emergency department injuries and those treated in other settings (
In this analysis, we use injury data from 2010, as a baseline from which to estimate the societal cost of injuries associated with ROVs. We use the year 2010 because 2010 is the year for which we have the most comprehensive estimates of both fatal and nonfatal injuries associated with ROVs. According to ICM, the average societal cost of a medically attended injury associated with ROVs in 2010 was $29,383 in 2012 dollars. Based on this estimate, the total societal costs of the medically attended injuries involving ROVs in 2010 was about $326.2 million in 2012 dollars (11,100 injuries × $29,383). About 75 percent of the cost was related to the pain and suffering. About 9 percent of the cost was related to medical treatment, and about 16 percent was related to work and productivity losses victim, caregivers, visitors, and employers. Less than 1 percent of the cost was associated with the costs of the legal and liability system.
These cost estimates are based on a small sample of only 16 NEISS cases. This sample is too small to reflect the full range of injury patterns (
As discussed above, there were at least 49 fatal injuries involving ROVs in 2010. If we assign a cost of $8.4 million for each death, then the societal costs associated with these deaths would amount to about $411.6 million (49 deaths × $8.4 million). The estimate of $8.4 million is the estimate of $7.4 million (in 2006 dollars) developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updated to 2012 dollars and is consistent with willingness-to-pay estimates of the value of a statistical life (VSL). According to OMB's
Based on the previous discussion, the total estimated societal costs of deaths and injuries associated with ROVs were $737.8 million in 2010 (expressed in 2012 dollars). The estimate does not include the costs associated with any property damage, such as property damage to the ROVs involved or other property, such as another vehicle or object that might have been involved in an incident.
Given the earlier estimate that about 570,000 ROVs were in use at the end of 2010, the estimated societal costs of deaths and medically attended injuries was about $1,294 per ROV in use ($737.8 million ÷ 570,000) in 2010. However, because the typical ROV is expected to be in use for 15 to 20 years, the expected societal cost of fatalities or deaths per ROV over the vehicle's useful life is the present value of the annual societal costs summed over the ROV's expected useful life. CPSC has not estimated the operability rates of ROVs as they age. However, CPSC has estimated the operability rates for ATVs as they age, based on the results of exposure surveys.
The proposed rule would establish a mandatory safety standard for ROVs. The requirements of the proposed rule can be divided into two general categories: (1) Lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements, and (2) occupant-retention requirements. Following is a discussion of the costs and benefits that are expected to be associated with the requirements of the proposed rule. As discussed earlier, we use 2010 as the base year for this analysis because it is the only year for which we have estimates of both fatal and nonfatal injuries associated with ROVs. However, where quantified, the costs and benefits are expressed in 2012 dollars.
In general, the cost estimates were developed in consultation with the Directorate for Engineering Sciences (ES staff). Estimates are based on ES staff's interactions with manufacturers and knowledge related to ROV design and manufacturing process as well as direct experience with testing ROVs and similar products. In many cases, we relied on ES staff's expert judgment. Consequently, we note that these estimates are preliminary and welcome comments on their accuracy and the assumptions underlying their constructions. We are especially interested in data that would help us to refine our estimates to more accurately reflect the expected costs of the draft proposed rule as well as any alternative estimates that interested parties can provide.
The lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements of the proposed rule would require that all ROVs meet a minimum level of rollover resistance and that ROVs exhibit sub-limit understeer characteristics. The dynamic lateral stability requirement would set a minimum value for the lateral acceleration at roll-over of 0.70 g (unit of standard gravity), as determined by a 30 mph drop-throttle J-turn test. The greater the lateral acceleration value, the greater the resistance of the ROV is to tipping or rolling over. The understeer requirement would mandate that ROVs exhibit understeer characteristics in the sublimit range of the turn circle test described in the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would also require manufacturers to place a hangtag on all new vehicles that provides the lateral acceleration at rollover value for the model and provides information to the consumer about how to interpret this value. The intent of the hangtag is to provide the potential consumer with information about the rollover propensity of the model to aid in the comparison of ROV models before purchase. The content and format of the hangtag are described in Section IX.C.2.
The proposed rule describes the test procedures required to measure the dynamic rollover resistance and the understeering performance of the ROV, including the requirements for the test surface, the loading of test vehicles, and the instrumentation required for conducting the tests and for data-acquisition during the tests. The test for rollover resistance would use a 30 mph drop-throttle J-turn test. This test uses a programmable steering controller to turn the test vehicle traveling at 30 mph at prescribed steering angles and rates to determine the minimum steering angle at which two-wheel lift is observed. The data collected during these tests are analyzed to compute and verify the lateral acceleration at rollover for the vehicle.
The test for vehicle handling or understeer performance involves driving the vehicle around a 100-foot radius circle at increasing speeds, with the driver making every effort to maintain compliance of the vehicle path relative to the circle. Data collected during the tests are analyzed to determine whether the vehicle understeers through the required range. The proposed rule would require that all ROVs exhibit understeer for values of ground plane lateral acceleration from 0.10 to 0.50 g.
All manufacturers would have to conduct the tests prescribed in the proposed rule to determine whether their models meet the requirements and to obtain the information on dynamic lateral stability that must be reported to consumers on the hangtag. If any model fails to meet one or both of the requirements, the manufacturer would have to make adjustments or modifications to the design of the model. After the model has been modified, the manufacturer would have to conduct tests on the modified models to check that the model meets the requirements.
There is substantial overlap in the conditions under which the tests for dynamic lateral stability and vehicle handling must be performed. The test surfaces are the same, and the vehicle condition, loading, and instrumentation required for both tests are virtually the same. The one difference is that the test for dynamic lateral stability also requires that the test vehicle be equipped with a programmable steering controller. Because there is substantial overlap in the conditions under which the tests must be conducted, manufacturers likely will conduct both sets of tests on the same day. This would save manufacturers the cost of loading and instrumenting the test vehicle twice and renting a test facility for more than one day.
We estimate that the cost of conducting the dynamic lateral stability tests and the vehicle handling tests will be about $24,000 per model.
If the model meets the requirements of both tests, the manufacturer would have no additional costs associated with these requirements. The tests would not have to be conducted again, unless the manufacturer makes changes to the model that could affect the vehicle's performance in these tests.
If the model does not meet the requirements of one or both of the tests, the manufacturer will incur costs to adjust the vehicle's design. Engineers specializing in the design of utility and recreational vehicles are likely to have a good understanding of vehicle characteristics that influence vehicle stability and handling. Therefore, these engineers should be able to modify easily the design of a vehicle to meet the stability and handling requirements. The Yamaha Rhino repair program demonstrated that an ROV that did not meet the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements was successfully modified to meet the requirements by increasing the track width and reducing the rear suspension stiffness (by removing the sway bar) of the ROV. Based on experience with automotive
The Commission believes that most modifications that might be required to meet the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements will have minimal, if any, impact on the production or manufacturing costs because the assembly of an ROV already includes installation of a wheel axle and installing a longer wheel axle or wheel spacer would not change the current assembly procedure; likewise, the assembly of an ROV already includes installation of sway bars and shock absorbers and installing different variations of these suspension components would not affect the current assembly procedure.
Once an ROV model has been modified to comply with the requirements, the manufacturer will have to retest the vehicle to check that the model does comply with the requirements. Both the dynamic stability and vehicle handling tests will have to be conducted on the redesigned model, even if the original model failed only one of the tests. This is because the design changes could have impacted the ROVs ability to comply with either requirement. Therefore, the full cost of the proposed lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements could range from a low of about $24,000 for a model that already met the requirements, up to $91,000, for a scenario in which the model was tested, the manufacturer required 4 person-months to modify the vehicle, and the vehicle was retested to check that the modified vehicle complied with the requirements.
Although the plausible range for the cost of the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirement is $24,000 to $91,000 per model, the Commission believes that the average cost per model will be toward the low end of this range because CPSC tested 10 ROVs that represented the recreational and utility oriented ROVs available in 2010, and found that four out of 10 ROVs met the lateral stability requirement and five out of 10 ROVs met the vehicle handling requirements. As discussed previously, for models that already meet the requirements, the manufacturer will incur no additional costs other than the cost of the testing. Based upon CPSC examination of models that do not meet the requirements, CPSC believes in most cases the manufacturers should be able to bring the model into compliance with the requirements by making simple changes to the track width, or to the suspension of the vehicle. These are relatively modest modifications that probably can be accomplished in less time than the high estimate of 4 months. However, the Commission welcomes comments on our underlying rationale for the estimates as well as the estimates themselves.
It is frequently useful to compare the benefits and costs of a rule on a per-unit basis. Based on 2011 sales data, the average unit sales price per ROV model was about 1,800.
The proposed rule requires that the manufacturer attach a hangtag on each new ROV that provides the ROV's lateral acceleration at rollover value, which can be used by the consumer to compare the rollover resistance of different ROVs. We estimate that the cost of the hangtag, including the designing and printing of the hangtag, and attaching the hang tag to the vehicle, will be less than $0.25 per vehicle. Our estimates are based on the following assumptions: (1) The cost of printing the hang tag and the wire for attaching the hang tag is about 8 cents per vehicle, (2) placing the hang tag on each vehicle will require about 20 seconds at an hourly rate of $26.11
According to several ROV manufacturers, some ROV users “might prefer limit oversteer in the off-highway environment.” This assertion appeared in a public comment on the ANPR for ROVs (Docket No. CPSC–2009–0087), submitted jointly on behalf of Arctic Cat, Inc., Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc., Polaris Industries, Inc., and Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA. To the extent that the requirements in the proposed rule would reduce the ability of these users to reach limit
Although the impact on consumers who prefer limit oversteer cannot be quantified, the Commission expects that the impact will be low. Any impact would be limited to those consumers who wish to engage intentionally in activities involving the loss of traction or power oversteer. The practice of power oversteer, such as the speed at which a user takes a turn, results from driver choice. The proposed rule would not prevent ROVs from reaching limit oversteer under all conditions; nor would the rule prevent consumers from engaging in these activities. At most, the proposed rule might make reaching limit oversteer in an ROV to be somewhat more difficult for users to achieve.
The benefit of the dynamic lateral stability and vehicle handling or understeer requirements would be the reduction of injuries and deaths attributable to these requirements. The intent of the dynamic lateral stability requirement is to reduce rollover incidents that involve ROVs. A CPSC analysis of 428 ROV incidents showed that at least 68 percent involved the vehicle rolling sideways. More than half of the overturning incidents (or 35 percent of the total incidents) occurred during a turn. There were other incidents (24 percent of the total incidents) in which the vehicle rolled sideways, but it is not known whether the incident occurred during a turn.
The understeer requirement is intended to reduce the likelihood of a driver losing control of an ROV during a turn, which can lead to the vehicle rollover, striking another vehicle, or striking a fixed object. Oversteer is an undesirable trait because it is a directionally unstable steering response that leads to dynamic instability and loss of control. For this reason, automobiles are designed to exhibit understeer characteristics up to the traction limits of the tires. Sub-limit oversteer is also undesirable for off-highway vehicles due to the numerous trip hazards that exist in the off-highway environment and can cause the vehicles to roll over.
Although the Commission believes that the dynamic lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements will reduce the number of deaths and injuries involving ROVs, it is not possible to quantify this benefit because we do not have sufficient data to estimate the injury rates of models that already meet the requirements and models that do not meet the requirements. Thus, we cannot estimate the potential effectiveness of the dynamic lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements in preventing injuries. However, these requirements are intended to reduce the risk of an ROV rolling sideways when making a turn. Because the estimated societal cost of deaths and injuries associated with ROVs is $17,784 over the useful life of an ROV, and because at least 35 percent of the injuries occurred when an ROV rolled sideways when making a turn, these requirements would address approximately $6,224 in societal costs per ROV ($17,784 × .35). Consequently, given that the estimated cost of the lateral stability and handling requirements is less than $10 per ROV, the requirements would have to prevent less than about 0.2 percent of these incidents ($10 ÷ $6,224) for the benefits of the requirements to exceed the costs.
The occupant retention requirements of the proposed rule are intended to keep the occupant within the vehicle or within the rollover protective structure (ROPs). First, each ROV would be required to have a means to restrict occupant egress and excursion in the shoulder/hip zone, as defined by the proposed rule. This requirement could be met by a fixed barrier or structure on the ROV or by a barrier or structure that can be put into place by the occupant using one hand in one operation, such as a door. Second, the proposed rule would require that the speed of an ROV be limited to a maximum of 15 mph, unless the seat belts for both the driver and any front seat passengers are fastened. The purpose of these requirements is to prevent deaths and injuries, especially incidents involving full or partial ejection of the rider from the vehicle.
Most ROVs already have some occupant protection barriers or structures. In some cases, these structures might already meet the requirements of the proposed rule. In other cases, they could be modified or repositioned to meet the requirements of the proposed rule. A simple barrier that would meet the requirements of the proposed rule could be fabricated out of a length of metal tubing that is bent and bolted or welded to the ROPs or other suitable structure of the vehicle in the shoulder/hip zone of the vehicle, as defined in the proposed rule. ES staff believes that any additional metal tubing required to form such a barrier could be obtained for a cost of about $2 per barrier. ES also believes that the additional time that would be required to bolt or weld the barrier to the vehicle would be less than 1 minute. Assuming an hourly labor cost of $26.11, the labor time required would be less than $0.50. ES staff also believes that it would take manufacturers only a few hours to determine how an existing ROV model would need to be modified to comply with the requirement and to make the necessary drawings to implement the change. When spread over the
Based on a cost of less than $3 per barrier, the cost per vehicle would be less than $6 for ROVs that do not have rear seats and $12 for ROVs with rear seats. One exposure study found that about 20 percent of ROVs had a seating capacity of 4 or more, which indicates that these ROVs have rear seats. Therefore, if all ROV models required modification to meet the standard, the weighted average cost per ROV would be about $7 ($6 × 0.8 + $12 × 0.2). However, CPSC tested 10 ROVs that represented the recreational and utility oriented ROVs available in 2010, and found that four out 10 ROVs had a passive shoulder barrier that passed a probe test specified in ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011. Therefore, this estimate of the average cost is high because there would be no additional cost for models that already meet the proposed requirement. We welcome comments on these costs and the assumptions underlying their constructions. We are especially interested in data that would help us to refine our estimates to more accurately reflect the expected costs of this proposed requirement as well as any alternative estimates that interested parties can provide.
The requirement that the speed of the vehicle be limited if the driver's seat belt is unfastened does not mandate any specific technology. Therefore, manufacturers would have some flexibility in implementing this requirement. Nevertheless, based on staff's examination of and experience with speed-limiting technology, including examination of current ROV models with this feature, most systems to meet this requirement will probably include the following components:
1. A seat belt use sensor in the seat belt latch, which detects when the seat belt is fastened;
2. a means to limit the speed of the vehicle when the seat belt is not fastened;
3. a means to provide a visual signal to the driver of the vehicle when the speed of the vehicle is limited because the seat belt is not fastened;
4. wiring or other means for the sensor in the seat belt latch to send signals to the vehicle components used to limit the speed of the vehicle and provide feedback to the driver.
Before implementing any changes to their vehicles to meet the requirement, manufacturers would have to analyze their options for meeting the requirement. This process would include developing prototypes of system designs, testing the prototypes, and refining the design of the systems based on this testing. Once the manufacturer has settled upon a system for meeting the requirement, the system will have to be incorporated into the manufacturing process of the vehicle. This will involve producing the engineering specifications and drawings of the system, parts, assemblies, and subassemblies that are required. Manufacturers will need to obtain the needed parts from their suppliers and incorporate the steps needed to install the system on the vehicles in the assembly line.
ES staff believes that it will take about nine person-months per ROV model to design, test, implement, and begin manufacturing vehicles that meet the requirements. The total compensation for management, professional, and related occupations as of 2012, is about $61.75 per hour.
Manufacturers would be expected to perform certification tests, following the procedure described in the proposed rule, at least once for each model the manufacturer produces, to ensure that the model, as manufactured, meets the rule's requirements. Additionally, manufacturers would be expected to perform the certification testing again if they make any changes to the design or components used in a vehicle that could impact the ROV's compliance with this requirement. We estimate that the cost of this testing would be about $4,000 per model. This estimate assumes that the testing will require three professional employees 4 hours to conduct the testing at $61.75 per hour, per person. Additionally, the rental of the test facility will cost $1,000; rental of the radar gun will cost $400; and transportation to the test facility will cost $1,400, and that the test vehicle can be sold after the testing is completed.
In addition to the cost of developing and implementing the system, manufacturers will incur costs to acquire any parts required for the system and to install the parts on the vehicles. We estimate the cost of adding a seat belt-use sensor to detect when the seat belt is fastened to be about $7 per seat belt. This estimate is based on figures used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in its preliminary economic assessment of an advanced air bag rule.
There is more than one method manufacturers could use to limit the maximum speed of the vehicle when the driver's seat belt is unfastened. One method would be to use a device, such as a solenoid, that limits mechanically the throttle opening. Based on observed retail prices for solenoid valves used in automotive applications, the cost to manufacturers of such a solenoid should be no more than about $25 per vehicle. One retailer had 24 different solenoids available at retail prices ranging from about $24 to $102. We expect that a manufacturer would be able to obtain similar solenoids for substantially less than the retail price. Thus, using the low end of the observed retail prices suggests that manufacturers would probably be able to acquire acceptable solenoids for about $25 each.
Manufacturers of ROVs equipped with electronic throttle control (ETC or “throttle by wire”) would have at least one other option for limiting the maximum speed of the vehicle. Instead of using a mechanical means to limit the throttle opening, the engine control unit (ECU) of the vehicle, which controls the throttle, could be reprogrammed or “mapped” in a way that would limit the speed of the vehicle if the seat belt was not fastened. If the ECU can be used to limit the maximum speed of the ROV, the only cost would be the cost of reprogramming or mapping the ECU, which would be completed in the implementation stage of development, discussed previously. There would be no additional manufacturing costs involved.
There would be at least two options for providing a visual signal to the driver that the speed of the vehicle is limited because seat belts are not
Another option for providing a visual signal to the driver that the speed of the vehicle is limited would be to use a lighted message or icon on the dashboard or control panel of the vehicle. Both voluntary standards already require a “lighted seat belt reminder.” To comply with this proposed requirement, the current visual reminder would have to be modified. For example, the wording or icons of the reminder would change, and the reminder would probably require a somewhat larger area on the dashboard or control panel. There could be some additional cost for an extra bulb or lamp to illuminate the larger area or icon. Based on its experience, ES staff believes that the cost of an additional bulb or lamp would be about $1 or less per vehicle.
There will be some labor costs involved in installing the components needed to meet this requirement, including installing and connecting the wires. We expect that the components would be installed at the stage of assembly that would minimize the amount of labor required. If the amount of additional labor per vehicle was about 5 minutes, and assuming a total labor compensation rate of $26.11 an hour,
In addition to the certification testing discussed previously, most manufacturers would be expected to conduct some quality assurance testing on vehicles as the vehicles come off the assembly line. Virtually all manufacturers already perform some quality control or quality assurance tests on their vehicles. The tests are intended to ensure, among other things, that the vehicle starts properly, that the throttle and brakes function properly, and that any lights function properly. Testing of the system limiting the maximum speed when the driver's seat belt is not fastened would likely be incorporated into this testing to ensure that the system is working as intended. These tests could simply involve running the vehicle once with the seat belt unfastened to determine whether speed was limited and running the vehicle again with the seat belt fastened to determine whether the maximum speed was no longer limited. If this testing added an additional 10 minutes to the amount of time it takes to test each vehicle, the cost would be about $4 per vehicle, assuming a total hourly compensation rate of $26.11.
The manufacturing costs that would be associated with meeting the seat belt reminder and speed limitation requirement of the proposed rule are summarized in Table 8. These costs include the cost of one seat belt-use sensor, the throttle or engine control, the visual feedback to the driver, and about 5 minutes of labor time and about 10 minutes for testing.
As discussed previously, we estimate the upfront research, design, and implementation costs to be about $100,000 per model, and the certification testing costs are estimated to be about $4,000 per model. Assuming, as before, that the average annual sales per model are 1,800 units, and assuming that the typical model is produced for 5 years, then the research, design, and certification testing costs would average about $12 per vehicle. The average cost for models produced at lower volumes would be higher, and the average cost for models produced at higher-than-average volumes would be lower. Given the average cost of the design and development and the costs of the parts and manufacturing, we estimate that this requirement would cost between $26 ($14 + $12) and $51 ($39 + 12) per vehicle.
The proposed rule would also require that the speed of the ROV be limited to no more than 15 mph if the seat belt of any front passenger, who is seated in a location intended by the manufacturer as a seat, is not fastened. Based on conversations with ES staff, designing a system that also limits the speed of the vehicle if the seat belt of a passenger is not fastened would require only minor adjustments to the system limiting the speed if the driver's seat belt is not fastened. The speed-limiting system uses sensor switches (seat belt latch sensors and/or occupant presence sensors) to determine if seat belts are in use, and the speed-limiting system controls the vehicle's speed based on whether the switch is activated or not. ES staff believes adding requirements for front passenger seat belt use will not add significant time to the research and design effort for a speed-limitation system because the system would only have to incorporate additional switches to the side of the system that determines whether vehicle speed should be limited.
However, incorporating the front passenger seats into the requirement would require additional switches or sensors. A seat belt-use sensor like the one used on the driver's side seat belt latch, would be required for each passenger seat belt. The cost of a seat belt-use sensor was estimated to be about $7. Additionally, there would likely be a sensor switch in each front passenger seat to detect the presence of a passenger. This switch could be similar to the seat switches in riding lawn mowers that shut off the engine if a rider is not detected. Similarly, in a ROV, if the presence of a passenger is not detected, the switch would not include the passenger seat belt sensor in circuit for determining whether the speed of the ROV should be limited. We
There will be labor costs involved in installing the components needed to meet this requirement. The components would probably be installed at the stage of assembly that would minimize the amount of labor required and would probably not require more than about 5 minutes. Additionally, manufacturers will need to conduct tests of the system to ensure that the system functions as required. These tests could take an additional 5 minutes per vehicle. Assuming a total labor compensation rate of $26.11 an hour,
An additional cost that is unquantifiable but should be considered nevertheless, is the impact that the failure of a component of the system could have on consumers. The more components that a system has, or the more complicated that a system is, the more likely it is that there will be a failure of a component somewhere in the system. A system that limits the speed of an ROV if a front passenger's seat belt is unbuckled would consist of more components and the system would be more complicated than a system that only limited the speed of the vehicle if the driver's seat belt is unfastened. Failure in one or more of the components would impose some costs on the consumer, and this failure could possibly affect consumer acceptance of the requirement. For example, if the sensor in a passenger's seat belt failed to detect that the seat belt was latched, the speed of the vehicle could be limited, even though the seat belts were fastened. The consumer would incur the costs of repairing the vehicle and the loss in utility because the speed was limited until the repairs were made.
The benefit of the occupant-retention requirement is the reduction in the societal cost of fatal and nonfatal injuries that could be attributable to the requirements. In passenger cars, NHTSA assumes that a belted driver has a 45 percent reduction in the risk of death.
In this analysis, we assume that the effectiveness estimate that NHTSA uses for seat belts in automobiles is a reasonable approximation of the effectiveness of seat belts at reducing fatalities in ROVs. However, according to Kahane (2000), the effectiveness of seat belts was significantly higher in accidents involving rollover and other incidents where the potential for ejection was high.
The work by Rutledge, et al., showed that mean hospital stays were about 20 percent less and hospital charges were 31 percent less for belted patients. This work provides some evidence that seat belts can reduce some components of the societal costs of nonfatal injuries by 20 to 31 percent. In this analysis we use the low end of this range, 20 percent, and assume that it applies to all components of the societal costs associated with nonfatal ROV injuries, including work losses and pain and suffering. The assumed 20 percent reduction in societal costs could come about because some injuries were prevented entirely or because the severity of some injuries was reduced.
These assumptions are justified because the seat belts used in ROVs are the same type of seat belts used in automobiles. Additionally, the requirement that ROVs have a passive means to restrict the egress or excursion of an occupant in the event of a rollover would ensure that there would be some passive features on ROVs that will help to retain occupants within the protective structure of the ROV just as there are in automobiles. We welcome comment on the accuracy of these estimates and underlying assumptions and will consider alternative estimates or assumptions that commenters wish to provide.
A separate estimate of the benefit of the requirement for a passive means to restrict occupant egress or excursion is not calculated. The primary benefit of this requirement is to ensure that ROVs have passive features that are more effective at retaining occupants within the protective zone of the vehicle in the event of a rollover. Therefore, the passive means to restrict occupant egress or excursion acts synergistically with the seat belt requirements to keep occupants within the protective zone of
As noted previously, the benefit of the occupant-retention requirements would be the reduction in the societal costs of fatal and nonfatal injuries that would be expected. The incremental benefit of applying the requirement to limit the speed of the vehicle if the driver's seat belt is not fastened is discussed below. The incremental benefit of applying the same requirement to the front passengers is discussed separately.
Table 9 shows the 231 fatality cases that CPSC has reviewed according to the seating location of the victim and whether the victim was wearing a seat belt. Ignoring the cases in which the location of the victim or the seat belt use by the victim is unknown (and thereby, erring on the side of underestimating the benefits), the data show that about 40 percent (92 ÷ 231) of the deaths happened to drivers who were not wearing seat belts. If the pattern of deaths in 2010 is presumed to match the overall pattern of the deaths reviewed by CPSC, then about 20 of the reported 49 deaths associated with ROVs in 2010
The requirement limiting the maximum speed would apply only to incidents involving unbelted drivers that occurred at speeds of greater than 15 mph. Of the ROV incidents that the Commission has reviewed, the speed of the vehicle was reported for only 89 of the 428 incidents. Therefore, estimates based on this data need to be used cautiously. Nevertheless, for victims who are known to have been injured and for which both their the seat belt use and the speed of the vehicle are known, about 73 percent of the unbelted victims were traveling at speeds greater than 15 mph. (Victims who were involved in an ROV incident but were not injured, or whose injury status is not known, were not included in this analysis.) Consequently, if we assume that 73 percent of the fatalities occurred to unbelted drivers who were traveling at speeds greater than 15 mph, then about 15 (20 × 0.73) of the fatalities in 2010 would have been addressed, although not necessarily prevented, by the proposed requirement.
As discussed previously, in passenger cars, NHTSA assumes that a belted driver has a 45 percent reduction in the risk of death. If seat belts have the same effectiveness in reducing the risk of death in ROVs, the seat belt/speed limitation requirement would have reduced the number of fatal injuries to drivers of ROVs by about 7 (15 × 0.45) in 2010, if all ROVs in use at the time had met this requirement.
As discussed previously, in this analysis, we assume a value of $8.4 million for each fatality averted. However, in this analysis, we assume that each fatal injury prevented by the use of seat belts still resulted in a serious, but nonfatal, injury. The average societal cost of a hospitalized injury involving all ATVs and UTVs in 2010 was about $350,000 in 2012 dollars. (Based on the ICM estimates of the cost of a hospitalized injury using NEISS Product Codes 3285, 3286, 3287, and 5044.) Subtracting this from the assumed societal cost of $8.4 million per death results in a societal cost reduction of $8.05 million per death averted. Thus, a reduction in societal costs of fatal injuries of about $99 per ROV in use (0.0000123 × $8.05 million) per year could be attributable to the seat belt/speed limitation requirement.
As discussed previously, for this analysis, we assumed that the seat belt/speed limitation requirement will reduce the societal cost of nonfatal ROV injuries by 20 percent. The assumed 20 percent reduction in societal costs could result because some injuries were prevented entirely, or because the severity of some injuries was reduced. The CPSC has investigated several hundred nonfatal injuries associated with ROVs. Table 10 summarizes the nonfatal injuries according to seating location and seat belt use. (Cases in which the occupant was not injured, or cases in which it is unknown whether the occupant was injured, were not included in this analysis.) Again, ignoring the cases in which the location of the victim or the seat belt use by the victim is unknown (and thereby, erring
Based on estimates from the CPSC's ICM, the average societal cost of the injuries addressed is estimated to be $29,383. Applying this cost estimate to the estimated injuries per ROV that could be addressed by the standard results in an annual societal cost of about $50 per ROV in use (0.00170526 × $29,383). If wearing seat belts could have reduced this cost by 20 percent (by reducing either the number or severity of injuries), the societal benefit, in terms of the reduced costs associated with nonfatal injuries, would be about $10 per ROV in use.
The total benefit of the seat belt/speed limitation requirement per ROV would be the present value of the expected annual benefit per ROV in use, summed over the vehicle's expected useful life. Above, using 2010 as the base year, we estimated that the annual benefit per ROV was about $99 in terms of reduced deaths and $10 in terms of reduced nonfatal injuries, for a total of $109 per ROV. Assuming that ROVs have the same operability rates as ATVs, the present value of the estimated benefit over the useful life of an ROV would be approximately $1,498 per vehicle, at a 3 percent discount rate.
The cost of the requirement to limit the speed of the vehicle if the driver's seat belt is not fastened was estimated to be between $26 and $51 per vehicle. Additionally, the cost of the requirement for a means to restrict occupant egress and excursion via a passive method was estimated to be about $7 per vehicle. Therefore, the total cost would be between $33 and $58 per vehicle. The benefit of the requirement, estimated to be about $1,498 per vehicle, is substantially greater than the estimated cost of the requirement.
The potential incremental benefit of limiting the speed of an ROV if a front passenger's seat belt is not fastened can be calculated following the same procedure used to calculate the benefits of a requirement limiting the maximum speed when the driver's seat belt is not fastened. From the data presented in Table 9 (and ignoring the cases in which the seating location of the victim or the seat belt use is unknown), there were 33 victims seated in the right front passenger position, and six who were seated in the middle front passenger position were not using a seatbelt. However, some of the victims listed as a middle front seat passenger were not seated in places intended to be a seat. In some cases, the victim might have been seated on a console; in other cases, the victim might have been sharing the right front passenger seat and not a separate seat. Based on the information available about the incidents, we believe that only three of the six victims reported to be “middle front passengers,” were actually in positions intended by the manufacturer to be middle seats. Therefore, about 16 percent (36 ÷ 231) of the fatal injuries involved front seat passengers who were not wearing seat belts.
Applying this estimate to the fatalities in 2010 suggests that about 8 of the 49 fatalities happened to front passengers who were not wearing seat belts. Assuming that about 73 percent of the incidents involved vehicles traveling faster than 15 mph, about 6 of the fatalities would have been addressed, but not necessarily prevented, by the requirement. Assuming that seat belts reduce the risk of fatal injuries by 45 percent, about 3 fatalities might have been averted. This represents a risk reduction of 0.00000526 deaths per ROV in use (3 ÷ 570,000). Assuming a societal benefit of $8.05 million for each death averted results in an estimated annual benefit of about $42 per ROV in use ($8.05 million × 0.00000526) in reduced fatal injuries.
Similarly, the data show that 35 of the victims who suffered nonfatal injuries were seated in the right front passenger location, and 14 were seated in the middle front position. However, we believe that only 8 of the 14 were actually seated in a position intended by the manufacturer to be a seat. Therefore, 43 of the 388 victims (or about 11 percent of the total) with nonfatal injuries were front passengers who were not wearing seat belts. This suggests that 1,221 of the estimated 11,100 medically attended injuries in 2010 involved unbelted front passengers. Using the assumption that 73 percent of these incidents occurred at speeds greater than 15 mph, then about 891 of the injuries might have been addressed by the requirement, or about 0.00156315 injuries per ROV in use (891 ÷ 570,000). Assuming that the average cost of a nonfatal injury involving ROVs is $29383, the estimated societal cost of these injuries is about $46 per ROV in use. If wearing seat belts could have
Combining the benefits of the reduction in the societal cost of deaths ($42 per ROV in use) and the societal cost of injuries ($9 per ROV in use) yields an estimated benefit of $51 per ROV in use. Assuming that ROVs have the same operability rates as ATVs over time, and assuming a discount rate of 3 percent, the estimated benefit would be $701 over the expected useful life of an ROV. This is greater than the expected cost of this potential requirement of $26 per vehicle.
The analysis above used a simplifying assumption that the use of seat belts by the passenger is independent of the use of seat belts by the driver. Therefore, we assumed that limiting the maximum speed of the ROV if the driver's seat belt was not fastened would have no impact on the seat belt use by any passenger. However, there is some evidence that the use of seat belts by passengers is correlated with the seat belt use of the driver. In the incidents examined by the Commission, of the 121 right front passengers with known seat belt usage, the driver and right passenger had the same seat belt use status most of the time (about 82 percent). In other words, most of the time, the driver's and right passenger's seat belts were either both fastened or both unfastened. This suggests that if the drivers were required to fasten his or her seat belt, at least some of the passengers would also fasten their seat belts.
The implication that a correlation exists between seat belt use by drivers and by passengers indicates that the benefits of requiring the driver's seat belt to be fastened were underestimated and the benefits of extending the requirement to include the right front passenger are over estimated. For example, if 80 percent of the passengers who would not normally wear their seat belts were to wear their seat belts because the driver was required to wear his or her seat belt (for the ROV to exceed 15 mph), then 80 percent of the benefit, or $561 ($701 × 0.80) attributed above to extending the speed limitation requirement to the front passengers would be attributed rightfully to the requirement that the driver's seat belt be fastened; and only 20 percent, or $140 ($701 × 0.20) would be attributable to the requirement that the front passengers' seat belts be fastened. In this example, the $140 in benefits attributed to extending the speed limitation requirement to include the front passenger's seat belts would still exceed the quantifiable cost of doing so, which was estimated to be $26.
As described previously, manufacturers would incur costs of $128,000 to $195,000 per model to test ROV models for compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule and to research, develop, and implement any needed changes to the models so that they would comply with the requirements. These costs would be incurred before the model is brought to market. To express these costs on a per-unit basis, we assumed that, on average, 1,800 units of a model were produced annually and that a typical model is produced for 5 years. These costs are summarized in Table 11.
In addition to the testing, research, and development costs described above, manufacturers will incur some additional manufacturing costs for extra parts or labor required to manufacture ROVs that meet the requirements for the proposed rule. These costs are summarized in Table 12. As for the vehicle handling requirements, some modifications to vehicles that do not comply might increase manufacturing costs; other modifications could decrease manufacturing costs. Therefore, we have assumed, on average, that there will not be any additional manufacturing costs required to meet the vehicle handling requirements. However, most manufacturers will incur additional manufacturing costs to meet the occupant-retention requirements. These costs are expected to average between $47 and $72 per vehicle. Adding the estimated upfront testing, research, development, and implementation costs per unit from Table 11 brings the total cost of the proposed rule to an estimated $61 to $94 per vehicle.
We were able to estimate benefits for the occupant retention requirement. Applying this requirement to just the driver's seat belt would result in benefits of about $1,498 per unit. Applying the seat belt/speed limitation requirement to the front passenger seat belts could result in an additional benefit of $701 per unit. Therefore, the quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule would be $2,199 per unit. The benefit associated with the vehicle handling and lateral stability requirement could not be quantified. Therefore, the benefits of the proposed rule could exceed the $2,199 estimated above.
The fact that the potential benefits of the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements could not be quantified should not be interpreted to mean that they are low or insignificant. This only means that we have not developed the data necessary to quantify these benefits. The purpose of the occupant retention requirements is to reduce the severity of injuries, but this requirement is not expected to reduce the risk of an incident occurring. The lateral stability and vehicle handling requirement, on the other hand, is intended to reduce the risk of an incident occurring that involves an ROV, and therefore, prevent injuries from happening in the first place. At this time, however, we do not have a basis for estimating what would be the effectiveness of the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements.
Notably, to the extent that the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements are effective in reducing the number of incidents, the incremental benefit of the occupant retention requirements also would be reduced. Additionally, if the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements can reduce the number of accidents involving ROVs, there would be fewer resulting injuries whose severity would be reduced by the occupant retention requirements. However, the resulting decrease in the incremental benefit of the seat belt/speed limitation requirement would be less than the benefit attributable to the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements. Again, this is largely because the benefit of preventing an injury from occurring in the first place is greater than the benefit of reducing the severity of harm of the injury.
Although some assumptions used in this analysis would serve to reduce the estimated benefit of the draft proposed rule (
The estimated costs and benefits of the rule on an annual basis can be calculated by multiplying the estimated benefits and costs per-unit by the number of ROVs sold in a given year. In 2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the proposed rule had been in effect that year, the total quantifiable cost would have been between $14.3 million and $22.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied by 234,000 units, respectively). The total quantifiable benefits would have been at least $515 million ($2,199 × 234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 million (or about 88 percent) would have resulted from the reduction in fatal injuries, and about $62 million (or about 12 percent) of the benefits would have resulted from a reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries. About $47 million of the reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries would have been due to a reduction in pain and suffering.
The Commission considered several alternatives to the requirements in the proposed rule. The alternatives considered included: (1) Not issuing a mandatory rule, but instead, relying on voluntary standards; (2) including the dynamic lateral stability requirement or the understeer requirement, but not both; (3) requiring a more intrusive audible or visual seatbelt reminder, instead of limiting the speed of the vehicle if the seatbelt is not fastened; (4) extending the seatbelt/speed limitation requirement to include rear seats; (5) requiring an ignition interlock if the seatbelts are not fastened instead of limiting the maximum speed; and (6) limiting the maximum speed to 10 mph, instead of 15 mph, if the seatbelts are not fastened. Each of these alternatives is discussed below. The discussion includes the reasons that the Commission did not include the alternative in the proposed rule as well as qualitative discussion of costs and benefits where possible.
If CPSC did not issue a mandatory standard, most manufacturers would comply with one of the two voluntary standards that apply to ROVs. However, neither voluntary standard requires that ROVs understeer, as required by the proposed rule. According to ES staff, drivers are more likely to lose control of vehicles that oversteer, which can lead to the vehicle rolling over or causing other types of accidents.
Both voluntary standards have requirements that are intended to set standards for dynamic lateral stability. ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 uses a turn-circle test for dynamic lateral stability that is more similar to the test in the proposed rule (for whether the vehicle understeers) than it is to the test for dynamic lateral stability. The dynamic stability requirement in ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 uses a J-turn test, like the proposed rule, but measures different variables during the test and uses a different acceptance criterion. However, ES staff does not believe that the tests procedures in either standard have been validated properly to be deemed capable of providing useful information about the dynamic stability of the vehicle. Moreover, the voluntary standards would find some vehicles to be acceptable, even though their lateral acceleration at rollover is less than 0.70 g, which is the acceptance criterion in the proposed rule.
Both voluntary standards require manufacturers to include a lighted seat-belt reminder that is visible to the driver and remains on for at least 8 seconds after the vehicle is started, unless the driver's seatbelt is fastened. However, virtually all ROVs on the market already include this feature; and therefore, relying only on the voluntary standards would not be expected to raise seatbelt use over current levels of use.
The voluntary standards include requirements for retaining the occupant within the protective zone of the vehicle if a rollover occurs, including two options for restraining the occupants in the shoulder/hip area. However, testing performed by CPSC identified weaknesses in the performance-based tilt table test option that allows unacceptable occupant head ejection beyond the protective zone of the vehicle ROPs. CPSC testing indicated that a passive shoulder barrier could reduce the head excursion of a belted occupant during quarter-turn rollover events. The Commission believes that this can be accomplished by a requirement for a passive barrier, based on the dimensions of the upper arm of a 5th percentile adult female, at a defined area near the ROV occupants' shoulder, as contained in the proposed rule.
In summary, not mandating a standard would not impose any additional costs on manufacturers, but neither would it result in any additional benefits in terms of reduced deaths and injuries. Therefore, not issuing a mandatory standard was not proposed by the Commission.
The CPSC considered including a requirement for either dynamic stability or vehicle handling, but not both. However, the Commission believes that both of these characteristics need to be addressed. According to ES staff, a vehicle that meets both the dynamic stability requirement and the understeer requirement should be safer than a vehicle that meets only one of the requirements. Moreover, the cost of meeting just one requirement is not substantially lower than the cost of meeting both requirements. The cost of testing a vehicle for compliance with both the dynamic lateral stability requirement and the vehicle handling/understeer requirement was estimated to be about $24,000. However, the cost of testing for compliance with just the dynamic stability requirement would be about $20,000, or only about 17 percent less than the cost of testing for compliance with both requirements. This is because the cost of renting and transporting the vehicle to the test site, instrumenting the vehicle for the tests, and making some initial static measurements are virtually the same for both requirements and would only have to be done once, if the tests for both requirements were conducted on the same day. Moreover, changes in the vehicle design that affect the lateral stability of the vehicle could also impact the handling of the vehicle. For these reasons, the proposed rule includes a dynamic stability requirement and a vehicle handling requirement.
Instead of seatbelt/speed limitation requirements in the proposed rule, the Commission considered a requirement for ROVs to have loud or intrusive seatbelt reminders. Currently, most ROVs meet the voluntary standards that require an 8-second visual seatbelt reminder. Some more intrusive systems have been used on passenger cars. For example, the Ford “BeltMinder” system resumes warning the driver after about 65 seconds if his or her seatbelt is not fastened and the car is traveling at more than 3 mph. The system flashes a warning light and sounds a chime for 6 seconds every 30 seconds for up to 5 minutes so long as the car is operating and the driver's seatbelt is not fastened. Honda developed a similar system in which the warning could last for longer than 9 minutes if the driver's seatbelt is not fastened. Studies of both systems found that a statistically significant increase in the use of seatbelts of 5 percent (from 71 to 76 percent) and 6 percent (from 84 to 90 percent), respectively.
The more intrusive seatbelt reminder systems used on some passenger cars have been more limited in their effectiveness. The Honda system, for example, reduced the number of unbelted drivers by about 38 percent; the Ford system reduced the number of unbelted drivers by only 17 percent.
The cost to manufacturers of some forms of more intrusive seat belt reminders could be less than the cost of the speed limitation requirement in the draft proposed rule. However, the cost of the seat belt/speed limitation requirement was estimated to be less than $72 per ROV.
The Commission considered extending the seatbelt/speed limitation requirement to include the rear passenger seats, when present. According to one exposure survey, about 20 percent of the respondents reported that their ROVs had a seating capacity of at least four occupants, which indicates that the ROV had rear passenger seating locations.
The cost of extending this requirement to include the rear passenger seats would be expected to be the same per seat as extending the requirement to include the right-front and middle-front passengers, or $24 per seat. Therefore, the cost of this requirement would be $48 to $72 per ROV, depending upon whether the ROV had two or three rear seating locations.
Three of the 231 fatalities (or 1.3 percent) involved a person in a rear seat who did not have their seatbelt fastened. Using the same assumptions used to calculate the benefits of the seatbelt/speed limitation for passengers in the front seats (
Three of the 388 nonfatal injuries (or 0.8 percent) involved passengers in rear seats who did not have their seatbelts fastened. This suggests that about 89 of the estimated 11,100 medically attended injuries in 2010 may have happened to unbelted rear passengers. Again, assuming that 73 percent of these occurred at speeds of 15 mph or faster, about 65 medically attended injuries might have been addressed by the seatbelt/speed limitation requirement if applied to the rear seating locations. This represents a risk of a nonfatal, medically attended injury of 0.0005702 (65 ÷ 114,000) per ROV in use per year. The societal cost of this risk is $17, assuming an average nonfatal, medically attended injury cost of $29,383. If seatbelts could reduce the cost of these injuries by 20 percent, by reducing the number of injuries in their severity, the value of the reduction would be $3 per ROV in use per year.
Combining the benefit of $14 for the reduction in fatal injuries and $3 for the reduced cost of nonfatal, medically attended injuries yields a combined benefit of $17 per ROV in use per year. The present value of this estimated benefit over the expected useful life of a ROV is $234. This is greater than the quantifiable cost of $48 to $72. However, these estimates of the costs and benefits are probably oversimplified the costs may have been understated and the benefits overstated. The Commission is hesitant to recommend this alternative for the several reasons.
First, as discussed earlier, a system that includes all passenger seats would comprise more parts than a system that included only the front passenger seats. A failure in only one of the parts could result in significant cost to the users for repairs, lost time and utility of the vehicle while it is being repaired, or the inability of the vehicle to reach its potential speed. These failures could occur because a faulty seat belt latch sensor does not detect or signal that a seatbelt is latched or because a faulty seat switch incorrectly registers the presence of a passenger when a passenger is not present. This cost cannot be quantified. However, if such failures are possible, the costs of extending the seatbelt/speed limitation requirement to include the rear seats would be higher than the $48 to $72 estimated above.
Second, as discussed previously, there is some correlation between the seatbelt use of the driver and other passengers on the ROV. If the driver and front passengers fasten their seatbelts, there is reason to believe that some rear passengers will also fasten their seatbelts. If so, the benefits of including the rear seat passengers could be overestimated above. Moreover, even if there was no correlation, including only the driver and front seat passengers would still achieve about 98 percent of the total potential benefits from the seatbelt/speed limitation requirement.
The Commission considered whether an ignition interlock requirement that did not allow the vehicle to be started unless the driver's seatbelt was buckled would be appropriate for ROVs. However, the history of ignition interlock systems to encourage seatbelt use on passenger cars suggests that consumer resistance to an ignition interlock system could be strong. In 1973, NHTSA proposed requiring an interlock system on passenger cars. However, public opposition to the proposed requirement led Congress to prohibit NHTSA from requiring an ignition interlock system.
The Commission considered limiting the maximum speed of the ROV to 10 mph if the driver's seatbelt was not fastened, instead of 15 mph, as in the proposed rule. In making this determination, we weigh some potentially quantifiable factors against some unquantifiable factors. The expected benefits of limiting the maximum speed to 10 mph are higher than the expected benefits of limiting the maximum speed to 15 mph. Based on the injuries reported to CPSC for which the speed was reported and the seatbelt use was known, about 15 percent of the people injured in ROV accidents who were not wearing seatbelts were traveling between 10 and 15 mph. Therefore, decreasing the maximum allowed speed of an ROV to 10 mph if the driver's or right front passenger's seatbelt is not fastened could increase the expected benefits of the requirement by up to 21 percent (0.15 ÷ 0.73). There would be no difference between the two alternatives in terms of the quantified costs.
Although the quantified benefits would be increased and the quantified costs would not be affected by this alternative, the Commission believes that the unquantifiable costs would be higher if the maximum speed allowed was set at 10 mph instead of 15 mph. Commission staff believes this could have a negative impact on consumer acceptance of the requirement. The unquantifiable costs include: The time, inconvenience, and discomfort to some users who would prefer not to wear seatbelts. These users could include: People using the ROVs for work or utility purposes, who might have to get on and off the ROV frequently, and who are likely to be traveling at lower rates of speed, but who occasionally could exceed 10 mph. Some of these users could be motivated to defeat the requirement (and this could be done easily), which could reduce the benefits of the proposed rule. Allowing ROVs to reach speeds of up to 15 mph without requiring the seatbelt to be fastened would mitigate some of the inconvenience or discomfort of the requirement to these users, and correspondingly, consumers would have less motivation to attempt to defeat the requirement.
ROV manufacturers would have the option of setting the maximum speed that their models could reach without requiring the seatbelts to be fastened—so long as the maximum speed was no greater than 15 miles per hour. Therefore, manufacturers could set a maximum speed of less than 15 mph if they believed this was in their interest to do so. One ROV manufacturer has introduced ROV models that will not exceed 9.3 mph (15 km/hr.) unless the driver's seatbelt is fastened.
We estimate the quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule to be about $2,199 per ROV, and we estimate the quantifiable costs to be about $61 to $94 per ROV. Therefore, the benefits would exceed the costs by a substantial margin. However, the only benefits that could be quantified would be the benefits associated with the seat belt/speed limitation requirement. The lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements would also be expected to reduce deaths and injuries and so result in additional benefits, but these were not quantifiable.
There could be some unquantifiable costs associated with the rule. Some consumers might find the requirement to fasten their seat belts before the vehicle can exceed 15 mph to be inconvenient or uncomfortable. The 15 mph threshold as opposed to a 10 mph threshold was selected for the requirement to limit the number of consumers who would be inconvenienced by the requirement and might be motivated to defeat the system. Some consumers might prefer an ROV that oversteers under more conditions than the proposed rule would allow. However, the number of consumers who have a strong preference for oversteering vehicles is probably low.
Several alternatives to requirements in the proposed rule were considered, including relying on voluntary standards or requiring more intrusive seat belt reminders (as opposed to the speed limitation requirement). However, the Commission determined that the benefits of the requirements in the proposed rule would probably exceed their costs, considering both the quantifiable and unquantifiable costs and benefits.
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
• A title for the collection of information;
• a summary of the collection of information;
• a brief description of the need for the information and the proposed use of the information;
• a description of the likely respondents and proposed frequency of response to the collection of information;
• an estimate of the burden that shall result from the collection of information; and
• notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.
We estimate that it will take about 20 seconds to attach a hang tag to each vehicle. Assuming an annual production of 1,800 units of each model, on average, this comes to 10 hours per model or an average of 65 hours per manufacturer or respondent, assuming an average of 6.5 models per manufacturer. Assuming a total compensation of $26.12 per hour, the cost would be $261 per model or $1,698 per manufacturer, assuming an average of 6.5 models per manufacturer.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of this rule to the OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to submit comments regarding information collection by December 19, 2014, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:
• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the CPSC's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
• ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and
• the estimated burden hours associated with label modification, including any alternative estimates.
This section provides an analysis of the impact on small businesses of a proposed rule that would establish a mandatory safety standard for ROVs. Whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed rule, section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires that the agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that describes the impact that the rule would have on small businesses and other entities. An IRFA is not required if the head of an agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605. The IRFA must contain:
(1) A description of why action by the agency is being considered;
(2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule;
(3) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and
(5) an identification to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.
An IRFA must also contain a description of any significant alternatives that would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and that would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Alternatives could include: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements that take into account the resources available to small businesses; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements for small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part of the rule thereof, for small entities.
ROVs were first introduced in the late 1990s. Sales of ROVs increased substantially over the next 15 years. The number of deaths associated with ROVs has substantially increased over the same period, from no reported deaths in 2003, to at least 76 reported deaths in 2012. As explained in this preamble, some ROVs on the market have hazardous characteristics that could be addressed through a mandatory safety standard.
The Commission proposes this rule to reduce the risk of death and injury associated with the use of ROVs. The rule is promulgated under the authority
The proposed rule would apply to all manufacturers and importers of ROVs. Under criteria set by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), manufacturers of ROVs are considered small businesses if they have fewer than 500 employees. We have identified one ROV manufacturer with fewer than 500 employees.
Importers of ROVs could be wholesalers or retailers. Under the criteria set by the SBA, wholesalers of ROVs and other motor vehicles or powersport vehicles are considered small businesses if they have fewer than 100 employees; and retail dealers that import ROVs and other motor or powersport vehicle dealers are considered small if their annual sales volume is less than $30 million. We are aware of about 20 firms in 2013 that import ROVs from foreign suppliers that would be considered small businesses.
The proposed rule would establish a mandatory safety standard consisting of several performance requirements for ROVs sold in the United States. The proposed rule would also establish test procedures through which compliance with the performance requirements would be determined. The proposed rule includes: (1) Lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements that specify a minimum level of rollover resistance for ROVs and a requirement that ROVs exhibit sub-limit understeer characteristics; and (2) occupant retention requirements that would limit the maximum speed of an ROV to no more than 15 miles per hour (mph), unless the seat belts of the driver and front passengers are fastened, and would require ROVs to have a passive means, such as a barrier or structure, to limit the ejection of a belted occupant in the event of a rollover.
Manufacturers would be required to test their ROV models to check that the models comply with the requirements of the proposed rule, and if necessary, modify their ROV models to comply. The costs of these requirements are discussed more fully in the preliminary regulatory analysis. Based on that analysis, we expect that the test for lateral stability and the test for vehicle handling will be conducted at the same time, and we estimate that the cost of this combined testing would be about $24,000 per model. In many cases, we expect that this testing will be performed by a third party engineering consulting or testing firm. If an ROV model must be modified to comply with the requirement and then retested, we estimate that the cost to manufacturers could reach $91,000 per model, including the cost of the initial testing, the cost of modifying design of the model, and the cost of retesting the model after the model has been modified. We estimate that the cost of implementing the occupant retention requirements will be about $104,000 per model. This includes the cost to research, develop, implement, and test a system that will limit the speed of the ROV when the seat belts are not fastened, as well as an occupant protection barrier or structure. Therefore, the total cost of certification testing and research and design could range from about $128,000 to $195,000. (Costs are expressed in 2012 dollars.)
In addition to the upfront testing and research and development costs, there will be some ongoing manufacturing costs associated with the proposed rule. These manufacturing costs include the cost of the parts required to meet any of the requirements of the proposed rule, such as seat belt use sensors and the necessary wiring and the cost of installing these parts on the vehicles during assembly. As estimated in the preliminary regulatory analysis, the ongoing manufacturing costs would be $47 to $72 per vehicle.
The proposed rule includes a requirement that manufacturers report the lateral acceleration at rollover value of an ROV model to potential consumers through the use of a hang tag attached to the ROV. Manufacturers would obtain the rollover resistance value when they conduct the lateral stability and vehicle handling tests to determine compliance with both requirements. The required format of the hangtag is described in the proposed rule. We estimate that it will cost manufacturers less than $0.25 per vehicle to print the hangtags with the rollover resistance values and to attach the hangtags to the vehicles.
In accordance with Section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), manufacturers would have to issue a general conformity certificate (GCC) for each ROV model, certifying that the model complies with the proposed rule. According to Section 14 of CPSA, GCCs must be based on a test of each product or a reasonable testing program; and GCCs must be provided to all distributors or retailers of the product. The manufacturer would have to comply with 16 CFR part 1110 concerning the content of the GCC, retention of the associated records, and any other applicable requirement.
One purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to evaluate the impact of a regulatory action and determine whether the impact is economically significant. Although the SBA allows considerable flexibility in determining “economically significant,” CPSC staff typically uses one percent of gross revenue as the threshold for determining “economic significance.” When we cannot demonstrate that the impact is lower than one percent of gross revenue, we prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
The sole, small ROV manufacturer may need to devote some resources to bringing its ROV models into compliance with the proposed rule. This is a relatively new manufacturer of ROVs and other utility vehicles. We do not have information on the extent to which the models offered by this manufacturer would meet the requirements of the proposed rule or the extent to which this particular manufacturer would be impacted by the proposed rule.
CPSC is aware of about 20 firms that import ROVs from foreign suppliers that would be considered small businesses. As explained more fully below, a small importer could be adversely impacted by the proposed rule if its foreign supplier does not provide testing reports or a GCC and the small importer must conduct the testing in support of a GCC. Additionally, a small importer could experience a significant impact if the foreign supplier withdraws from the U.S. market rather than conduct the necessary testing or modify the ROVs to comply with the proposed rule. If sales
Small importers will be responsible for issuing a GCC certifying that their ROVs comply with the proposed rule if the rule becomes final. However, importers may issue GCCs based upon certifications provided by or testing performed by their suppliers. The impact on small importers should not be significant if their suppliers provide the certificates of conformity or testing reports on which the importers may rely to issue their own GCCs.
If a small importer's supplier does not provide the GCC or testing reports, then the importer would have to test each model for conformity. Importers would likely contract with an engineering consulting or testing firm to conduct the certification tests. As discussed in the regulatory analysis, the certification testing could cost more than $28,000 per model ($24,000 for the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements and $4,000 for the seat belt/speed limitation requirement). This would exceed 1 percent of the revenue for about one-half of the small importers, assuming that they continue to import the same mix of products as in the pre-regulatory environment.
We do not know how many, if any, foreign suppliers might exit the market rather than comply with the proposed rule. Nor do we know the number of foreign suppliers that may not be willing to provide small importers with testing reports or GCCs. A small importer could experience a significant impact if the importer has to conduct testing in support of a GCC. We expect that most importers, however, will rely upon certifications or testing performed by their suppliers. Thus, although uncertainty exists, the proposed rule will not likely have a significant direct impact on a substantial number of small firms.
The Commission welcomes comments on this IRFA. Small businesses that believe they will be affected by the proposed rule are especially encouraged to submit comments. The comments should be specific and describe the potential impact, magnitude, and alternatives that could reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses.
Several alternatives to the proposed rule were considered, some of which could reduce the potential impact on some small firms. These include: (1) Not issuing a mandatory standard; (2) dropping the lateral stability requirement or the vehicle handling requirement; (3) requiring a more intrusive seat belt reminder instead of the speed limitation requirement; and (4) requiring an ignition interlock if a seat belt is not fastened, instead of limiting the maximum speed. For the reasons discussed below, the CPSC did not include these alternatives in the proposed rule.
If CPSC did not issue a mandatory standard, most manufacturers would comply with one of the two voluntary standards that apply to ROVs and there would be no impact on the small manufacturer or small importers. However, neither voluntary standard requires that ROVs understeer, as required by the proposed rule. According to ES staff, drivers are more likely to lose control of vehicles that oversteer, which can lead to the vehicle rolling over or to other types of accidents. Additionally, although both voluntary standards have requirements for dynamic lateral stability or rollover resistance, ES staff does not believe that the test procedures in these standards have been properly validated as being capable of providing useful information about the dynamic stability of the vehicle.
The voluntary standards require that manufacturers include a lighted seat-belt reminder that is visible to the driver and remains on for at least 8 seconds after the vehicle is started, unless the driver's seat belt is fastened. However, virtually all ROVs on the market already include this feature; and therefore, relying only on the voluntary standards would not be expected to raise seat belt use over its current level. Moreover, the preliminary regulatory analysis showed that the projected benefits of the seat belt/speed limitation requirement would be substantially greater than the costs.
Finally, the Commission believes that the occupant retention barrier in the current ROVs could be improved at a modest cost per ROV. For these reasons, the Commission believes that relying on compliance with voluntary standards is not satisfactory and is adopting the requirements in the proposed rule.
The Commission considered including a performance requirement for either lateral stability or vehicle handling, but not both. As mentioned previously, the vehicle handling requirement is designed to allow ROVs to understeer. However, the Commission believes that both of these characteristics need to be addressed. According to ES staff, a vehicle that meets both the lateral stability requirement and the understeer requirement should be safer than a vehicle that meets only one of the requirements. Moreover, the cost of meeting just one requirement is not substantially lower than the cost of meeting both requirements. The cost of testing a vehicle for compliance with both the dynamic lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements was estimated to be about $24,000. The cost of testing for compliance with the lateral stability requirement would be about $20,000, and the cost of testing for compliance with just the vehicle handling requirement would be about $17,000. Moreover, changes in the vehicle design that affect the lateral stability of the vehicle could also impact the handling of the vehicle. For these reasons, the proposed rule includes both the lateral stability and understeer requirements in the proposed rule.
Instead of seat belt/speed limitation requirements in the proposed rule, the Commission considered requiring ROVs to have loud or intrusive seat belt reminders. Most ROVs currently have a seat belt reminder in the form of a warning light that comes on for about 8 seconds. Most do not include any audible warning. As discussed in the preliminary regulatory analysis, staff considered requiring a more intrusive seat belt reminder, such as a loud audible warning that would sound for a minute or more. Manufacturers would incur some costs to comply with a requirement for a more intrusive seat belt reminder. For example, the seat belt
Some intrusive systems have been used on passenger cars and have been found to be effective in increasing seat belt use. One system reduced the number of unbelted drivers by 17 percent and another by about 38 percent.
CPSC considered whether an ignition interlock requirement that did not allow the vehicle to be started unless the driver's seat belt was buckled would be appropriate for ROVs. However, the history of ignition interlock systems as a way to encourage seat belt use on passenger cars suggests that consumer resistance to an ignition interlock system that prevents starting the vehicle could be strong. For this reason, CPSC rejects this alternative, and instead, proposes a rule that allows people to use ROVs at low speeds without having to fasten their seat belts. However, manufacturers who believe that the cost of an ignition interlock system will be substantially lower than a system that limits the maximum speed of the vehicle, and who do not believe that consumer rejection of an ignition interlock system will be a problem, can use an ignition interlock system to comply with the seat belt speed limitation requirement.
The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. If our rule has “little or no potential for affecting the human environment,” the rule will be categorically exempted from this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule falls within the categorical exemption.
As required by Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), the CPSC states the preemptive effect of the proposed rule, as follows:
The regulation for ROVs is proposed under authority of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2051–2089). Section 26 of the CPSA provides that “whenever a consumer product safety standard under this Act is in effect and applies to a risk of injury associated with a consumer product, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish or to continue in effect any provision of a safety standard or regulation which prescribes any requirements as the performance, composition, contents, design, finish, construction, packaging or labeling of such product which are designed to deal with the same risk of injury associated with such consumer product, unless such requirements are identical to the requirements of the Federal Standard”. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). Upon application to the Commission, a state or local standard may be excepted from this preemptive effect if the state or local standard: (1) Provides a higher degree of protection from the risk of injury or illness than the CPSA standard, and (2) does not unduly burden interstate commerce. In addition, the federal government, or a state or local government, may establish and continue in effect a non-identical requirement that provides a higher degree of protection than the CPSA requirement for the hazardous substance for the federal, state or local government's use. 15 U.S.C. 2075(b).
Thus, with the exceptions noted above, the ROV requirements proposed in today's
Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). A final rule on ROVs would subject ROVs to this certification requirement.
The CPSA requires that consumer product safety rules take effect not later than 180 days from their promulgation unless the Commission finds there is good cause for a later date. 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). The Commission proposes that this rule would take effect 180 days after publication of the final rule in the
CPSC believes ROV models that do not comply with the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements can be modified, with changes to track width and suspension, in less than 4 person-months (a high estimate) and can be tested for compliance in one day. Therefore, CPSC believes 180 days is a reasonable time period for manufacturers to modify vehicles if necessary, conduct necessary tests, and analyze test results to ensure compliance with the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements.
The Commission is proposing the longer compliance date for the occupant protection requirements because we understand that some manufacturers will need to redesign and test new prototype vehicles to meet these requirements. This design and test process is similar to the process that manufacturers use when introducing new model year vehicles. We also estimate that it will take approximately 9 person-months per ROV model to design, test, implement, and begin manufacturing vehicles to meet the occupant protection performance
The CPSA requires the Commission to make certain findings when issuing a consumer product safety standard. Specifically, the CPSA requires that the Commission consider and make findings about the degree and nature of the risk of injury; the number of consumer products subject to the rule; the need of the public for the rule and the probable effect on utility, cost, and availability of the product; and other means to achieve the objective of the rule, while minimizing the impact on competition, manufacturing, and commercial practices. The CPSA also requires that the rule must be reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with the product and issuing the rule must be in the public interest. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3).
In addition, the Commission must find that: (1) If an applicable voluntary standard has been adopted and implemented, that compliance with the voluntary standard is not likely to reduce adequately the risk of injury, or compliance with the voluntary standard is not likely to be substantial; (2) that benefits expected from the regulation bear a reasonable relationship to its costs; and (3) that the regulation imposes the least burdensome requirement that would prevent or adequately reduce the risk of injury.
Using data reported through NEISS from January 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010, the Commission conducted a special study to identify cases that involved ROVs that were reported through NEISS. Based on information obtained through the special study, the estimated number of emergency department-treated ROV-related injuries occurring in the United States between January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010, is 2,200 injuries. Extrapolating for the year 2010, the estimated number of emergency department-treated ROV-related injuries is 3,000, with a corresponding 95 percent confidence interval of 1,100 to 4,900.
The number of ROVs available for use has also increased substantially. Because ROVs are a relatively new product, we do not have any specific information on the expected useful life of ROVs. However, using the same operability rates that CPSC uses for ATVs, we estimate that there were about 570,000 ROVs available for use in 2010. By the end of 2013, there were an estimated 1.2 million ROVs in use.
Currently there are two varieties of ROVs: Utility and recreational. Early ROV models emphasized the utility aspects of the vehicles, but the recreational aspects of the vehicles have become very popular.
Regarding the effects of the rule on ROVs utility, according to comments on the ANPR provided by several ROV manufacturers, some ROV users “might prefer limit oversteer in the off-highway environment.” To the extent that the requirements in the proposed rule would reduce the ability of these users to reach limit oversteer intentionally, the proposed rule could have some adverse impact on the utility or enjoyment that these users receive from ROVs. These impacts would probably be limited to a small number of recreational users who enjoy activities or stunts that involve power oversteering or limit oversteer.
Although the impact on consumers who prefer limit oversteer cannot be quantified, the Commission expects that the impact will be low. Any impact would be limited to consumers who wish to engage intentionally in activities involving the loss of traction or power oversteer. The practice of power oversteer, such as the speed at which a user takes a turn, is the result of driver choice. The proposed rule would not prevent ROVs from reaching limit oversteer under all conditions; nor would the proposed rule prevent consumers from engaging in these activities. At most, the proposed rule might make it somewhat more difficult for users to reach limit oversteer in an ROV.
The seat belt speed limiter requirement could have an effect on utility and impose some unquantifiable costs on some users who would prefer not to use seat belts. The cost to these users would be the time required to buckle and unbuckle their seat belts and any disutility cost, such as discomfort caused by wearing the seat belt. We cannot quantify these costs because we do not know how many ROV users choose not to wear their seat belts; nor do we have the ability to quantify any discomfort or disutility that they would experience from wearing seat belts. However, the proposed rule does not require that the seat belts be fastened unless the vehicle is traveling faster than 15 mph. This should serve to mitigate these costs because many people who would be inconvenienced or discomforted by the requirement, such as people using the vehicle for work or utility purposes, or who must frequently get on and off the vehicle, are likely to be traveling at lower speeds.
The effect of the rule on cost and availability of ROVs is expected to be minimal. The average manufacturer's suggested retail prices (MSRP) of ROVs, weighted by units sold, was about $13,100 in 2013, with a range of about $3,600 to $20,100. The Commission estimates the per-unit cost to ROVs of the rule to be $61 to $94. Because this per-unit cost resulting from the rule is a very small percentage of the overall retail price of an ROV, it is unlikely that the rule would have much of an effect on the cost or availability of ROVs.
The Commission believes that some, but not all, ROV models already meet the rule's requirement that the speed of the vehicle be limited if the driver's seat belt is not fastened. Before implementing any changes to their vehicles to meet the requirement, manufacturers whose ROVs do not meet the seatbelt speed limiter requirement would have to analyze their options for meeting the requirement. This process would include developing prototypes of system designs, testing the prototypes, and refining the design of the systems based on this testing. Once the manufacturer has settled on a system for meeting the requirement, the system will have to be incorporated into the manufacturing process of the vehicle. This will involve producing the engineering specifications and drawings of the system, parts, assemblies, and subassemblies that are required. Manufacturers will need to obtain the needed parts from their suppliers and incorporate the steps needed to install the system on the vehicles in the assembly line. The Commission believes that manufacturers should be able to complete activities related to meeting the lateral stability and handling requirements within 180 days after publication of the final rule and activities related to meeting the occupant protection requirements within 12 months after publication of the final rule. The Commission's proposed effective date of 12 months for the occupant protection requirements may reduce the impact of the proposed requirements on manufacturing.
The estimated cost and benefits of the rule on an annual basis can be calculated by multiplying the estimated benefits and costs per unit by the number of ROVs sold in a given year. In 2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the proposed rule had been in effect that year, the total quantifiable cost would have been between $14.3 million and $225.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied by 234,000 units, respectively). The total quantifiable benefits would have been at least $515 million ($2,199 × 234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 million (or about 88 percent) would have resulted from the reduction in fatal injuries, and about $62 million (or about 12 percent) of the benefits would have resulted from a reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries. The reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries, which amounts to about $47 million, would represent a reduction in pain and suffering. The Commission concludes preliminarily that ROVs pose an unreasonable risk of injury and finds that the proposed rule is reasonably necessary to reduce that unreasonable risk of injury.
Furthermore, the Commission believes that when rollovers do occur, improving occupant protection performance (by increasing seat belt use) will mitigate injury severity. CPSC analysis of ROV incidents indicates that 91 percent of fatally ejected victims were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the incident. Increasing seat belt use, in conjunction with better shoulder retention performance, will significantly reduce injuries and deaths associated with an ROV rollover event.
In summary, the Commission finds preliminarily that promulgating the proposed rule is in the public interest.
Both voluntary standards have requirements that are intended to set standards for dynamic lateral stability. ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 uses a turn-circle test for dynamic lateral stability. That is more similar to the test in the proposed rule for determining whether the vehicle understeers, than it is to the test for dynamic lateral stability. The dynamic stability requirement in ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 uses a J-turn test, like the proposed rule, but measures different variables during the test and uses a different acceptance criterion. The Commission does not believe that the tests procedures in either standard have been validated properly as being capable of providing useful information about the dynamic stability of the vehicle. Moreover, the voluntary standards would find some vehicles acceptable, even though their lateral acceleration at rollover is less than 0.70 g, which is the acceptance criterion in the proposed rule.
Both voluntary standards require that manufacturers include a lighted seat-belt reminder that is visible to the driver and that remains on for at least 8 seconds after the vehicle is started, unless the driver's seatbelt is fastened. However, virtually all ROVs on the market already include this feature, and therefore, relying only on the voluntary standards would not be expected to raise seatbelt use over its current level.
The voluntary standards include requirements for retaining the occupant within the protective zone of the vehicle in the event of a rollover, including two options for restraining the occupants in the shoulder/hip area. However, testing
On a per-unit basis, we estimate the total cost of the proposed rule to be $61 to $94 per vehicle. We estimate the total quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule to be $2,199 per unit. This results in net quantifiable benefits of $2,105 to $2,138 per unit. Quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule could exceed the estimated $1,329 per unit because the benefit associated with the vehicle handling and lateral stability requirement could not be quantified.
Based on this analysis, the Commission finds preliminarily that the benefits expected from the rule bear a reasonable relationship to the anticipated costs of the rule.
(1) Not issuing a mandatory rule, but instead relying upon voluntary standards. If CPSC did not issue a mandatory standard, most manufacturers would comply with one of the two voluntary standards that apply to ROVs. As discussed previously, the Commission does not believe either voluntary standard adequately addresses the risk of injury and death associated with ROVs.
(2) Including the dynamic lateral stability requirement or the understeer requirement, but not both. The Commission believes that both of these characteristics need to be addressed. A vehicle that meets both the dynamic stability requirement and the understeer requirement should be safer than a vehicle that meets only one of the requirements. Moreover, the cost of meeting just one requirement is not substantially lower than the cost of meeting both requirements. The cost of testing a vehicle for compliance with both the dynamic lateral stability and vehicle handling/understeer requirement was estimated to be about $24,000. However, the cost of testing for compliance with just the dynamic stability requirement would be about $20,000, or only about 17 percent less than the cost of testing for compliance with both requirements. This is because the cost of renting and transporting the vehicle to the test site, instrumenting the vehicle for the tests, and making some initial static measurements are virtually the same for both requirements and would only have to be done once if the tests for both requirements were conducted on the same day. Moreover, changes in the vehicle design that affect the lateral stability of the vehicle could also impact the handling of the vehicle. For these reasons, the proposed rule includes both a dynamic stability and vehicle handling requirement.
(3) Instead of seatbelt/speed limitation requirements in the proposed rule, the Commission considered a requirement for ROVs to have loud or intrusive seatbelt reminders. Currently, most ROVs meet the voluntary standards that require an 8-second visual seatbelt reminder. Some more intrusive systems have been used on passenger cars. For example, the Ford “BeltMinder” system resumes warning the driver after about 65 seconds if his or her seatbelt is not fastened and the car is traveling at more than 3 mph. The system flashes a warning light and sounds a chime for 6 seconds every 30 seconds for up to 5 minutes as long as the car is operating and the driver's seatbelt is not fastened. Honda developed a similar system in which the warning could last for longer than 9 minutes if the driver's seatbelt is not fastened. Studies of both systems found that a statistically significant increase in the use seatbelts of 5 percent (from 71 to 76 percent) and 6 percent (from 84 to 90 percent), respectively.
However, these more intrusive seatbelt warning systems are unlikely to be as effective as the seatbelt speed limitation requirement in the proposed rule. The Commission believes that the seatbelt speed limitation requirement will cause most drivers and passengers who desire to exceed 15 mph to fasten their seatbelts. Research supports this position. One experiment used a haptic feedback system to increase the force the driver needed to exert to depress the gas pedal when the vehicle exceeded 25 mph if the seatbelt was not fastened. The system did not prevent the driver from exceeding 25 mph, but the system increased the amount of force required to depress the gas pedal to maintain a speed greater than 25 mph. In this experiment, all seven participants chose to fasten their seatbelts. A follow-up study on the haptic feedback study focused on 20 young drivers ranging in age from 18 to 21, and a feedback force set at 20 mph instead of 25 mph. The study results showed that the mean seat belt use increased from 54.7 percent to 99.7 percent, and the few instances in which seat belts were not worn were on trips of 2 minutes long or less. Most significantly, participants rated the system as very acceptable and agreeable (9 out of a 10-point scale).
The more intrusive seatbelt reminder systems used on some passenger cars have been more limited in their effectiveness. The Honda system, for example, reduced the number of unbelted drivers by about 38 percent; the Ford system reduced the number of unbelted drivers by only 17 percent. (The Honda system increased seatbelt use from 84 percent to 90 percent. Therefore, the percentage of unbelted drivers was reduced by about 38 percent, or 6 percent divided by 16 percent. The Ford system increased seatbelt use from 71 percent to 76 percent. Therefore, the percentage of unbelted drivers was reduced by about 17 percent, or 5 percent divided by 29 percent.) Additionally, ROVs are open vehicles and the ambient noise is likely higher than in the enclosed passenger compartment of a car. It is likely that some ROV drivers would not hear the warning, and therefore, they would be motivated to fasten their seatbelts, unless the warning was substantially louder than the systems used in passenger cars. Therefore, the Commission believes that the loud or intrusive seat belt reminders would not be as effective as the seat belt speed limiter requirement.
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds preliminarily that the rule imposes the least burdensome requirement that prevents or adequately reduces the risk of injury for which promulgation of the rule is proposed.
We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of the proposed rule. In particular, the Commission invites comments regarding the estimates used in the
• Additional key issues related to seatbelts for ROVs, including: available technology to prevent any hazards from the application of a passenger seatbelt requirement (such as sudden speed reductions if a passenger unbuckles); whether CPSC should extend the phase-in period for the seat-belt requirement; and any other relevant information related to the proposed seatbelt requirements.
• Whether CPSC should allow the use of doors or other mechanisms capable of meeting specified loading criteria to meet the shoulder restraint requirement.
• Whether there are further consistent and repeatable testing requirements that should be added to the proposed rule that would capture off-road conditions drivers experience in ROVs. If so, set forth the specifics of such further requirements.
• Whether CPSC should establish separate requirements for utility vehicles, including: definitions, scope, additional standards, and/or exemptions that would be suitable for requirements specific to utility vehicles.
• Oversteer and understeer, dynamically unstable handling, and minimal path-following capabilities; and
• Whether there is a need for supplemental criteria in addition to specific lateral stability acceleration limits to avoid potential unintended consequences of a single criterion.
For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission proposes requirements for lateral stability, vehicle handing, and occupant protection to address an unreasonable risk of injury associated with ROVs.
Consumer protection, Imports, Information, Labeling, Recreation and Recreation areas, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058 and 2076.
(a) This part 1422, a consumer product safety standard, establishes requirements for recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs), as defined in § 1422.2(a). The standard includes requirements for dynamic lateral, vehicle handling, and occupant protection. These requirements are intended to reduce an unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with ROVs.
(b) This standard does not apply to the following vehicles, as defined by the relevant voluntary standards:
(1) Golf carts
(2) All-terrain vehicles
(3) Fun karts
(4) Go karts
(5) Light utility vehicles
(c) Any ROV manufactured or imported on or after [date that is 180 days after publication of a final rule] shall comply with the lateral stability requirements stated in § 1422.3 and the vehicle handling requirements stated in § 1422.4. Any ROV manufactured or imported on or after [date that is 12 months after publication of final rule] shall comply with the occupant protection requirements stated in § 1422.5.
In addition to the definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051), the following definitions apply for purposes of this part 1422.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(i) The test vehicle shall be a representative production vehicle. The ROV shall be in standard condition. Adjustable seats shall be located in the most rearward position.
(ii) The ROV shall be operated in two-wheel drive mode, with selectable differential in its most-open setting. The tires shall be the manufacturer's original-equipment tires intended for normal retail sale to consumers. The tires shall be new when starting the tests, then broken-in by conducting a minimum total of ten J-turns with five in the right-turning direction and five in the left-turning direction. The J-turns conducted for tire break-in shall be conducted at 30 mph and steering angles sufficient to cause two-wheel lift.
(iii) Springs or shocks that have adjustable spring or damping rates shall be set to the manufacturer's recommended settings for delivery.
(iv) Tires shall be inflated to the ROV manufacturer's recommended settings for normal operation for the load condition specified in paragraph (c)(vi) of this section. If more than one pressure is specified, the lowest value shall be used.
(v) All vehicle operating fluids shall be at the manufacturer's recommended level, and the fuel tank shall be full to its rated capacity.
(vi) The ROV shall be loaded, such that the combined weight of the test operator, test equipment, and ballast, if any, shall equal 430 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (195 kg ± 5 kg).
(vii) The center of gravity (CG) of the equipped test vehicle shall be no more than 0.5 inch below (and within 1.0 inch in the x-axis and y-axis directions) the CG of the vehicle as it is sold at retail and loaded according to paragraph (c)(vi) of this section.
(2)
(ii)
(iii)
(d)
(2) Drive the vehicle in a straight path to define zero degree (0.0) steer angle.
(3) Program the PSC to input a 90-degree turn to the right at a minimum of 500 degrees per second as soon as the vehicle slows to 30 mph. Program the PSC to hold steering angles for a minimum of 4 seconds before returning to zero steer angle. The steering rate when returning to zero may be less than 500 degrees per second.
(4) Conduct a 30 mph dropped throttle J-turn.
(i) Accelerate the vehicle in a straight line to a speed greater than 30 mph.
(ii) As the vehicle approaches the desired test location, engage the PSC and fully release the throttle.
(iii) The PSC shall input the programmed steering angle when the vehicle decelerates to 30 mph. Verify that the instrumentation recorded all of the data during this J-turn event.
(5) Conduct additional J-turns, increasing the steer angle in 10-degree increments, as required, until a two-wheel lift event is visually observed.
(6) Conduct additional J-turns, decreasing the steering angle in 5-degree increments to find the lowest steering angle that will produce two-wheel lift. Additional adjustments, up or down, in 1-degree increments may be used.
(7) Repeat the process of conducting J-turns to determine minimum steer angle to produce two-wheel lift in left turn direction.
(8) Start the data acquisition system.
(9) Conduct J-turn test trials in the left and right directions using the minimum steering angles determined in paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7) of this section to verify that the steering angle
(10) Conduct five J-turn test trials with two-wheel lift in the left and right turn directions in one direction heading on the test surface (10 total trials). On the same test track, but in the opposite heading on the test surface, conduct five more J-turn test trials with two-wheel lift in the left and right turn directions (10 total trials). A minimum data set will consist of 20 total J-turn test trials with half of the tests conducted in one direction on the test surface and half of the tests conducted in the opposite direction. Review all data parameters for each trial to verify that the tests were executed correctly. Any trials that do not produce two-wheel lift should be diagnosed for cause. If cause is identified, discard the data and repeat the trial to replace the data. If no cause can be identified, repeat actions stated in paragraphs (d)(5) through (d)(7) of this section to ensure that the correct steering angle has been determined. Additional J-turn tests may be added to the minimum data set in groups of four, with one test for each left/right turn direction and one test for each direction heading on the test surface.
(11) Determine value of threshold lateral acceleration at rollover.
(i) Data recorded as required in paragraph (d)(10) of this section shall be digitally low-pass filtered to 2.0 hertz, using a phaseless, eighth-order, Butterworth filter to eliminate noise artifacts on the data.
(ii) Plot the data for ground plane lateral acceleration corrected to the test vehicle CG location, steering wheel angle, and roll angle recorded for each trial conducted under paragraph (d)(10) of this section.
(iii) Find and record the peak ground plane lateral acceleration occurring between the time of the PSC input and the time of two-wheel lift.
(iv) If a body-fixed acceleration sensor is used, correct the lateral acceleration data for roll angle, using the equation:
(v) Calculate the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover value, which is the average of the peak values for ground plane lateral acceleration for all of the trials conducted under paragraph (d)(10) of this section that produced two-wheel lift.
(e)
(f)
(1)
(2)
(i) Value of the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover of that model vehicle displayed on a progressive scale.
(ii) The statement—“Compare with other vehicles before you buy.”
(iii) The statement—“The value above is a measure of this vehicle's resistance to rolling over on a flat surface. Vehicles with higher numbers are more stable.”
(iv) The statement—“Other vehicles may have a higher rollover resistance; compare before you buy.”
(v) The statement—“Rollover cannot be completely eliminated for any vehicle.”
(vi) The statement—“Lateral acceleration is measured during a J-turn test; minimally accepted value is 0.7 g.”
(vii) The manufacturer's name and vehicle model,
(3)
(4)
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(ii) The ROV shall be operated in two-wheel drive mode with selectable differential in its most-open setting. The tires shall be the manufacturer's original-equipment tires intended for normal retail sale to consumers. The tires shall be new when starting the tests, then broken-in by conducting a minimum total of ten J-turns with five in the right-turning direction and five in the left-turning direction. The J-turns conducted for tire break-in shall be conducted at 30 mph and steering angles sufficient to cause two-wheel lift. Tires used for the full test protocol to establish the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover value for the test vehicle are acceptable for use in the handling performance test protocol.
(iii) Springs or shocks that have adjustable spring or damping rates shall be set to the manufacturer's recommended settings for delivery.
(iv) Tires shall be inflated to the ROV manufacturer's recommended settings for normal operation for the load condition specified in paragraph (c)(vi) of this section. If more than one pressure is specified, the lowest value shall be used.
(v) All vehicle operational fluids shall be at the manufacturer's recommended level and the fuel tank shall be full to its rated capacity.
(vi) The ROV shall be loaded, such that the combined weight of the test operator, test equipment, and ballast, if any, shall equal 430 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (195 kg ± 5 kg).
(vii) The center of gravity (CG) of the equipped test vehicle shall be no more than 0.5 inch below (and within 1.0
(2)
(ii)
(d)
(2) Start the data acquisition system.
(3) Drive the vehicle on the circular path at the lowest possible speed. Data shall be recorded with the steering wheel position and throttle position fixed to record the approximate Ackermann angle.
(4) Continue driving the vehicle to the next speed at which data will be taken. The vehicle speed shall be increased and data shall be taken until it is no longer possible for the driver to maintain directional control of the vehicle. Test shall be repeated at least three times so that results can be examined for repeatability and then averaged.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i) The test vehicle shall be a representative production vehicle. The
(ii) ROV test weight shall be the vehicle curb weight plus the test operator, only. If the test operator weighs less than 215 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (98 kg ± 5 kg), then the difference in weight shall be added to the vehicle to reflect an operator weight of 215 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (98 kg ± 5 kg).
(iii) Tires shall be inflated to the pressures recommended by the ROV manufacturer for the vehicle test weight.
(iv) The driver's seat belt shall not be buckled; however, the driver shall be restrained by the redundant restraint system for test safety purposes.
(3)
(i) The test vehicle shall be a representative production vehicle. in standard condition.
(ii) ROV test weight shall be the vehicle curb weight, plus the test operator and a passenger surrogate that will activate the seat occupancy sensor. If the test operator weighs less than 215 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (98 kg ± 5 kg), then the difference in weight shall be added to the vehicle to reflect an operator weight of 215 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (98 kg ± 5 kg).
(iii) Tires shall be inflated to the pressures recommended by the ROV manufacturer for the vehicle test weight.
(iv) The driver's seat belt shall be buckled. The front passenger's seat belt(s) shall not be buckled.
(4)
(5)
(c)
(1)
(i) Probes shall be allowed to rotate through a universal joint.
(ii) Forces shall be quasi-statically applied and held for 10 seconds.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(2) Using data reported through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) from January 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010, the Commission conducted a special study to identify cases that involved ROVs that were reported through NEISS. (NEISS is a stratified national probability sample of hospital emergency departments that allows the Commission to make national estimates of product-related injuries.) Based on information obtained through the special study, the estimated number of emergency department-treated ROV-related injuries occurring in the United States between January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010, is 2,200 injuries. Extrapolating for the year 2010, the estimated number of emergency department-treated ROV-related injuries is 3,000, with a corresponding 95 percent confidence interval of 1,100 to 4,900.
(c)
(2) The number of ROVs available for use has also increased substantially. Because ROVs are a relatively new product, we do not have any specific information on the expected useful life of ROVs. However, using the same operability rates that CPSC uses for ATVs, we estimate that there were about 570,000 ROVs available for use in 2010. By the end of 2013, there were an estimated 1.2 million ROVs in use.
(d)
(2) In terms of the effects of the rule on ROVs utility, according to several ROV manufacturers, some ROV users “might prefer limit oversteer in the off-highway environment.” (This assertion was contained in a public comment on
(3) Although the impact on consumers who prefer limit oversteer cannot be quantified, the Commission expects that it will be low. Any impact would be limited to those consumers who wish to intentionally engage in activities involving the loss of traction or power oversteer. The practice of power oversteer is the result of driver choices, such as the speed at which a user takes a turn. The proposed rule would not prevent ROVs from reaching limit oversteer under all conditions; nor would the rule prevent consumers from engaging in these activities. At most, the proposed rule might make it somewhat more difficult for users to reach limit oversteer in an ROV. Moreover, consumers who have a high preference for vehicles that oversteer would be able to make aftermarket modifications, such as adjustments to the suspension of the vehicle, or using different wheels or tires to increase the potential for oversteering.
(4) The seat belt speed limiter requirement could have a negative effect on utility and impose some unquantifiable costs on some users who would prefer not to use seat belts. The cost to these users would be the time required to buckle and unbuckle their seat belts and any disutility cost, such as discomfort caused by wearing the seat belt. We cannot quantify these costs because we do not know how many ROV users choose not to wear their seat belts, nor do we have the ability to quantify any discomfort or disutility that they would experience from wearing seat belts. However, the proposed rule does not require that the seat belts be fastened unless the vehicle is traveling 15 mph or faster. This should serve to mitigate these costs because many people who would be inconvenienced or discomforted by the requirement, such as people using the vehicle for work or utility purposes or who must frequently get on and off the vehicle are likely to be traveling at lower speeds.
(5) The effect of the rule on cost and availability of ROVs is expected to be minimal. The average manufacturer's suggested retail prices (MSRP) of ROVs, weighted by units sold, was about $13,100 in 2013, with a range of about $3,600 to $20,100. The preliminary regulatory analysis estimates the per-unit cost to ROVs of the rule to be $61 to $94. Because this per-unit cost resulting from the rule is a very small percentage of the overall retail price of a ROV, it is unlikely that the rule would have more than a minimal effect on the cost or availability of ROVs.
(e)
(2) The Commission believes that some but not all ROV models already meet the rule's requirement that the speed of the vehicle be limited if the driver's seat belt is not fastened. Before implementing any changes to their vehicles to meet the requirement, manufacturers whose ROVs do not meet the seatbelt speed limiter requirement would have to analyze their options for meeting the requirement. This process would include developing prototypes of system designs, testing the prototypes and refining the design of the systems based on this testing. Once the manufacturer has settled upon a system for meeting the requirement, the system will have to be incorporated into the manufacturing process of the vehicle. This will involve producing the engineering specifications and drawings of the system, parts, assemblies, and subassemblies that are required. Manufacturers will need to obtain the needed parts from their suppliers and incorporate the steps needed to install the system on the vehicles in the assembly line. The Commission believes that manufacturers should be able to complete all of these activities and be ready to produce vehicles that meet the requirement within 12 calendar months. The Commission is proposing a 12-month effective date for the occupant protection requirements to minimize the burden on manufacturing.
(2) The estimated cost and benefits of the rule on an annual basis can be calculated by multiplying the estimated benefits and costs per unit by the number of ROVs sold in a given year. In 2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the proposed rule had been in effect that year, the total quantifiable cost would have been between $14.3 million and $22.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied by 234,000 units, respectively). The total quantifiable benefits would have been at least $515 million ($2,199 × 234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 million (or about 88 percent) would have resulted from the reduction in fatal injuries, and about $62 million (or about 12 percent) of the benefits would have resulted from a reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries. About $47 million of the reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries would have been due to a reduction in pain and suffering. We conclude preliminarily that ROVs pose an unreasonable risk of injury and that the proposed rule is reasonably necessary to reduce that risk.
(g)
(2) The Commission believes that, when rollovers do occur, improving occupant protection performance (by increasing seat belt use) will mitigate
(h)
(2) Both voluntary standards have requirements that are intended to set standards for dynamic lateral stability. ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 uses a turn-circle test for dynamic lateral stability that is more similar to the test in the proposed rule for whether the vehicle understeers than it is to the test for dynamic lateral stability. The dynamic stability requirement in ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 uses a J-turn test, like the proposed rule, but measures different variables during the test and uses a different acceptance criterion. However, ES staff does not believe that the tests procedures in either standard have been properly validated as being capable of providing useful information about the dynamic stability of the vehicle. Moreover, the voluntary standards would find some vehicles acceptable even though their lateral acceleration at rollover is less than 0.70 g, which is the acceptance criterion in the proposed rule.
(3) Both voluntary standards require that manufacturers include a lighted seat-belt reminder that is visible to the driver and remains on for at least 8 seconds after the vehicle is started, unless the driver's seatbelt is fastened. However, virtually all ROVs on the market already include this feature and, therefore, relying only on the voluntary standards would not be expected to raise seatbelt use over its current level.
(4) The voluntary standards include requirements for retaining the occupant within the protective zone of the vehicle in the event of a rollover including two options for restraining the occupants in the shoulder/hip area. However, testing performed by CPSC identified weaknesses in the performance-based tilt table test option that allows unacceptable occupant head ejection beyond the protective zone of the vehicle Rollover Protective Structure (ROPS). CPSC testing indicated that a passive shoulder barrier could reduce the head excursion of a belted occupant during quarter-turn rollover events. The Commission believes that this can be accomplished by a requirement for a passive barrier based on the dimensions of the upper arm of a 5th percentile adult female, at a defined area near the ROV occupants' shoulder as contained in the proposed rule.
(i)
(2) On a per unit basis, we estimate the total cost of the proposed rule to be $61 to $94 per vehicle. We estimate the total quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule to be $2199 per unit. This results in net quantifiable benefits of $2105 to $2138 per unit. Quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule could exceed the estimated $2199 per unit because the benefit associated with the vehicle handling and lateral stability requirement could not be quantified.
(j)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(ii) In contrast, these more intrusive seatbelt warning systems are unlikely to be as effective as the seatbelt speed limitation requirement in the proposed rule. The Commission believes that the