Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Engineers Corps
Economic Development Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Transportation Security Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Transportation Security Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”).
Final rule.
The FTC has completed its regulatory review of its Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices Rule (“Unavailability Rule” or “Rule”). After reviewing public comments regarding the Rule's overall costs, benefits, and regulatory and economic impact, the Commission retains the Rule. The Commission, however, takes this opportunity to issue guidance concerning the Rule's coverage. The Commission also corrects a typographical error, and ceases to publish dissents to the Rule's previous amendment.
This action is effective on December 10, 2014.
This document is available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site,
Jock Chung, (202) 326–2984, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., CC–9528, Washington, DC 20580.
The Unavailability Rule prohibits retail food stores
In 1989, the Commission amended the Rule.
The Commission reviews its rules and guides periodically to seek information about their costs and benefits, as well as their regulatory and economic impact. This information assists the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission.
Pursuant to this process, on August 18, 2011, the Commission sought comment on whether there is a continuing need for the Unavailability Rule.
The Commission received comments from two organizations and fifty individuals.
Forty-eight individuals explicitly or implicitly supported the Rule by relating personal benefits from retail food store rainchecks.
Two individual commenters joined the organizational commenters in questioning whether the Commission should retain the Rule.
HF recommended repealing the Rule, arguing increased competition should protect consumers.
Fitzsimmons recommended repealing the Rule generally while expanding it in “food deserts.”
Finally, Lunsford recommended repealing the Rule because market competition and state regulatory agencies adequately protect consumers.
The Commission retains the rule in its existing form. To determine whether the Rule should be amended, repealed, or retained, the Commission has evaluated a number of factors, including the relative costs and benefits of the Rule and its effect on competition and consumer choice. The Commission has determined that the Rule imposes no significant costs on retail food stores, and it benefits consumers as there is evidence that market or state regulatory forces would not adequately protect consumers without the Rule. Given this record, the Commission has no basis to repeal or amend the Rule at this time.
None of the comments identified any specific costs or burdens associated with complying with the Rule. To the contrary, FMI—which represents grocery companies and thus would have the clearest understanding of any burdens the Rule might impose—commented that it “does not believe the Rule imposes significant costs on retailers.”
Conversely, the record lacks factual support to conclude that market forces alone would be sufficient to protect consumers without the Rule.
Two commenters that questioned the general need for the Rule asserted that there are geographic areas of lower food marketplace competition, and demographic groups with limited food shopping options.
Further, there is evidence that even with the Rule, some stores do not respond to the current level of competition by avoiding stockouts and providing rainchecks or other compensation. Eleven commenters complained of difficulties obtaining rainchecks, or of inadequate rainchecks that, for example, expired before sale items were restocked.
HF and Lunsford commented that state consumer protection agencies provide sufficient recourse when retailers deceptively advertise the availability of sale items.
Because the Rule does not impose significant costs, the practices it requires benefit consumers,
The Commission asked whether it should broaden the Rule's coverage beyond retail food stores.
However, the Commission notes that the Rule is not limited to “traditional” retail food stores. For example, supercenters, warehouse clubs, dollar stores, and drug stores increasingly offer food or grocery products and advertise discounts for these items. Such stores constitute a significant portion of the retail food marketplace. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the proportion of American food sales for home consumption by nontraditional food retailers rose from 13.7 percent in 2000 to 21.5 percent in 2011.
In its request for public comments, the Commission invited suggested Rule changes. In response, comments suggested amending the Rule to:
(1) Prohibit: (a) failure to conspicuously display advertised items,
(2) require retail food stores to provide rainchecks promptly upon demand;
(3) require retail food stores to compensate consumers for consequential losses caused by unavailability.
As set forth below, the first and second suggestions are unnecessary because they are already encompassed by the Rule, and the Commission declines to propose the third because the record lacks evidence to support such a change.
The Rule already prohibits failure to conspicuously display advertised items and overpricing. Consequently, no amendment is necessary to address concerns about these issues.
The Commission has entered two cease and desist orders against retail food stores solely for overpricing,
The Commission amended the Rule in 1989 to eliminate explicit display and pricing requirements.
The raincheck defense, 16 CFR 424.2(b), provides that a store complies with the Rule if it offers consumers a “raincheck” when the advertised product is out of stock. Commenters requested two amendments to address barriers they have encountered in the market. First, they asked the FTC to require stores to provide rainchecks during a consumer's initial visit to a store.
The raincheck defense only provides protection if the store “offers” a raincheck at the time a consumer attempts to purchase the sale item.
Similarly, a store that offers a “raincheck” that expires before the store restocks the advertised item cannot use the defense. The raincheck must provide “compensation equal to that of the advertised savings.”
These clear requirements are consistent with the purpose of the “raincheck” defense.
Four comments noted that consumers may not realize all savings even when offered rainchecks or comparable merchandise under the defenses in paragraphs 424.2(b), (c), or (d) of the Rule.
The record, however, does not contain evidence regarding the nature or extent of any such consequential losses. Nor does it contain evidence to support a factual determination regarding the potential costs or benefits of amending the Rule to require compensation for consequential costs from unavailability. Consequently, the Commission does not propose amending the Rule at this time to require compensation for consequential losses.
For the reasons described above, the Commission has determined to retain the current Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices Rule, issue a Rule amendment correcting a typographical error,
Advertising, Foods, Trade practices.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends 16 CFR part 424, as follows:
15 U.S.C. 41–58.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Final rule; order on rehearing and clarification.
On rehearing, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) reaffirms its basic determinations in Order No. 790 and modifies and clarifies certain aspects of the Final Rule. Order No. 790 amended the Commission's regulations to clarify that auxiliary installations added to existing or proposed interstate transmission facilities under the Commission's regulations must be located within the authorized right-of-way or site for existing facilities or the right-of-way or site to be used for facilities proposed in a pending application for case-specific certificate authority or in a prior notice filing under the Commission's blanket certificate regulations, and use only the same temporary work space that was or will be used to construct the existing or proposed facilities. Order No. 790 also codified the common industry practice of notifying landowners prior to coming onto their property to undertake projects, or certain replacements, or certain maintenance activities.
This rule is effective January 26, 2015.
1. On November 22, 2013, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Final Rule in Order No. 790 that amended its regulations, effective February 3, 2014, to: (1) Clarify that auxiliary installations added to existing or proposed interstate transmission facilities under section 2.55 of the Commission's regulations
2. The Commission received two requests for rehearing and clarification of the Final Rule, one filed by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and the other filed jointly by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and Empire Pipeline, Inc. (referred to collectively as “National Fuel”). As discussed below, this order denies the requests for rehearing and grants and denies the requests for clarification.
3. Section 7(c)(1)(A) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires a natural gas company to have certificate authorization for the “construction or extension of any facilities.”
4. Facilities that qualify under section 2.55(a) must be “merely auxiliary or appurtenant to an authorized or proposed pipeline transmission system” and installed “only for the purpose of obtaining more efficient or more economical operation of the authorized or proposed transmission facilities,” such as “[v]alves; drips; pig launchers/receivers; yard and station piping; cathodic protection equipment; gas cleaning, cooling and dehydration equipment; residual refining equipment; water pumping, treatment and cooling equipment; electrical and communication equipment; and buildings.”
5. Section 2.55(b) permits companies to replace facilities that are or will soon be physically deteriorated or obsolete, so long as doing so will not result in a reduction or abandonment of service and the replacement facilities will have a substantially equivalent designed
6. On April 2, 2012, INGAA filed a petition requesting that the Commission clarify that installations of auxiliary facilities under section 2.55(a) are not restricted to the rights-of-way and temporary work spaces used to construct the existing facilities that will be augmented by the auxiliary facilities.
7. On December 20, 2012, the Commission issued a NOPR proposing to revise section 2.55(a) to clarify that, as with section 2.55(b), all projects must take place within a company's authorized right-of-way or facility site and use only previously approved work spaces. In addition, the NOPR proposed to add a 10-day landowner notification requirement for section 2.55 auxiliary and replacement facilities and for section 380.15 maintenance activities.
8. On November 22, 2013, the Commission issued the Final Rule to revise its regulations to clarify that all section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations added to existing or proposed interstate transmission facilities must be located within the authorized right-of-way or site for the existing or proposed facilities and use only the same temporary work space used to construct the existing or proposed facilities. In addition, the Final Rule adopted regulations to provide a landowner with notice at least five days prior to commencing an auxiliary or replacement project under section 2.55 or a maintenance activity under section 380.15 that causes a ground disturbance on the landowner's property.
9. On December 23, 2013, INGAA and National Fuel each filed a request for rehearing of the Final Rule's determination that all auxiliary installations added to existing or proposed interstate transmission facilities must be located within the authorized right-of-way or site for the existing or proposed facilities and use only the same temporary work space used to construct the existing or proposed facilities.
10. In regard to the Final Rule's landowner notification requirements, INGAA and National Fuel request that the Commission clarify that: (1) The landowner notification requirements may be waived with the landowner's consent; (2) the provision that enables companies to waive the landowner notification requirements for “activities required to respond to an emergency” includes activities done for safety, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) compliance, or environmental or unplanned maintenance reasons; (3) the landowner notification requirement does not apply when a pipeline company is required on short notice to mark its facilities on a landowner's property because the landowner or a third party will be digging near the pipeline company's facilities; and (4) the landowner notification does not apply to landowners whose property is crossed en route to a proposed ground-disturbing maintenance activity, or to areas located entirely within the fence line of an existing, above-ground facility site.
11. The Final Rule revised the Commission's regulations to clarify that all section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations added to existing or proposed interstate transmission facilities must be located within the authorized right-of-way or site for the existing or proposed facilities and use only the same temporary work space used to construct the existing or proposed facilities.
12. INGAA persists in its contention that section 2.55(a) facilities are beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. This is a fundamental misreading of this regulatory provision's intent and application.
13. In 1949, Order No. 148, by “amendment of general rules and regulations governing the filing of applications for certificates of public convenience and necessity under section 7(c),”
Section 2.55 is both a precursor and complement to our Part 157 blanket certificate program. By providing non-case-specific certificate authorization for limited classes of facilities, the section 2.55 and blanket certificate regulations permit companies to satisfy the requirements of section 7(c) without having to apply for individual case-specific certificates for each and every modification to their systems.
14. Thus, Order No. 148 did not and could not remove jurisdictional facilities from our jurisdiction, but carved out a class of facilities in section 2.55 that could be added onto, or could replace, parts of a larger certificated system without the need for further review because the auxiliary or replacement facilities will be within the same rights-of-way and use the same work spaces that were reviewed by the Commission prior to construction of the existing facilities at that location. In describing the facilities authorized under section 2.55, Order No. 148 did not make any jurisdictional distinction among section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations, section 2.55(b) replacements, and section 2.55(c) delivery points, indicating all section 2.55 facilities share the same jurisdictional status. INGAA acknowledges that 2.55 replacement facilities are subject to our jurisdiction, stating:
The facilities in question, both those being replaced and those doing the replacing once they are in service, are jurisdictional under NGA Section 7. The new replacement facilities once in service assume the certificated position previously occupied by the facilities being replaced. . . . The new facilities, just like the facilities that they replaced, are required to provide the pipeline's previously certificated jurisdictional service. In addition, as replacements of existing facilities, Section 2.55(b) projects by definition and by their very nature involve an existing right of way.
15. Section 2.55(a) auxiliary installations, which are limited to facilities that improve the operation of a jurisdictional system, have the same jurisdictional status as the undisputedly jurisdictional replacements. As stated in the Final Rule:
All section 2.55 facilities are integrated into a larger interstate transmission system and serve no function other than to enable that system to perform its jurisdictional functions more efficiently or economically; just as the larger system is jurisdictional, the component parts of that system, including auxiliary facilities installed pursuant to section 2.55, are jurisdictional as well.
16. INGAA argues that because Order No. 603 amended section 2.55(b) to explicitly state that replacements must use the same right-of-way and workspaces as the facilities being replaced, but did not amend section 2.55(a) to state the same with respect to auxiliary facilities, the Commission's intent was to impose these restrictions on replacements alone. INGAA is incorrect in suggesting that it was not until Order No. 603 that the Commission viewed section 2.55 as limiting all construction activities under that section to existing, previously studied and approved rights-of-way. The Commission stated in Order No. 603 that “[c]urrent Policy requires that replacement facilities must be placed in the existing ROW”; “we are not allowing additional ROW width under Section 2.55”; and “we will continue to follow Commission policy and limit the pipeline's use of property to construct facilities under Section 2.55 to the existing ROW.”
17. The discussion in Order No. 603 made clear that the Commission has always viewed all activities under section 2.55 as being limited to existing rights-of-way and facility sites. The Commission focused on section 2.55(b) in Order No. 603 because it was aware that some companies incorrectly viewed that section as providing authorization for them to undertake replacement projects using new, not previously studied rights-of-way, and thereby in theory, swap out large portions of their systems under section 2.55(b) with no limit as to project size and potential impacts.
18. Specifically, over the last several years, concerns about potential noncompliance with siting restrictions for auxiliary installations under section 2.55 have been conveyed by industry representatives and landowners to Commission staff. Although the concerns presented have not resulted in an enforcement action, staff has explained the spatial limitations on construction activities under section
19. In addressing space limitations on auxiliary installations under section 2.55(a) in this rulemaking proceeding, we have responded as we did in Order No. 603 when we became aware that companies were improperly relying on section 2.55(b) to construct replacement facilities in new rights-of-way. In this proceeding, we confirmed the position we expressed in Order No. 603 that construction activities under section 2.55 are restricted to projects confined to the footprint of existing facilities or the right-of-way of other facilities proposed in a case-specific certificate application or under the prior notice provisions of the blanket certificate regulations, and revised our regulations to codify this clarification. Again, the fact that we did not take the opportunity in Order No. 603 to insert explanatory language in section 2.55(a) shows only that the focus of the Commission's concern in 1999 was to address the identified issue of replacement facilities being installed outside existing rights-of-way, and was not, as INGAA contends, indicative of a deliberate intent by the Commission to apply spatial limitations to replacement projects but not to auxiliary projects.
20. INGAA relies on
21. Our action here is not analogous to
22. INGAA maintains that Order No. 603 describes auxiliary facilities as exempt from the Commission's jurisdiction. In support of its position, INGAA points to
23. Order No. 603 admittedly refers to auxiliary facilities in a manner that might be misconstrued as deeming auxiliary facilities to be nonjurisdictional. However, Order No. 603's discussion of auxiliary facilities opens with the statement that “Section 2.55 defines facilities that are excluded from the requirements of section 7(c) of the NGA and may, therefore, be constructed without
24. INGAA accepts that replacement facilities “assume the certificated position previously occupied by the facilities being replaced,” but does not believe auxiliary facilities are subject to any certificate authority, and consequently characterizes section 2.55(a) and section 2.55(b) as representing “intrinsically different concepts.”
25. INGAA maintains that in stating that section 2.55(a) auxiliary facilities are jurisdictional, the “Commission erred by not considering reasonable alternatives to its chosen policy and by not giving a reasoned explanation for its rejection of such alternatives.”
26. On rehearing, INGAA reiterates its argument that Commission staff has been aware companies have been relying on section 2.55 to install auxiliary facilities outside existing rights-of-way in some instances, and that this claimed awareness on staff's part supports INGAA's position that our Final Rule's regulatory revisions to clarify the right-of-way and workplace constraints on auxiliary installations constitutes a “change [to] what had been the plain and universal understanding of that provision for approximately 60 years.”
27. In the situation underlying the first staff letter, a company sought case-specific certificate authorization to add a slug catcher (a facility to remove liquids from a gas stream) to an existing pipeline system.
28. The second instance concerns staff's response to a proposal to install cathodic protection equipment. In a December 1997 letter, staff responded to a company's description of a new project to add cathodic protection to an existing pipeline by reminding the company that because part of the project would be in a new right-of-way, the company could not rely on section 2.55(a), but would have to file a case-specific section 7 certificate application.
29. INGAA finds our review of these letter orders to be “cursory and unconvincing,” and insists “that the existence of these delegated orders entirely undermines the Commission's foundation for its Final Rule,”
30. In any event, our review of the two cited letter orders was sufficient to establish that if staff concluded in those situations that the companies could rely on section 2.55(a) to build auxiliary facilities outside the existing rights-of-way, then those particular staff interpretations were in error. While staff makes every effort to accurately reflect the Commission's practice, procedures, policy, and regulatory requirements, staff's statements of opinion and regulatory interpretations, as INGAA and the industry it represents are well aware, are not binding on the Commission. Further, neither of the two unpublished letter orders cited by INGAA explicitly articulates a policy of allowing section 2.55(a) facilities outside an established project boundary or has any other precedential value, and INGAA provides no other evidence to support what it claims is the “plain and universal understanding of [section 2.55(a)].”
31. In clarifying the spatial constraint for section 2.55 facilities, we commented in the Final Rule that absent such a constraint, companies could traverse and disturb unexamined areas. Specifically, we explained that our goal is to ensure that the authorization provided by section 2.55 does not inadvertently work to deprive the Commission of the opportunity to conduct an environmental review and impose appropriate mitigation measures in any situation where a company's construction activities may have adverse environmental impacts. Thus, the regulations provide that even when all planned auxiliary facilities can be located entirely within an existing right-of-way, if a company plans to construct the auxiliary facilities in conjunction with other construction activities proposed in a case-specific certificate application or under the blanket certificate regulations' prior notice provisions, the company may not
32. INGAA replies that independent of the Commission's requirements, companies must comply with environmental laws imposed by other federal and state authorities, and argues that in the past these other environmental laws have provided satisfactory environmental oversight of companies' auxiliary installation projects outside existing rights-of-way.
33. We have NEPA responsibilities with respect to construction activities that companies undertake based on Commission-granted authorization, and we cannot waive these responsibilities solely because other agencies may have complementary or overlapping NEPA responsibilities of their own. INGAA objects to what it describes as the Commission's effort to limit the location of “auxiliary installations through arguments based on a different pipeline activity, the replacement of facilities,” and asserts that replacement and auxiliary “activities are materially different and historically have been treated differently by the Commission.”
34. Section 2.55 and blanket certificate authority embody two different types of certificate authorization. The certificate authority for auxiliary installations under section 2.55(a), which does not include any specific environmental conditions, derives from either (1) the certificate for the existing facilities to be augmented, and thus the auxiliary facilities can only use areas previously authorized by the Commission for the construction of the existing facilities, or (2) the certificate authority being sought by the company for other new facilities, in which case both the new facilities and the planned auxiliary facilities will be subject to an environmental review by the Commission. While blanket certificate authority can be relied upon to obtain new right-of-way and to use previously undisturbed areas, any blanket certificate construction that would involve ground disturbance or changes to operational air and noise emissions will be subject, as discussed above, to section 157.206(b)'s environmental conditions. In addition, we note that a company's prior notice blanket certificate activities, even those that will be confined entirely to an existing right-of-way previously studied and authorized by the Commission, can be protested by staff based on environmental concerns, thus subjecting the proposal to additional review.
35. In practice, we have highlighted the difference in section 2.55 and blanket certificate activities by rejecting companies' reliance on section 2.55(a) to install facilities that do not meet the siting or function requirements, thereby requiring the companies to rely on blanket authorization or case-specific certification for such facilities.
36. In seeking to bolster their position, commenters on the NOPR posited extreme situations, arguing for example, that since the Commission included “buildings” as an example of a 2.55(a) facility, and a new corporate headquarters cannot be constructed entirely within an existing pipeline right-of-way, the Commission could not have intended 2.55(a) facilities to be confined to existing rights-of-way. The Commission responded to this in the Final Rule by noting that a corporate headquarters is not a natural gas facility; thus, such construction does not require any certificate authorization under the NGA.
37. A communication tower constructed by an interstate pipeline company for the purpose of supporting equipment used to monitor (and possibly control) the pipeline system's operation is a natural gas facility subject to our jurisdiction under the NGA. If the tower (or a building, or any facility or equipment which serves exclusively to make a pipeline's operations more efficient or economical) can be installed within an existing (or proposed) authorized area, the company can proceed under section 2.55(a). However, if it will be located outside an authorized area, then that facility must be constructed under either blanket or case-specific certificate authority. Although some of the types of facilities named in section 2.55(a) have evolved significantly since 1949, the function of the named facilities remains the same: They are incidental additions to an interstate transmission system, dependent upon and integrated into that larger system. Further, section 2.55(a) describes qualifying facilities as “[i]nstallations . . . which are merely auxiliary or appurtenant to an authorized or proposed transmission pipeline system,” indicating that section 2.55(a) is only intended to apply to facilities that will be attached to or adjacent to the components of the system they support. When a company is able to construct facilities meeting this description in an area that has been or will be reviewed for environmental purposes by the Commission, then the company may proceed with such construction under section 2.55(a). However, it may be the case in many instances that a company will want or need to locate some of the auxiliary facilities specifically listed in section 2.55(a)—in particular, communication, pig launching/receiving, and cathodic protection equipment—in locations requiring the use of additional rights-of-way, larger easements, or temporary work spaces that have not been included previously in an environmental review performed by the Commission. In those situations, the companies will need to proceed under an alternative form of authorization (
38. National Fuel asks whether “improvements such as buildings, roads, and parking lots for central offices, field and other offices, warehouses, [and] equipment yards” can qualify under section 2.55(a).
39. Finally, we note that because section 2.55 facilities are constructed and operated under the certificate authorization for the facilities that they augment or replace, prior authorization under NGA section 7(b) is necessary before a pipeline company can abandon auxiliary and replacement facilities constructed under section 2.55. INGAA complains that we neglected to address the “burden of seeking such abandonment authority.”
40. INGAA objects to our treating its January 22, 2013 submission in response to the NOPR as a comment on the NOPR rather than as a request for rehearing of the underlying rejection of INGAA's position regarding the scope of authority provided by section 2.55(a).
41. As described in the Final Rule and above, the NOPR was issued in response to INGAA's petition requesting that we “affirm” that installations of auxiliary facilities under section 2.55(a) are not restricted to the rights-of-way and temporary work spaces used to construct the existing facilities that will be augmented by the auxiliary facilities. We declined to do so, explaining in the NOPR that the Commission has never viewed section 2.55(a) as providing any authorization for pipeline companies to construct auxiliary facilities outside areas subject to environmental review and authorization by the Commission. On January 22, 2013, INGAA file a pleading styled “Request for Rehearing.” However, while the Commission's Office of the Secretary issued a tolling order (
42. In this instance, as noted in the Final Rule, the Commission ultimately determined to treat the January 22, 2013 pleading as comments on the NOPR, explaining that the NOPR's clarification of the existing scope of the authority bestowed by section 2.55(a) did not “effect any change [in our regulations]; rather, it articulated existing, long-standing constraints and obligations with respect to auxiliary installations. Because the NOPR does not constitute an instant Final Rule [as alleged by INGAA], we find no cause to consider requests for rehearing in response to the
43. INGAA repeats its claim that our action is inconsistent with Executive Orders directing agencies to avoid unduly burdensome regulations.
44. The Final Rule adopted regulations requiring companies to notify landowners prior to initiating auxiliary and replacement projects or maintenance activities to give landowners adequate notice (to the extent practicable) of a company entering onto their property in order to avoid potential conflict between landowners and gas companies. Specifically, the Final Rule added a new section 2.55(c) and revised existing section 380.15(c) to require a natural gas company to make a good faith effort to notify landowners at least five days in advance of commencing an auxiliary or replacement project or of any maintenance that will cause ground disturbance. The notice must include: (1) A brief description of the activity to be conducted or facilities to be added or replaced and the expected effects on landowners; (2) the name and phone number of a company representative who is knowledgeable about the project; and (3) a description of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Division Helpline and its phone number, as explained in section 1b.21(g) of the Commission's regulations.
45. INGAA requests we clarify that so long as a company provides landowners with at least five days advance notice, landowners can waive all or part of the post-notice waiting period. INGAA states that allowance for the waiver would be similar to the landowner notice waiver provision under the blanket certificate regulations, which allows a company that has given a landowner notice of a project to proceed before the end of the required post-notice waiting period, provided the landowner gives written approval to do so.
46. We agree that landowners, once notified, should be allowed to waive any portion of the post-notice waiting period by giving written approval. Accordingly, we will modify sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c) to permit landowners to waive the post-notice waiting period.
47. The Final Rule provided that “[f]or activities required to respond to an emergency, the five-day prior notice period does not apply” under sections 2.55 and 380.15,
48. INGAA and National Fuel request that we clarify the scope of the emergency exemption provided by sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c) by revising those sections to be consistent with the language in section 157.203(d)(3) of the blanket certificate regulations.
49. National Fuel asserts that if an emergency activity is exempt from the prior landowner notification requirements under section 2.55(c) or
50. The Final Rule stated that prior notification be provided to “affected landowners,” described in sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c), as property owners that will be “directly affected (
51. As proposed in the NOPR, section 2.55(c) and 380.15(c) would have required a company to give prior notification to all landowners whose property would be used or crossed. As proposed in the NOPR, sections 2.55(c) and 380.15(c) also would have required a company to give prior notification to owners of abutting properties and the owners of residences within 50 feet.
52. INGAA and National Fuel also request that the Commission clarify that the five-day prior notice requirement does not apply when the ground-disturbing activity will occur entirely within the fence line of an existing above-ground facility site.
53. INGAA requests we clarify that the requirement for prior notice to landowners adopted by the Final Rule for activities under sections 2.55 and 380.15 does not apply to “One Call” obligations.
54. INGAA claims that we have not met our obligation to estimate the burden of the Final Rule's notification requirement in a way that is not arbitrary or capricious, and then weigh the benefit of the rule against that burden.
55. To estimate the burden of the Final Rule's section 2.55 and section 380.15 landowner notification requirements, Commission staff surveyed nine jurisdictional companies, and based on that sample, estimated that all 165 jurisdictional companies perform approximately 7,605 auxiliary installation projects each year under section 2.55(a), including activities that do not involve ground disturbance.
56. In view of these considerations, we believe our estimate in the Final Rule of the total number of all companies' annual auxiliary installations under section 2.55(a) that involve ground disturbance was reasonable, and that it also was reasonable to multiply that number by two to estimate the total annual number of activities—including all auxiliary installations under sections 2.55(a), replacement projects under section 2.55(b), and maintenance activities under section 380.15—that will involve ground disturbance and will therefore require prior notice to landowners. Further, we believe the reasonableness of our burden estimate in the Final Rule is also supported by the clarification in this order that ground-disturbing activities are exempt from the prior notice requirement in emergency situations and in situations where all ground disturbances will be confined entirely to areas within the fence line of an existing above-ground facility site.
57. National Fuel states that every year it performs “thousands” of ground-disturbing maintenance activities that will now require landowner notification.
58. While INGAA and National Fuel insist that we have underestimated the burden that the landowner notification will cause the industry, this assertion assumes that most jurisdictional companies were not already notifying landowners when work is to be performed on their property, whether such notification is required or not.
59. Section 157.6(d)(1) of the regulations requires applicants for case-specific certificate authority for construction projects to notify all landowners that will be affected by the project. Section 157.203(d) of the blanket certificate regulations requires that companies give landowners notice of all projects subject to those regulations' prior notice provisions. Thus, companies likely have a database of landowners dating from the time many of their facilities were originally put in service. As discussed in the Final Rule, we believe most companies maintain and update these databases because, regardless of their size, they need to know (to enhance, replace, and maintain their facilities and to respond to emergencies) precisely where their rights-of-way lie, how to get to their facilities, and how to contact the owners of the properties on which their facilities are located.
60. Further, comments on the NOPR call attention to some companies' ongoing community relations programs, which like the required PHMSA report, serve to inform landowners of their plans for construction and maintenance activities in coming months.
61. INGAA requests that the Commission revise certain regulations to ensure regulatory consistency as a result of the Final Rule. INGAA notes that section 157.206(b)(1) of the Commission's regulations for blanket certificate projects includes a general reference to section 380.15
62. INGAA also notes that the Final Rule replaced the NOPR's proposed term “original” in section 2.55(b)(1)(ii) with the term “existing” but did not make similar changes to Appendix A of Part 2. For consistency, INGAA requests that the Commission replace the term “original” with “existing” in Appendix A of Part 2.
63. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
64. The Commission submitted the Final Rule's information collection statement for landowner notification requirements under sections 2.55, 157.203(d)(3)(i), and 380.15 of the regulations to OMB for its review and approval, and OMB granted approval under OMB Control No. 1902–0128. While this rule clarifies certain aspects of the existing information collection requirements for landowner notification, it does not add to these requirements. Accordingly, a copy of this Final Rule will be sent to OMB for informational purposes only.
65. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
66. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
67. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
68. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
69. These regulations are effective January 26, 2015. The Commission has determined that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
Administrative practice and procedure, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental impact statements, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 2, 157, and 380, chapter I, title 18,
5 U.S.C. 601; 15 U.S.C. 717–717z, 3301–3432; 16 U.S.C. 792–828c, 2601–2645, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4370h, 7101–7352.
(c) * * *
(1)(i) No activity described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section that involves ground disturbance is authorized unless a company makes a good faith effort to notify in writing each affected landowner, as noted in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving the tax notice, whose property will be used and subject to ground disturbance as a result of the proposed activity, at least five days prior to commencing any activity under this section. A landowner may waive the five-day prior notice requirement in writing, so long as the notice has been provided. No landowner notice under this section is required:
(A) If all ground disturbance will be confined entirely to areas within the fence line of an existing above-ground site of facilities operated by the company; or
(B) For activities done for safety, DOT compliance, or environmental or unplanned maintenance reasons that are not foreseen and that require immediate attention by the company.
(ii) The notification shall include at least:
(A) A brief description of the facilities to be constructed or replaced and the effect the activity may have on the landowner's property;
(B) The name and phone number of a company representative who is knowledgeable about the project; and
(C) A description of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Division Helpline, which an affected person may contact to seek an informal resolution of a dispute as explained in section 1b.21(g) of the Commission's regulations and the Dispute Resolution Division Helpline number.
(2) “Affected landowners” include owners of interests, as noted in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving tax notice, in properties (including properties subject to rights-of-way and easements for facility sites, compressor stations, well sites, and all above-ground facilities, and access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and temporary work space) that will be directly affected by (
These guidelines shall be followed to determine what area may be used to construct the auxiliary or replacement facility. Specifically, they address what areas, in addition to the permanent right-of-way, may be used.
An auxiliary or replacement facility must be within the existing right-of-way or facility site as specified by § 2.55(a)(1) or § 2.55(b)(1)(ii). Construction activities for the auxiliary or replacement facility can extend outside the current permanent right-of-way if they are within the temporary and permanent right-of-way and associated work spaces authorized for the construction of the existing installation.
If documentation is not available on the location and width of the temporary and permanent rights-of-way and associated work spaces that were used to construct the existing facility, the company may use the following guidance for the auxiliary installation or replacement, provided the appropriate easements have been obtained:
a. Construction should be limited to no more than a 75-foot-wide right-of-way including the existing permanent right-of-way for large diameter pipeline (pipe greater than 12 inches in diameter) to carry out routine construction. Pipeline 12 inches in diameter and smaller should use no more than a 50-foot-wide right-of-way.
b. The temporary right-of-way (working side) should be on the same side that was used in constructing the existing pipeline.
c. A reasonable amount of additional temporary work space on both sides of roads and interstate highways, railroads, and significant stream crossings and in side-slope areas is allowed. The size should be dependent upon site-specific conditions. Typical work spaces are:
d. The auxiliary or replacement facility must be located within the permanent right-of-way or, in the case of nonlinear facilities, the cleared building site. In the case of pipelines this is assumed to be 50 feet wide and centered over the pipeline unless otherwise legally specified.
However, use of the above guidelines for work space size is constrained by the physical evidence in the area. Areas obviously not cleared during the existing construction, as evidenced by stands of mature trees, structures, or other features that exceed the age of the facility being replaced, should not be used for construction of the auxiliary or replacement facility.
If these guidelines cannot be met, the company should consult with the Commission's staff to determine if the exemption afforded by § 2.55 may be used. If the exemption may not be used, construction authorization must be obtained pursuant to another regulation under the Natural Gas Act.
15 U.S.C. 717–717z.
(b) * * *
(1) The certificate holder shall adopt the requirements set forth in § 380.15(a) and (b) of this chapter for all activities authorized by the blanket certificate and shall issue the relevant portions thereof to construction personnel, with instructions to use them.
42 U.S.C. 4321–4370h, 7101–7352; E.O. 12009, 3 CFR 1978 Comp., p. 142.
(c) * * *
(1)(i) No activity described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section that involves ground disturbance is authorized unless a company makes a good faith effort to notify in writing each affected landowner, as noted in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving the tax notice, whose property will be used and subject to ground disturbance as a result of the proposed activity, at least five days prior to commencing any activity under this section. A landowner may waive the five-day prior notice requirement in writing, so long as the notice has been provided. No landowner notice under this section is required:
(A) If all ground disturbance will be confined entirely to areas within the fence line of an existing above-ground site of facilities operated by the company; or
(B) For activities done for safety, DOT compliance, or environmental or unplanned maintenance reasons that are not foreseen and that require immediate attention by the company.
(ii) The notification shall include at least:
(A) A brief description of the facilities to be constructed or replaced and the effect the activity may have on the landowner's property;
(B) The name and phone number of a company representative who is knowledgeable about the project; and
(C) A description of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Division Helpline, which an affected person may contact to seek an informal resolution of a dispute as explained in section 1b.21(g) of the Commission's regulations and the Dispute Resolution Division Helpline number.
(2) “Affected landowners” include owners of interests, as noted in the most recent county/city tax records as receiving tax notice, in properties (including properties subject to rights-of-way and easements for facility sites, compressor stations, well sites, and all above-ground facilities, and access roads, pipe and contractor yards, and temporary work space) that will be directly affected by (
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.
Final rule.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approves Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 (Physical Security). The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization, submitted Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 for Commission approval in response to a Commission order issued on March 7, 2014. The purpose of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 is to enhance physical security measures for the most critical Bulk-Power System facilities and thereby lessen the overall vulnerability of the Bulk-Power System against physical attacks. In addition, the Commission directs NERC to develop one modification to Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 and submit an informational filing.
This rule is effective January 26, 2015.
1. Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission approves Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 (Physical Security).
2. Section 215 of the FPA requires the Commission to certify an ERO to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced in the United States by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.
3. In the March 7 Order, the Commission determined that physical attacks on the Bulk-Power System could adversely impact the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System, resulting in instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures. Moreover, the Commission observed that the then current Reliability Standards did not specifically require entities to take steps to reasonably protect against physical security attacks on the Bulk-Power System. Accordingly, to carry out section 215 of the FPA and to provide for the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System, the Commission directed NERC, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5), to develop and file for approval proposed Reliability Standards that address threats and vulnerabilities to the physical security of critical facilities on the Bulk-Power System.
4. The March 7 Order indicated that the Reliability Standards should require owners or operators of the Bulk-Power System to take at least three steps to address the risks that physical security attacks pose to the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. Specifically, the March 7 Order directed that the Reliability Standards should require: (1) Owners or operators of the Bulk-Power System to perform a risk assessment of their systems to identify their “critical facilities”; (2) owners or operators of the identified critical facilities to evaluate the potential threats and vulnerabilities to those identified facilities; and (3) those owners or operators of critical facilities to develop and implement a security plan designed to protect against attacks to those identified critical facilities based on the assessment of the potential threats and vulnerabilities to their physical security.
5. The March 7 Order stated that the risk assessment used by an owner or operator to identify critical facilities should be verified by an entity other than the owner or operator, such as by NERC, the relevant Regional Entity, a reliability coordinator, or another entity.
6. The March 7 Order stated that, because the three steps of compliance with the contemplated Reliability Standards could contain sensitive or confidential information that, if released to the public, could jeopardize the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System, NERC should include in the Reliability Standards a procedure that will ensure confidential treatment of sensitive or confidential information but still allow for the Commission, NERC and the Regional Entities to review and inspect any information that is needed
7. The Commission directed NERC to submit the proposed Reliability Standards to the Commission for approval within 90 days of issuance of the March 7 Order (
8. On May 23, 2014, NERC petitioned the Commission to approve Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 and its associated violation risk factors and violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date.
9. NERC explains that Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 “serves the vital reliability goal of enhancing physical security measures for the most critical Bulk-Power System facilities and lessening the overall vulnerability of the Bulk-Power System to physical attacks.”
10. Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 has six requirements. Requirement R1 requires applicable transmission owners to perform risk assessments on a periodic basis to identify their transmission stations and transmission substations that, if rendered inoperable or damaged, could result in widespread instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading within an Interconnection. Requirement R1 also requires transmission owners to identify the primary control center that operationally controls each of the identified transmission stations or transmission substations.
11. Requirement R2 requires that each applicable transmission owner have an unaffiliated third party with appropriate experience verify the risk assessment performed under Requirement R1. Requirement R2 states that the transmission owner must either modify its identification of facilities consistent with the verifier's recommendation or document the technical basis for not doing so. In addition, Requirement R2 requires each transmission owner to implement procedures for protecting sensitive or confidential information made available to third-party verifiers or developed under the Reliability Standard from public disclosure.
12. Requirement R3 requires the transmission owner to notify a transmission operator that operationally controls a primary control center identified under Requirement R1 of such identification to ensure that the transmission operator has notice of the identification so that it may timely fulfill its obligations under Requirements R4 and R5 to protect the primary control center.
13. Requirement R4 requires each applicable transmission owner and transmission operator to conduct an evaluation of the potential threats and vulnerabilities of a physical attack on each of its respective transmission stations, transmission substations, and primary control centers identified as critical in Requirement R1.
14. Requirement R5 requires each transmission owner and transmission operator to develop and implement documented physical security plans that cover each of their respective transmission stations, transmission substations, and primary control centers identified as critical in Requirement R1.
15. Requirement R6 requires that each transmission owner and transmission operator subject to Requirements R4 and R5 have an unaffiliated third party with appropriate experience review its Requirement R4 evaluation and Requirement R5 security plan. Requirement R6 states that the transmission owner or transmission operator must either modify its evaluation and security plan consistent with the recommendation, if any, of the reviewer or document its reasons for not doing so. In addition, Requirement R6 requires each transmission owner to implement procedures for protecting sensitive or confidential information made available to third-party reviewers or developed under the Reliability Standard from public disclosure.
16. On July 17, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to approve Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest.
17. In response to the NOPR, the Commission received 33 sets of initial comments and six sets of reply comments. We address below the issues raised in the NOPR and comments. The Appendix to this final rule lists the entities that filed comments in response to the NOPR.
18. Pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(2), we approve Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 as just, reasonable, not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and in the public interest. The Commission also approves the associated violation risk factors, violation severity levels, implementation plan, and effective date proposed by NERC (
19. In addition to approving Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, the Commission adopts in part the NOPR proposal directing NERC to develop and submit modifications to the Reliability Standard concerning the use of the term “widespread” in Requirement R1. The Commission determines that the term “widespread” is unclear with respect to the obligations it imposes on applicable entities; how it would be implemented by applicable entities; and how it would be enforced. Accordingly, the Commission directs NERC, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5), to remove the term “widespread” from Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 or, alternatively, to propose modifications to the Reliability Standard that address the Commission's concerns. We direct that NERC submit a responsive modification within six months from the effective date of this final rule.
20. The Commission does not adopt the NOPR proposal that would have required NERC to develop and submit modifications to Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 to allow applicable governmental authorities (
21. With respect to the informational filings proposed in the NOPR, the Commission adopts the proposal to direct NERC to make an informational filing addressing whether Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 provides physical security for all “High Impact” control centers, as that term is defined in Reliability Standard CIP–002–5.1, necessary for the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. However, the Commission extends the deadline for that informational filing until two years following the effective date of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1. The Commission, at this time, does not adopt the NOPR proposal to direct NERC to make an informational filing addressing resiliency. Instead, the Commission will continue to consider ways for industry to best inform the Commission of its current and future resiliency efforts, which could take the form of reports and/or technical conferences to address specific areas of concern (
22. We address below the following issues raised in the NOPR and in the comments: (A) Removal of the term “widespread”; (B) applicable governmental authorities' ability to add or subtract facilities from an entity's list of critical facilities; (C) informational filing on “High Impact” control centers; (D) informational filing on resiliency; (E) third-party verification and review; (F) exclusion of generators from the applicability section of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1; (G) confidentiality; (H) other issues raised in comments; (I) violation risk factors and violation severity levels; and (J) implementation plan and effective date.
23. The March 7 Order stated that a critical facility is “one that, if rendered inoperable or damaged, could have a critical impact on the operation of the interconnection through instability, uncontrolled separation or cascading failures on the Bulk-Power System.”
24. Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 states that its purpose is to “identify and protect Transmission stations and Transmission substations, and their associated primary control centers, that if rendered inoperable or damaged as a result of a physical attack could result in widespread instability, uncontrolled separation, or Cascading within an Interconnection.”
25. The NOPR proposed to direct NERC to modify Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 to remove the term “widespread” as it appears in the phrase “widespread instability.” The NOPR stated that the phrase “widespread instability” is undefined by NERC and is inconsistent with the March 7 Order's explanation of “critical facility” and the definition of “reliable operation” in FPA section 215(a)(4).
26. The NOPR stated that the use of “widespread instability” in Requirement R1 could, depending on the meaning of “widespread,” narrow the scope (and number) of identified critical facilities under Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 beyond what was contemplated in the March 7 Order. The NOPR also stated that the use of the term “widespread” could potentially render the Reliability Standard unenforceable or lead to an inadequate level of reliability by omitting facilities that are critical to the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.
27. NERC comments that it does not oppose the NOPR directive but that the modification should be developed through NERC's standards development process and NERC should be allowed to propose alternative clarifying language “to ensure the proposed Reliability Standard remains focused on Interconnection impacts and not local
28. SIA, Idaho Power, Pa PUC, SmartSenseCom, Foundation and Pepco support the NOPR proposal because they believe that the term “widespread” is vague or inconsistent with the definition of “reliable operation” in FPA section 215.
29. Other commenters do not support the proposed directive largely because they contend that the proposal may have the unintended consequence of expanding the scope of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 to include localized events that have no impact on an Interconnection.
30. ITC, while agreeing that the term “widespread” is not well-defined and would render the Reliability Standard vague, contends that the definition of critical facility in Requirement R1 should be replaced by defining as critical all physical facilities that contain “High Impact” or “Medium Impact” BES Cyber Systems as those terms are defined in Reliability Standard CIP–002–5.1.
31. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal in part and directs NERC to remove the term “widespread” from Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 or, alternatively, to propose modifications to the Reliability Standard that address the Commission's concerns. The differing views expressed in the comments validate the concern raised in the NOPR that the meaning of the term “widespread” is unclear and subject to interpretation.
32. We stated in the March 7 Order that “the Reliability Standards that we are ordering today apply only to critical facilities that, if rendered inoperable or damaged, could have a critical impact on the operation of the interconnection through instability, uncontrolled separation or cascading failures on the Bulk-Power System.
33. However, incorporating the undefined term “widespread” in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 introduces excessive uncertainty in identifying critical facilities under Requirement R1.
34. While some commenters contend that the meaning of the term “widespread” is well-understood by industry, we find that there is ample evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the term is susceptible to different interpretations by applicable entities. Notably, KCP&L states that, while it was a participant in the standards drafting process for Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, it agrees that the term requires interpretation. Moreover, KCP&L and Pepco share our concern that compliance enforcement authorities may find it difficult to consistently enforce compliance with Requirement R1 without a clear understanding of the term's meaning.
35. Accordingly, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5), the Commission directs NERC to develop a modification to Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 that either removes the term “widespread” from Requirement R1 or, in the alternative, proposes changes that address the Commission's concerns. Further, we direct that NERC submit a responsive modification within six months from the effective date of this final rule. We recognize that certain entities commented on how NERC could modify Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 to address the Commission's stated concerns.
36. In the March 7 Order, the Commission stated that:
[T]he risk assessment used by an owner or operator to identify critical facilities should be verified by an entity other than the owner or operator. Such verification could be performed by NERC, the relevant Regional Entity, a Reliability Coordinator, or another entity. The Reliability Standards should include a procedure for the verifying entity, as well as the Commission, to add or remove facilities from an owner's or operator's list of critical facilities. . . .
37. Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 does not include a procedure that allows the Commission to add or subtract facilities from an applicable entity's list of critical facilities under Requirement R1. Instead, NERC states that the Commission has the existing authority to enforce NERC Reliability Standards pursuant to FPA section 215(e)(3).
38. The NOPR stated that Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 does not include a procedure that allows the Commission to add or subtract facilities from an applicable entity's list of critical facilities. The NOPR stated that if the Commission determined through an audit of an applicable entity, or through some other means, that a critical facility does not appear on the entity's list of critical facilities, there is no provision in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 to allow the Commission to require its inclusion. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to direct NERC to modify the physical security Reliability Standard to “include a procedure that would allow applicable governmental authorities,
39. NERC asserts that the Commission should not adopt the NOPR proposal. NERC maintains that the proposal is unnecessary because it duplicates existing Commission compliance monitoring and enforcement authority.
40. Pa PUC, Foundation, SmartSenseCom and Paschall state that they support the NOPR proposal.
41. The majority of commenters do not support the NOPR proposal for various legal and policy reasons.
42. Based on our review of the comments, we determine not to adopt the NOPR proposal.
43. We are persuaded by commenters that the NOPR directive would present NERC, as the entity that would have to develop the proposed modification, and the Commission, which would have to approve any NERC proposal, with a number of substantial policy issues. Ultimately, we believe that the NOPR proposal would require NERC and the Commission to expend resources that could be better applied elsewhere.
44. The Commission, instead, will focus its resources on carrying out compliance and enforcement activities to ensure that critical facilities are identified under Requirement R1. In its comments, NERC indicated that NERC staff will submit to the NERC Board of Trustees a report three months following implementation of Requirements R1, R2 and R3 concerning the scope of facilities identified as
45. The March 7 Order stated that a “critical facility is one that, if rendered inoperable or damaged, could have a critical impact on the operation of the interconnection through instability, uncontrolled separation or cascading failures on the Bulk-Power System.”
46. NERC states that Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 addresses the protection of primary control centers, which NERC defines as facilities that “operationally control[ ] a Transmission station or Transmission substation when the electronic actions from the control center can cause direct physical actions at the identified Transmission station or Transmission substation, such as opening a breaker.”
47. NERC maintains that “[c]ontrol centers that provide back-up capability and control centers that cannot operationally control a critical Transmission station or Transmission substation do not present similar direct risks to Real-time operations if they are the target of a physical attack,” and thus they are not covered by Reliability Standard CIP–014–1.
48. NERC acknowledges that certain control centers categorized as “High Impact” or “Medium Impact” under Reliability Standard CIP–002–5.1 (Cyber Security—BES Cyber System Categorization) would not be covered control centers under Reliability Standard CIP–014–1.
49. NERC points out that Reliability Standard CIP–006–5 already requires physical security protections that are “designed to restrict physical access to locations containing High and Medium Impact Cyber Systems,” which include control centers and backup control centers for reliability coordinators, balancing authorities, transmission operators and generation operators irrespective of their ability to operationally control Bulk-Power System facilities.
50. The NOPR proposed to direct NERC to make an informational filing within six months of the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding indicating whether the development of Reliability Standards that provide physical security for all “High Impact” control centers, as that term is defined in Reliability Standard CIP–002–5.1, is necessary for the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.
51. The NOPR stated that primary and back-up control centers of functional entities other than transmission owners and operators identified as “High Impact” may warrant assessment and physical security controls under this Reliability Standard because a successful attack could prevent or impair situational awareness, especially from a wide-area perspective, or could allow attackers to distribute misleading and potentially harmful data and operating instructions that could result in instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading failures.
52. The NOPR stated that the proposed informational filing should address whether there is a need for consistent treatment of “High Impact” control centers for cybersecurity and physical security purposes through the development of Reliability Standards that afford physical protection to all “High Impact” control centers. The NOPR also stated that the development of physical security protections for all “High Impact” control centers would not be without precedent because, as noted above, Reliability Standard CIP–006–5 already requires that “High Impact” control centers have some physical protections, including restrictions on physical access, to protect BES Cyber Assets. However, the NOPR further stated that the security measures required by Reliability Standard CIP–006–5 may not be comparable to those required by Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, and thus may not be sufficient to “deter, detect, delay, assess, communicate, and respond to potential threats and vulnerabilities” as required in Requirement R5 of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1. Further, the NOPR stated that Reliability Standard CIP–006–5 does not require an “unaffiliated third party review” of the evaluation and security plan required by Reliability Standard CIP–014–1.
53. NERC states that it does not oppose submitting an informational filing to address whether “High Impact” control centers warrant assessment and physical security controls under Reliability Standard CIP–014–1. However, NERC requests that the Commission modify the NOPR proposal to give NERC at least 12 months from the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding to submit the informational filing.
54. Other commenters, while not necessarily agreeing that all “High Impact” control centers should be subject to Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, support the NOPR proposal for various reasons.
55. ITC supports the proposed informational filing but states that the Commission should widen the scope of the informational filing to assess the benefits of extending Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 to all “High Impact” and “Medium Impact” BES Cyber Assets. ITC states that the definition of “critical” assets is insufficiently comprehensive because it fails to provide physical security for facilities that contain crucial Cyber Assets. ITC further states that identifying critical facilities under Requirement R1 is unnecessary because applicable entities already have a list of facilities containing “High Impact” and “Medium Impact” Cyber Assets, which could also serve as the list of critical facilities for the purposes of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1. SIA agrees that Requirement R1 should be modified to include all “High Impact” control centers.
56. Commenters opposed to the NOPR proposal contend that the informational filing is unnecessary or would be burdensome.
57. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal and directs NERC to submit an informational filing that addresses whether there is a need for consistent treatment of “High Impact” control centers for cybersecurity and physical security purposes through the development of Reliability Standards that afford physical protection to all “High Impact” control centers. The Commission, however, modifies the NOPR proposal and extends the due date for the informational filing to two years following the effective date of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1.
58. While we approve Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 in this final rule, including the Reliability Standard's treatment of control centers, the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the NOPR, finds that NERC should assess whether all “High Impact” control centers should be protected under Reliability Standard CIP–014–1.
59. At this time, the Commission will not direct NERC to address in the informational filing whether all “High Impact” and “Medium Impact” BES Cyber Assets should be considered critical for the purposes of Reliability Standard CIP–014, Requirement R1. We are sympathetic to several points raised in ITC's comments, which echo some of the statements in the NOPR. However, as stated in the NOPR, the basis for directing an informational filing regarding control centers is found in the March 7 Order, where the Commission stated that it “expects that critical facilities generally will include, but not be limited to, critical substations and critical control centers.”
60. In the March 7 Order, the Commission stated that the development of physical security Reliability Standards “will help provide for the resiliency and reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. To that end, the proposed Reliability Standards should allow owners or operators to consider resiliency of the grid in the risk assessment when identifying critical facilities, and the elements that make up those facilities, such as transformers that typically require significant time to repair or replace. As part of this process, owners or operators may consider elements of resiliency such as how the system is designed, operated, and
61. Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 mentions resiliency in Requirement R5, stating in Requirement R5.1 that the physical security plans that entities develop shall include, among other attributes: “Resiliency or security measures designed collectively to deter, detect, delay, assess, communicate, and respond to potential physical threats and vulnerabilities identified during the evaluation conducted in Requirement R4.” The NERC petition describes Requirement R5.1, with regard to resiliency, as referring to “steps an entity may take that, while not specifically targeted as hardening the physical security of the site, help to decrease the potential adverse impact of a physical attack . . . including modifications to system topology or the construction of a new Transmission station . . . that would lessen the criticality of the facility.”
62. The NOPR stated that the NERC petition describes resiliency measures that could be included in the required physical security plans. The NOPR also stated, however, that specific resiliency measures are not required by Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, which is consistent with the March 7 Order. Instead, the NOPR noted that Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 allows the security plans to be flexible in order to meet different threats and protect varying Bulk-Power System configurations.
63. The NOPR stated that resiliency is as, or even more, important than physical security given that physical security cannot protect against all possible attacks. The NOPR also stated that, in the case of the loss of a substation, the Bulk-Power System may depend on resiliency to minimize the impact of the loss of facilities and restore blacked-out portions of the Bulk-Power System as quickly as possible. The NOPR further stated that some entities may implement resiliency measures rather than security measures, such as by adding facilities or operating procedures that reduce or eliminate the importance of existing critical facilities, which could significantly improve reliability and resiliency.
64. The NOPR stated that the NERC petition indicated that the NERC Board of Trustees expects NERC management to monitor and assess the implementation of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 on an ongoing basis, which would include: The number of assets identified as critical under the Reliability Standard; the defining characteristics of the assets identified as critical; the scope of security plans (
65. In addition, the NOPR proposed to direct NERC to submit an informational filing that addresses the resiliency of the Bulk-Power System when confronted with the loss of critical facilities. The NOPR stated that the informational filing should explore what steps can be taken, in addition to those required by Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, to maintain the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System when faced with the loss or degradation of critical facilities. The NOPR proposed to direct NERC to submit the informational filing within one year after the effective date of the final rule in this proceeding.
66. NERC requests that the Commission not direct it to submit an informational filing on resiliency. NERC contends that an informational filing on resiliency would divert resources from NERC's oversight of the implementation of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 and NERC's efforts to assess the Reliability Standard's effectiveness. NERC states that it will monitor and assess implementation of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, as described in NERC's petition, and will prepare two initial reports for the NERC Board of Trustees, the first report being submitted three months following implementation of Requirements R1, R2 and R3 and the second report being submitted three months after implementation of Requirements R4, R5 and R6. With respect to the second report, NERC states that “[g]iven the NOPR's discussion of resiliency, this report will pay particular attention to the resiliency measures included in entities' security plans.”
67. Pepco does not support the proposed informational filing because of the burden Pepco contends it would impose on NERC and registered entities, including diverting resources from the implementation of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1. Pepco asserts that resiliency is already addressed in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1.
68. SDG&E, MISO and Idaho Power support directing NERC to submit the proposed informational filing on resiliency as a way of determining next steps for enhancing the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.
69. Other commenters, including Associations, while generally agreeing that the issue of resiliency needs to be considered, recommend that the Commission convene a technical conference rather than require NERC to submit an informational filing because, they maintain, a technical conference would be more effective.
70. The Commission determines not to adopt the NOPR proposal requiring NERC to submit an informational filing concerning resiliency of the Bulk-Power System. While commenters expressed differing views on whether an informational filing is needed, the comments recognized the importance of Bulk-Power System resiliency. In addition, NERC committed to providing the Commission with two reports following implementation of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, which, NERC indicates, will address the issue of resiliency.
71. Rather than require NERC to submit an informational filing at this time, the Commission will review the NERC reports and will consider ways for industry to best inform the Commission of its current and future
72. In the March 7 Order, the Commission stated that “the risk assessment used by an owner or operator to identify critical facilities should be verified by an entity other than the owner or operator . . . [and] [s]imilarly, the determination of threats and vulnerabilities and the security plan should also be reviewed by NERC, the relevant Regional Entity, the Reliability Coordinator, or another entity with appropriate expertise.”
73. Requirement R2 of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 requires transmission owners to have their risk assessments verified by an unaffiliated third party. Requirement R6, likewise, requires each transmission owner and transmission operator to have their vulnerability and threat assessment(s) along with their security plan(s) for any critical facilities reviewed by an unaffiliated third party.
74. Regarding how an applicable entity is supposed to address any recommendations by a third-party verifier, Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, in Requirement R2.3, states that the transmission owner must either (a) “modify its identification . . . consistent with the recommendation” or (b) “document the technical basis for not modifying the identification in accordance with the recommendation.” Similarly, Requirement R6.3 sets forth the procedure for considering any recommendations from the reviewing entity as to the threat assessments and security plans: The applicable entity must either (a) “modify its evaluation or security plan(s) consistent with the recommendation” or (b) “document the reason(s) for not modifying the evaluation or security plan(s) consistent with the recommendation.”
75. NERC states that “[r]equiring documentation of the technical basis for not modifying the identification in accordance with the recommendation will help ensure that a Transmission Owner meaningfully considers the verifier's recommendations and follows those recommendations unless it can technically justify its reasons for not doing so. To comply with Part 2.3, the technical justification must be sound and based on acceptable approaches to conducting transmission analyses.”
76. The NOPR proposed to approve the third-party verification and review method proposed by NERC in Requirements R2 and R6. The NOPR stated that failure to provide a written, technically justifiable reason for rejecting a third-party recommendation would render the applicable entity non-compliant. With that understanding, the NOPR proposed to approve NERC's proposed third-party verification and review in Requirements R2 and R6 of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 as an equally efficient and effective alternative to the directive in the March 7 Order.
77. NERC states that it supports the NOPR proposal. NERC states that third-party verification and review will provide another layer of expertise and independence to the identification of critical assets, the evaluation of threats and vulnerabilities, and the development of effective security plans. NERC reiterates that an applicable entity's failure to provide a reasonable, written explanation for declining to follow a third-party recommendation would constitute non-compliance.
78. MISO, Reclamation, KCP&L, ITC, and G&T Cooperatives support the NOPR proposal but each suggest modifications or request clarification of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1.
79. MISO states that entities like itself, that are both reliability coordinators and planning coordinators, may be subject to substantial, simultaneous demands by many transmission owners for concurrent verification of risk assessments. MISO notes that Requirement R2.2 requires applicable entities to have their risk assessment verified within 90 days of completion of the risk assessment. MISO states that firm adherence to the 90-day deadline could undermine the protections in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 by requiring verifying entities (
80. Reclamation states that transmission owners should have discretion to make decisions regarding third-party recommendations based on cost and risk analyses. Reclamation also states that Requirement 2.1 should be modified to require that third-party verifications be conducted by a transmission owner's planning coordinator or transmission planner. If the transmission owner is also the planning coordinator and transmission planner, then Reclamation states that the verification should be conducted by the reliability coordinator.
81. KCP&L states that NERC should develop a pre-approved list of qualified third-party contractors or require third parties to register with NERC. KCP&L also seeks clarification that an independent system operator (ISO) or regional transmission operator (RTO) concurrent with its role as reliability coordinator could provide third-party review services. KCP&L states that it does not oppose having an RTO that is also a reliability coordinator or planning coordinator serve as a third-party reviewer but would not support a mandate requiring a specific third-party reviewer. KCP&L also seeks clarification of the meaning of the phrase “unaffiliated third-party.”
82. ITC states that the Commission should “confirm that the verification of a responsible entity's risk assessment, threat assessment, and security plan, as specified in Requirements R2 and R6, constitutes full compliance by that responsible entity with respect to the risk assessment and security plan.”
83. NIPSCO, TVA and Idaho Power do not support the NOPR proposal. NIPSCO contends that third-party verification is “inconsistent with the approach to entity self-assessment applied in other Reliability Standards” and notes that the Version 5 CIP Reliability Standards do not include a provision for third-party review.
84. We adopt the NOPR proposal and approve the third-party verification and review provisions found in Requirements R2 and R6 of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1. These provisions, as stated by NERC, provide an important, independent layer of expertise in the identification, assessment and protection of critical facilities.
85. We disagree with the arguments raised in the comments submitted by NIPSCO, TVA and Idaho Power. The use of third-party verification and review in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 is not inconsistent with other Commission-approved Reliability Standards merely because third-party review is not used in other Reliability Standards. NIPSCO is correct that the Version 5 CIP Reliability Standards do not include third-party review provisions. However, as NIPSCO acknowledges, the Version 5 CIP Reliability Standards contain bright-line criteria that guide the determinations made by applicable entities in identifying BES Cyber Assets.
86. Similarly, we disagree with TVA that the use of third-party verifiers and reviewers is inconsistent with FPA section 215. As discussed above, we reject TVA's view that third-party verifiers and reviewers will be acting in an enforcement capacity. These third parties will have no authority to determine whether an applicable entity has violated a requirement of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, require compliance, or issue penalties. Moreover, as stated in the NOPR, an applicable entity in some cases could be found to be in violation of a requirement even if the applicable entity's actions were verified by a third party.
87. In response to Idaho Power's concern, we expect that third-party verifiers and reviewers will articulate a reasonable basis for their recommendations. The absence of such a basis for a recommendation could justify an applicable entity's decision to decline to adopt the recommendation. We also see no reason to include in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 “specific methodology and performance criteria” for third-party verification and review beyond what is already contained in the requirements and compliance measures recited in the Reliability Standard.
88. With respect to the other comments, there is no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that an insufficient number of qualified third-party verifiers and reviewers exists such that applicable entities will be unable to meet the 90-day deadline in Requirements R2 and R6. To the extent an applicable entity requires additional time to comply, that situation should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
89. With respect to KCP&L's comments, there may be value in NERC developing a list of qualified third-party verifiers and reviewers or otherwise requiring some form of registration process for third-party verifiers and reviewers. The Commission, however, will not direct NERC to do so at this time. We expect that NERC could, as Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 is implemented, pursue or, if necessary, propose such an effort if warranted. Indeed, Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 appears to contemplate such a role for NERC by indicating in Requirement R6.1 that an entity is qualified to serve as a reviewer if “approved by the ERO.” In addition, we see no reason why an ISO or RTO could not serve as a third-party verifier or reviewer provided it satisfies the qualifications stated in Requirements R2.1 and R6.1. We also conclude that the term “unaffiliated third party” is sufficiently clear. As NERC stated in its petition, “the term `unaffiliated' means that the selected verifying entity cannot be a corporate affiliate (
90. With respect to ITC's comment, third-party verification under Requirement R2 adds an important layer of expertise and independence in the identification of critical facilities. However, verification under Requirement R2 is not intended to and, indeed, cannot cure an applicable entity's failure to comply with Requirement R1 if it is determined by the compliance enforcement authority that the applicable entity failed to do so, a situation that ITC concedes could
91. The March 7 Order did not direct NERC to make the physical security Reliability Standards applicable to specific functional entity types. The March 7 Order stated that “some of the requirements imposed by these newly proposed Reliability Standards may best be performed by the owner and other activity may best be performed by the operator,” and that NERC should clearly indicate which entity is responsible for each requirement.
92. In explaining why the Reliability Standard does not include generator owners and generator operators as applicable entities, the standard drafting team found that:
93. NERC explains that generator owners and generator operators were not included in the applicability section because, “while the loss of a generator facility due to a physical attack may have local reliability effects, the loss of the facility is unlikely to have the widespread, uncontrollable impact” contemplated for loss of a critical facility in the March 7 Order.
94. The NOPR proposed to approve the applicability section of the Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 without the inclusion of generator owners and generator operators. The NOPR stated that omitting generator owners and generator operators from the applicability section is consistent with the March 7 Order. The NOPR affirmed the statement in the March 7 Order that the “number of facilities identified as critical will be relatively small compared to the number of facilities that comprise the Bulk-Power System.”
95. While proposing to accept the applicability section of the proposed Reliability Standard, the NOPR stated that NERC's proposed omission of generator owners and generator operators could potentially exempt substations owned or operated by generators. The NOPR sought comment on the potential reliability impact of excluding generator owned or operated substations.
96. NERC states that it supports the NOPR proposal to approve the applicability criteria in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 without the inclusion of generator owners and generator operators. NERC, reiterating the justification in the NERC petition, states that the loss of a generation facility is unlikely to result in critical impacts on the Bulk-Power System.
97. Associations, Trade Associations, Reclamation, G&T Cooperatives, KCP&L, Idaho Power, and APS also support the NOPR proposal.
98. Paschall states, without elaboration, that generation facilities should be included within the scope of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1. Foundation comments that it supports Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, as modified in the NOPR, and also advocates for the inclusion of certain generation facilities in a second stage physical security Reliability Standard (discussed in Section H below).
99. We adopt the NOPR proposal and approve the applicability criteria in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 without the inclusion of generator owners and generator operators. As the Commission stated in the NOPR, we agree with NERC that a generation facility “does not have the same critical functionality as certain Transmission stations and Transmission substations due to the limited size of generating plants, the availability of other generation capacity connected to the grid, and planned resilience of the transmission system to react to the loss of a generation facility.”
100. Paschall provides a conclusory statement that generation facilities should be included in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, but does not provide a rationale for this position. Thus, we find Paschall's comments unpersuasive.
101. The March 7 Order stated that:
All three steps of compliance with the Reliability Standard described above could contain sensitive or confidential information that, if released to the public, could jeopardize the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. Guarding sensitive or confidential information is essential to protecting the public by discouraging attacks on critical infrastructure. Therefore, NERC should include in the Reliability Standards a procedure that will ensure confidential treatment of sensitive or confidential information but still allow for the Commission, NERC and the Regional Entities to review and inspect any information that is needed to ensure compliance with the Reliability Standards.
102. Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 includes two requirements addressing the concerns over confidentiality. Requirements R2.2 and R6.4, which are substantially the same, state that “[e]ach Transmission Owner shall implement procedures, such as the use of non- disclosure agreements, for protecting sensitive or confidential information made available to the unaffiliated third party [verifier or reviewer] and to protect or exempt sensitive or confidential information developed pursuant to this Reliability Standard from public disclosure.”
103. Associations, GridWise, Duke, Seattle, ITC, and Trade Associations state that the Commission should explicitly address the issue of confidentiality in the final rule. Associations state that the Commission should state that any data produced or collected by an RTO in accordance with a requirement of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 are protected and should not be made available to a market monitor pursuant to a RTO tariff or market monitor agreement. Associations state that, at a minimum, a market monitor should have to make a filing with the Commission explaining the need for such information and indicating how the market monitor would protect such information from disclosure. GridWise and ITC state that they share Associations' concerns regarding confidentiality.
104. Trade Associations and Seattle comment that the final rule should contain an explicit statement that Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 is intended to preempt any state or local public disclosure laws. SWTDUG's reply comments question the Commission's legal authority to preempt state or local public disclosure laws, as suggested by Trade Associations and Seattle, without further Congressional action.
105. Duke comments that the Commission should take all necessary steps to protect the confidential information related to the activities of applicable entities, the Commission, NERC and Regional Entities in performance of their obligations under Reliability Standard CIP–014–1. Duke states that, pursuant to the Commission's regulations, the “disposition of each violation or alleged violation that relates to a Cybersecurity Incident or that would jeopardize the security of the Bulk-Power System if publicly disclosed shall be nonpublic unless the Commission directs otherwise.”
106. In the March 7 Order, the Commission recognized that compliance with the contemplated physical security Reliability Standards would likely require the development or sharing of confidential or sensitive material that, if disclosed to the public, could jeopardize the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. As a result, the Commission directed NERC to include adequate procedures in the Reliability Standards to prevent the dissemination of confidential or sensitive information.
107. We find that NERC has included sufficient safeguards in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 to ensure that confidential or sensitive information produced in compliance with the Reliability Standard will not be publicly disclosed. Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 includes requirements regarding the sharing of information between applicable entities and third-party verifiers and reviewers in Requirements R2.4 and R6.4. Moreover, the “Compliance” section of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 provides: “Confidentiality: To protect the confidentiality and sensitive nature of the evidence for demonstrating compliance with this standard, all evidence will be retained at the Transmission Owner's and Transmission Operator's facilities.”
108. The Commission will take all necessary and appropriate steps, as provided for in our governing statutes and regulations, to preserve an applicable entity's confidential or sensitive information when the public disclosure of such information could jeopardize the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. However, we decline to address in this final rule issues of preemption or the specific mechanism for treating confidential or sensitive information. Moreover, we find that it would be inappropriate to address Associations' request concerning the disclosure of information related to compliance with Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 to market monitors pursuant to a market monitor agreement or RTO tariff. No such agreements or tariffs are before us in this rulemaking proceeding.
109. Entergy seeks clarification as to whether the requirement in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, Requirement R5 that an applicable entity “shall develop and implement a documented physical security plan(s) that covers their
110. Reclamation proposes that the term “risk assessment” in Requirement R1 of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 be changed to “impact assessment” because the requirement contemplates an assessment on the impact of the loss of facilities on the stability of the bulk electric system rather than a “risk assessment.” Reclamation further states that, based on the generally accepted meaning of the term “risk assessment,” that term better correlates to Requirement R4. We see no practical reason to require NERC to modify the nomenclature used in Requirement R1. Similarly, we see no reason to require NERC to change “risk assessment” to “threat risk assessment,” as suggested by Paschall, or to require NERC to define “risk assessment” because the term is largely defined in Requirement R1.
111. Foundation recommends that the Commission direct NERC to begin development of a second phase physical security Reliability Standard. Foundation maintains that such a Reliability Standard would address deficiencies in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1, including the exclusion of generation facilities and certain control centers. For example, Foundation maintains that the loss of a single generation facility could cause cascading outages on the Bulk-Power System. However, for the reasons discussed in Sections C and F above, we are not persuaded that there is a sufficient factual basis at this time to direct NERC to develop a second phase physical security Reliability Standard. While we decline to direct NERC to develop a second phase physical security Reliability Standard at this time, the informational filing on “High Impact” control centers required in this final rule, the post-implementation reports that NERC has committed to provide to the Commission, the Commission's compliance and enforcement efforts, and other outreach with NERC, industry and the public, will inform the Commission's views going forward as to what additional steps, if any, might be required to help ensure the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System in the face of physical security threats.
112. Each requirement of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 includes one violation risk factor and has an associated set of at least one violation severity level. The ranges of penalties for violations will be based on the sanctions table and supporting penalty determination process described in the Commission-approved NERC Sanction Guidelines, according to the NERC petition. The NOPR proposed to approve the violation risk factors and violation severity levels for the requirements in Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 consistent with the Commission's established guidelines.
113. The NERC petition proposes that Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 become effective the “first day of the first calendar quarter that is six months beyond the date that this standard is approved by applicable regulatory authorities” (
114. The NOPR proposed to approve NERC's implementation plan and effective date for Reliability Standard CIP–014–1.
115. KCP&L states that the Commission should make it clear if the effective date of Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 will be earlier than April 2016, which KCP&L states is the effective date of Reliability Standard CIP–002–5. KCP&L states that the “basis for determination of criticality in CIP–014–1 references the same applicability as found in the CIP–002–5 . . . [and the] potential disconnect in implementation dates may impact registered entities adversely in preparations for Critical Infrastructure Protection standards or in application of physical security improvements given the work required to identify critical assets.”
116. We approve the implementation plan and effective date proposed by NERC for Reliability Standard CIP–014–1. In response to KCP&L's comment, we understand that, pursuant to the implementation plan and effective date proposed by NERC and approved herein, Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 will become effective before April 2016.
117. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
118. Associations state that developing a security plan will cost more than $19,000 per company and “should include a more realistic estimate of costs to comply with the proposed standard because of the influence that the Commission's assessment may have on the judgment of state utility commission or other regulatory authorities determining the prudence of costs incurred to comply with the proposed standard.”
119. We adopt the Information Collection Statement estimates contained in the NOPR. As we have previously stated, the estimates provided in an Information Collection Statement are meant to quantify the paperwork burden imposed by a final rule.
120. The Commission based its estimates on the number of respondents on the NERC compliance registry as of May 28, 2014. According to the registry, there are 357 transmission owners (TOs) and 197 transmission operators (TOPs). The NERC compliance registry also shows that there are only 19 transmission operators that are not also registered as a transmission owner.
121. The burden associated with the final rule is included in FERC–725U (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard CIP–014, OMB Control Number 1902–0274).
The hourly cost figures are based on data for wages plus benefits from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (as of September 4, 2014) at
• For electrical engineers: $60.87/hr., rounded to $61/hr.
• for attorneys: $128/hr.
• for administrative staff: $31.86/hr., rounded to $32/hr.
122. In arriving at the figures in the above table, the Commission made the following assumptions:
a. Requirement R1: We assume that responsible entities will complete the required risk assessment at approximately the same time as they complete the assessments required under the existing TPL Reliability Standards. Accordingly, the burden for Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 only represents the documentation required in addition to what entities currently prepare. Conservatively, we assume that in the first year all transmission owners and transmission operators will complete the required risk assessment.
b. Requirement R5: We assume that developing physical security plans in the first year will be more time consuming than in later years because in later years the plans will likely only need to be updated.
123.
124. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
125. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
126. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
127. The Small Business Administration (SBA) revised its size standard (effective January 22, 2014) for electric utilities from a standard based on megawatt hours to a standard based on the number of employees, including affiliates.
128. The NOPR stated that, based on U.S. economic census data, the approximate percentage of small firms in this category is 57 percent.
129. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that Reliability Standard CIP–014–1 will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
130. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
131. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
132. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
133. This final rule is effective January 26, 2015. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
By the Commission.
This appendix will not appear in the
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Interim final rule with request for comment.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is amending its regulations to waive the requirement of registration for persons who are authorized under United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Agreement State medical use licenses or permits and administer the drug product DaTscan
Effective November 25, 2014. Interested persons may file written comments on this interim final rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553. Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before January 26, 2015. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after midnight Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA–394” on all electronic and written correspondence. The DEA encourages that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
Imelda L. Paredes, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152, Telephone: (202) 598–6812.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record and will be made available for public inspection online at
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applies to all comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all of the personal identifying information you do not want made publicly available in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments containing personal identifying information or confidential business information identified as directed above will be made publicly available in redacted form.
An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this interim final rule with request for comment are available at
The DEA implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled
Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, currently accepted medical use, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(1), “every person who manufactures or distributes any controlled substance or list I chemical, or who proposes to engage in the manufacture or distribution of any controlled substance or list I chemical, shall obtain annually a registration issued by the Attorney General in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by him.” Further, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(2), “every person who dispenses, or who proposes to dispense, any controlled substance, shall obtain from the Attorney General a registration issued by the Attorney General in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by him.”
The Attorney General however may, by regulation, waive the requirement for registration of certain manufacturers, distributors, or dispensers if he finds it consistent with the public health and safety pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822(d). The Attorney General delegated this authority to the Administrator of the DEA, 28 CFR 0.100(b), who in turn redelegated that authority to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”). Section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, subpart R, App.
On May 10, 1994, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent to GE Healthcare, the sole manufacturer of the radioactive drug DaTscan
The FDA approved labeling of DaTscan
Because DaTscan
As a result of these overlapping registration/licensing requirements, DaTscan
Currently, GE Healthcare manufactures DaTscan
In addition to qualifying for registration with the DEA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), practitioners must adhere to controls pertaining to physical security, reporting, and recordkeeping, in order to detect and prevent diversion of controlled substances. See,
The NRC and Agreement States require that any person who manufactures, produces, acquires, receives, possesses, prepares, uses, or transfers radioactive byproduct material for medical use do so only in accordance with a specific medical use license issued by the NRC or an Agreement State or permit issued by an NRC MML.
The NRC and Agreement States regulate licensed materials (
In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1101, licensees are required to implement a radiation protection program that requires licensees to develop, document, and implement procedures to ensure the security and safe use of all the licensed material from the time it arrives at their facilities until it is used, transferred, or disposed of. The DEA regulations require practitioners to “provide effective controls and procedures to guard against theft and diversion of controlled substances.” 21 CFR 1301.71(a). In addition, in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.75(b), practitioners must store schedule II controlled substances in a securely locked, substantially constructed cabinet. However, pharmacies and institutional practitioners (
The NRC and Agreement States also require distributor-licensees to verify the licensure status of each recipient prior to transferring radioactive byproduct material each time it is transferred.
The NRC and Agreement States also require licensees to comply with recordkeeping requirements for three years from the date of receipt and to provide the NRC with accurate records for the receipt, transfer, and disposal of the byproduct material in accordance with 10 CFR 30.51. This is more stringent than the DEA regulations, which require registrants to maintain records for a period of two years for inspection and copying by the DEA.
With this interim final rule, the DEA is only waiving registration requirements specifically for persons administering DaTscan
Because persons who administer DaTscan are subject to strict NRC/Agreement State requirements, the DEA has determined that the waiver from registration of persons who administer DaTscan
Finally, in accordance with the AEA disposal requirements in 10 CFR 20.2002 through 20.2005, the licensee is required to dispose of the radioactive medical waste while complying with environmental and health protection regulations. Since DaTscan
Under this interim final rule, a DEA-registered practitioner must prepare a record containing the practitioner's name and signature, DEA registration number, drug product name, date the record was signed, and patient name, and provide this record to the patient. The record must be transferred by the patient to the imaging center. The imaging center will then request the drug product DaTscan
This interim final rule, which waives registration for persons authorized under United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Agreement State medical use licenses or NRC MML medical use permits, who administer the drug product DaTscan
The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Further, both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The DEA assessed the costs and benefits of this regulation and believes that the regulatory approach selected maximizes net benefits.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Deputy Assistant Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies “[w]henever an agency is required by section 553 of [the APA], or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule.” 5 U.S.C. 603. Here, the DEA for good cause finds that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because without prompt waiver of registration, some members of the healthcare community may not be able to utilize the diagnostic tool. Accordingly, these rules are being adopted on an interim final basis. Additionally, this interim final rule is alleviating regulatory restrictions on those affected by its implementation.
Although, the DEA does not have a basis to estimate the number of affected entities and quantify the economic impact of this interim final rule, a qualitative analysis indicates that this interim final rule is likely to result in some cost savings for the healthcare industry. The affected entities will continue to meet NRC or Agreement State requirements for licensure, security, recordkeeping, and reporting, which in many cases are more stringent than the DEA's requirements. The DEA estimates cost savings will be realized from the removal of DEA requirements for those administering the drug product DaTscan
This rule does not involve a collection of information within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501
This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 804). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more, a major increase in costs or prices, or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. However, pursuant to the CRA, the DEA has submitted a copy of this interim final rule with request for comment to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
An agency may find good cause to exempt a rule from certain provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including notice of proposed rulemaking and the pre-promulgation opportunity for public comment, if it is determined to be unnecessary,
In addition, the APA permits an agency to make effective upon date of publication “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(1). The DEA finds that this interim final rule with request for comments meets the criterion set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(1) for an exception to the APA effective date requirement.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Controlled substances, Drug abuse, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR part 1301 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 821, 822, 823, 824, 831, 871(b), 875, 877, 886a, 951, 952, 953, 956, 957, 958, unless otherwise noted.
(a) The requirement of registration is waived for persons administering the drug product DaTscan
(1) As used in this section, “agreement state” is any state with which the NRC or the Atomic Energy Commission has entered into an effective agreement under Section 274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. As of October 2014, those states considered “non-agreement states” include: Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, DC, West Virginia, and Wyoming. All other states have entered into agreements with the NRC.
(2) This section does not exempt persons identified in this paragraph (a) from any statutory or regulatory requirements pertaining to any controlled substance other than the drug product DaTscan
(3) This section does not exempt from the requirement of registration persons who prescribe, or order the administration of, the drug product DaTscan
(b) Persons identified in paragraph (a) of this section are exempt from application of 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(2), 827, and 828 (registration, records, reports, and order forms) and sections 1301.71, 1301.75, and 1301.76 of this chapter (practitioner security), to the extent described in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, only with respect to administering the drug product DaTscan
(c) The drug product DaTscan
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h) The persons identified in paragraph (a) of this section shall return all unused drug product DaTscan
(i) Once the drug product DaTscan
(1) The DEA-registered distributor shall keep a record of the return;
(2) After receipt of the drug product DaTscan
(3) After the drug product DaTscan
(j) The exemptions specified in this section are not applicable to the drug product DaTscan
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
In April 2014, PBGC proposed to amend its regulations to clarify the treatment of benefits resulting from a rollover distribution from a defined contribution plan to a defined benefit plan, if the defined benefit plan was terminated and trusteed by PBGC. Under the proposal, a benefit resulting from rollover amounts generally would not be subject to PBGC's maximum guaranteeable benefit or phase-in limitations and would be in the second highest priority category of benefits in the allocation of assets. PBGC is now finalizing that proposal. Except for making minor clarifications suggested by commenters, the final regulation is the same as the proposed regulation. This rulemaking is part of PBGC's efforts to enhance retirement security by promoting lifetime income options.
Effective December 26, 2014. See Applicability in
Catherine B. Klion (
This regulatory action is needed to provide guidance on treatment of benefits resulting from a rollover distribution from a defined contribution plan to a defined benefit plan, where the defined benefit plan is terminated and trusteed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).
Legal authority for this action comes from section 4002(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which authorizes PBGC to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of Title IV of ERISA, section 4022 of ERISA (Single-Employer Plan Benefits Guaranteed), and section 4044 of ERISA (Allocation of Assets).
Under the final regulation, a benefit resulting from rollover amounts generally will be in the second highest priority category among various classes of benefits in the allocation of assets and generally will not be subject to PBGC's maximum guaranteeable benefit or phase-in limitations.
PBGC administers the single-employer pension plan termination insurance program under Title IV of ERISA. The program covers private-sector, single-employer defined benefit plans, for which premiums are paid to PBGC each year. Covered plans that are underfunded may terminate either in a distress termination under section 4041(c) of ERISA or in an involuntary termination (one initiated by PBGC) under section 4042 of ERISA. When such a plan terminates, PBGC typically is appointed statutory trustee of the plan, and becomes responsible for paying benefits in accordance with the provisions of Title IV. At times, plans trusteed by PBGC include contributions made by employees that fund part of the benefit under the plan.
A plan may be funded in whole or in part by mandatory contributions. Under section 4044(b)(6) of ERISA, the term “mandatory contributions” means amounts contributed to the plan by a participant that are required as a condition of employment, as a condition of participation in such plan, or as a condition of obtaining benefits under the plan attributable to employer contributions.
Typically, mandatory employee contributions are required under the plan as a percentage of the employee's compensation. They are withheld from the salary of the employee by the employer and deposited to the employee's credit in the defined benefit plan on an after-tax basis.
Section 411(c)(2)(B) of the Code
When a plan terminates in a distress termination or an involuntary termination, each participant's plan benefit is assigned to one or more of six “priority categories” that are described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of section 4044(a) of ERISA.
• PC1: The portion of a participant's accrued benefit derived from the participant's voluntary contributions.
• PC2: The portion of a participant's accrued benefit derived from the participant's mandatory contributions.
• PC3: The portion of a participant's benefit that was in pay status as of the beginning of the three-year period ending on the termination date (or bankruptcy filing date, if applicable), or that would have been in pay status at the beginning of such three-year period if the participant had retired before the beginning of such three-year period, provided that the benefit was the lowest benefit payable under the plan provisions at any time during the period beginning five years before the termination date (or bankruptcy filing date, if applicable) and ending on the termination date.
• PC4: All other guaranteed benefits.
• PC5: All other nonforfeitable benefits.
• PC6: All other benefits.
Although PBGC generally pays benefits only in annuity form, PBGC's regulations allow a return of mandatory employee contributions in a single installment (or a series of installments), provided certain conditions are met (see § 4022.7(b)(2)).
Section 401(a)(31) of the Code requires a qualified plan to permit a distributee of any eligible rollover distribution to elect a direct rollover of any part of the distribution to an eligible retirement plan. Section 402(c) of the Code permits an individual receiving an eligible rollover distribution from a qualified plan to elect to roll over any portion of that distribution within a specified time to an eligible retirement plan that accepts the rollover (including a defined benefit plan).
On February 21, 2012, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Rev. Rul. 2012–4,
Rev. Rul. 2012–4 treats the amounts rolled over as mandatory employee contributions for purposes of section 411(c) of the Code. The revenue ruling further provides that, if the plan provided an annuity with respect to the rollover in excess of the amount determined under the rules of section 411(c) of the Code, such as by using a more favorable actuarial conversion basis than required by those rules, the portion of the benefit resulting from the rollover amounts that exceeded the benefit derived from mandatory employee contributions as determined under section 411(c)(2) of the Code would be subject to the requirements applicable to a benefit attributable to employer contributions. The revenue ruling states that in this case, the liability for the total benefit resulting from the rollover (including the portion of the accrued benefit considered to be derived from employer contributions because it exceeds the amount determined under section 411(c)(2)(B)) would likely exceed the amounts rolled over, which means that the employer will become responsible for additional funding costs.
Rev. Rul. 2012–4 states (in footnote 1) that PBGC is developing guidance on the Title IV treatment of benefits under a defined benefit plan resulting from a rollover. This final rule is that guidance.
PBGC is amending its regulations to provide guidance on Title IV treatment of rollovers, both in anticipation of increased use of rollovers, and as part of its efforts to promote retirement security. The availability of a rollover of a participant's retirement savings in a 401(k) or other defined contribution plan to a defined benefit plan expands the opportunities for participants to elect lifetime annuity options.
On April 2, 2014 (at 79 FR 18483), PBGC published a proposed rule on Title IV treatment of rollovers. PBGC received comments from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO), the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), and AARP.
In response to the comments, the final regulation makes the following clarifications:
• The amendments in this final rule apply only to rollovers from defined contribution plans. See § 4001.2 (definition of rollover amounts).
• Rollover amounts include both salary deferral contributions made by the participant, any additional employer contributions provided for under the defined contribution plan, and earnings on both. See § 4001.2 (definition of rollover amounts).
• The annuity benefit resulting from a rollover amount is a pension benefit (and thus guaranteeable). See § 4022.2 (definition of pension benefit).
Except for these clarifications, the final regulation is the same as the proposed regulation.
PBGC is amending its regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044). The amendments establish or clarify the rules for treatment of rollovers from a defined contribution plan to a defined benefit plan, when the defined benefit plan later terminates in an underfunded status. Following are the most important changes:
• A benefit resulting from rollover amounts will be treated as an accrued benefit derived from mandatory employee contributions in PC2 (which has a higher claim on plan assets than nearly all other benefits under the plan), to the extent that the benefit is determined using the rules of Code section 411(c)(2)(B).
• Unlike other PC2 benefits, a PC2 benefit resulting from rollover amounts will generally not be payable in lump sum form.
• The portion of a benefit resulting from rollover amounts that exceeds the accrued benefit derived from mandatory employee contributions (
• A participant's accrued benefit resulting from rollover amounts generally will not be subject to PBGC's maximum guaranteeable benefit limitation under section 4022(b) of ERISA and thus will not be taken into
• A participant's accrued benefit resulting from rollover amounts generally will not be subject to the five-year phase-in limitation on the guarantee of benefit increases. However, the phase-in limitation will apply to any benefit resulting from a rollover amount that exceeds the accrued benefit treated as derived from mandatory employee contributions, with the phase-in period beginning as of the date the rollover contribution was received by the plan.
Under section 4022 of ERISA, PBGC guarantees the payment of all nonforfeitable benefits provided by a plan, subject to two principal statutory limitations—the maximum guaranteeable benefit limitation and the five-year phase-in limitation.
The amount of the maximum monthly guarantee is set by law and is updated each calendar year. The maximum guaranteeable benefit applicable to a plan is fixed as of that plan's termination date. Under the Pension Protection Act of 2006, if a plan terminates during a plan sponsor's bankruptcy and the sponsor entered bankruptcy on or after September 16, 2006, the maximum guaranteeable benefit is fixed as of the date the sponsor entered bankruptcy.
The five-year phase-in limitation generally applies to a benefit increase that has been in effect for less than five years. Generally, 20 percent of a benefit increase is guaranteed after one year, 40 percent after two years, etc., with full phase-in of the guarantee after five years. If the amount of the monthly benefit increase is below $100, the annual rate of phase-in is $20 rather than 20 percent. For this purpose, a benefit increase resulting from a plan amendment is deemed to be in effect on the later of the amendment's adoption date or its effective date.
Historically, PBGC has interpreted the statutory limitations to apply to the participant's total nonforfeitable accrued benefit under a plan, including that portion of the benefit funded by traditional after-tax mandatory employee contributions. In the case of rollover amounts, however, PBGC will exempt from these limitations the accrued benefit derived from mandatory employee contributions determined under the rules of Code section 411(c)(2)(B). The exemption will not apply to any benefit resulting from rollover amounts that exceeds the accrued benefit derived from mandatory employee contributions (
Rollovers can help preserve participants' retirement savings until retirement. They provide a valuable means for participants to withdraw their benefits from one retirement plan and contribute them to another. PBGC believes that rollovers to defined benefit plans may provide lifetime-annuity protection at a competitive cost. Consistent with the Administration's initiative on retirement security, PBGC wants to eliminate impediments to this form of annuitization of distributions from defined contribution plans by providing assurances to participants that their benefits attributable to rollover amounts to a defined benefit plan will largely be protected from the limitations that might otherwise apply if the plan terminates and is trusteed by PBGC.
There are a number of reasons why PBGC views benefits resulting from the portion of rollover amounts treated as mandatory employee contributions differently from other benefits under a plan. Unlike other mandatory employee contributions, rollover benefits require an affirmative election by the participant to roll over a pension distribution to obtain an additional annuity from a defined benefit plan. If the benefit resulting from rollover amounts caused a participant's total benefit under the plan to exceed PBGC's maximum guaranteeable benefit, participants might be reluctant to roll over benefits from defined contribution plans to defined benefit plans. Applying the five-year phase-in limitation to benefits resulting from rollover amounts similarly might make rollovers unattractive.
The limitations on PBGC's guarantee were designed to protect the pension insurance system from risk of loss. But rollovers do not present the same risk of loss to the insurance program as other benefits. A benefit derived from rollover amounts treated as mandatory employee contributions is considered under Rev. Rul. 2012–4 to be actuarially equivalent to the rollover amounts received by the defined benefit plan. Therefore, although a plan accepting a rollover becomes liable to pay additional benefits, it simultaneously receives additional funds of equivalent value. That is not true for most new benefit accruals. Accordingly, it is a reasonable statutory interpretation to exempt from the maximum guaranteeable benefit and phase-in limitations a benefit resulting from rollover amounts that does not exceed the accrued benefit treated as derived from mandatory employee contributions.
In accordance with PBGC's statutory interpretation, the final rule amends § 4022.22 to exempt the rollover benefit amount derived from mandatory employee contributions from the maximum guaranteeable benefit limitation. Thus, PBGC will exclude that amount from its determination of the participant's maximum guaranteeable benefit. However, any rollover benefit in excess of the portion of such benefit derived from mandatory employee contributions (
Similarly, the final rule amends § 4022.24 to exempt a participant's rollover benefit derived from mandatory employee contributions from the five-year phase-in limitation. The five-year phase-in limitation will, however, apply to the portion of any rollover benefit derived from employer contributions, with that benefit portion deemed to be in effect on the date the rollover amounts were received by the plan.
PBGC's regulations provide for a third guarantee limitation, the “accrued-at-normal” limitation, which restricts PBGC's guarantee of temporary supplements. Under § 4022.21, PBGC's guarantee cannot exceed the accrued benefit payable as a straight life annuity at normal retirement age. PBGC will include the annuity attributable to rollover amounts in the determination of the accrued-at-normal limitation, which will increase the limitation against which the participant's entire benefit is measured, and will apply the accrued-at-normal limitation to the entire benefit, including rollover amounts. This will generally have the effect of increasing the participant's guaranteeable benefit.
Before being amended by this final rule, PBGC's regulation provided for the return of mandatory employee contributions in a single installment (or a series of installments) if a participant, or a beneficiary of a pre-retirement death benefit, so elected in accordance with the plan's provisions. If a participant (or a surviving spouse)
Under the final regulation, PBGC generally will not pay participants a lump sum return of mandatory employee contributions attributable to rollover amounts. PBGC will disregard a plan's provisions for the return of employee contributions in a lump sum and will make rollover amounts payable only in the form of an annuity. Because the participant had the chance to take the distribution from a defined contribution plan as a lump sum and instead chose to roll it into a defined benefit plan to obtain additional annuity benefits, it would seem anomalous to later allow the participant to convert the additional annuity back into a lump sum. Moreover, paying the additional benefit as an annuity is consistent with PBGC's policy of promoting retirement security through preserving lifetime retirement income.
Under the final regulation, the annuity resulting from rollover amounts will be payable at the same time, and in the same form, as the remainder of the participant's benefit under the plan to avoid administrative burden to PBGC.
The final rule also amends PBGC's asset allocation regulation to set forth rules for PBGC treatment of rollover benefits when a defined benefit plan terminates with insufficient assets to pay all benefits.
New §§ 4044.12(b)(4) and (c)(4) describe the calculation of a participant's total annuity benefit resulting from rollover amounts. For participants and beneficiaries not yet in pay status as of the termination date, the rollover amounts will be credited with interest payable under plan provisions to the plan's termination date, and converted to an annuity benefit payable at the normal retirement age using the plan's interest rates and conversion factors in effect as of the plan's termination date for the conversion of such rollover amounts.
Under the final regulation, the portion of a participant's accrued benefit resulting from rollover amounts derived from mandatory employee contributions will be determined using the rules of section 411(c) of the Code. Specifically, the participant's accumulated mandatory employee contributions—the participant's rollover amounts credited with interest at 120% of the Federal mid-term rate from the date of the rollover to the plan's termination date—will be converted to an actuarially equivalent straight life annuity under the plan payable at the normal retirement age using the applicable interest rate and mortality table under section 417(e) of the Code as of the plan's termination date. Consistent with Rev. Rul. 2012–4, which defines this annuity amount as the actuarial equivalent of an employee's rollover amounts to a defined benefit plan, only an annuity benefit determined on this basis will be assigned to PC2.
Rev. Rul. 2012–4 permits a qualified defined benefit plan to offer a subsidy with respect to a rollover by using a more generous annuity conversion factor than under the minimum rules for an actuarially equivalent annuity under section 411(c) of the Code, provided the additional qualification requirements applicable to a benefit derived from employer contributions are met. If, under the plan's provisions, the benefit resulting from rollover amounts exceeds the annuity derived from mandatory employee contributions determined under the rules of section 411(c)(2) of the Code—for example, because the plan uses more generous conversion factors than those under section 417(e) of the Code—the final regulation treats the portion of the benefit in excess of the annuity derived from mandatory employee contributions under the rules of section 411(c)(2) as a benefit derived from
The amendments made by this final rule will apply to terminations initiated on or after December 26, 2014.
This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, a regulatory action is economically significant if “it is likely to result in a rule that may . . . [h]ave an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.” PBGC has determined that this final rule does not cross the $100 million threshold for economic significance and is not otherwise economically significant.
PBGC estimates that the annual economic impact of this final rule will be about $11,000,000. This is the amount PBGC estimates that participants who roll over benefits from defined contribution plans to defined benefit plans that subsequently terminate and are trusteed by PBGC in aggregate would gain (and PBGC would lose), as a result of the regulatory change to exclude from the maximum guaranteeable benefit and phase-in limitations any benefit resulting from rollover amounts that does not exceed the accrued benefit derived from mandatory employee contributions.
Since IRS has only recently provided guidance to defined benefit plans on calculating rollover amounts, PBGC has no historic data to draw upon in developing this estimate. Accordingly, PBGC made conservative assumptions based on its judgment about such factors as how many defined benefit plans would allow rollovers from defined contribution plans and how many participants in such plans would roll over benefits from defined contribution plans.
Although it is difficult to predict with any certainty the annual economic impact of the regulatory action, given that the estimate is so far below $100 million, PBGC has determined that the annual economic impact of the final rule will be less than $100 million.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act imposes certain requirements with respect to rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unless an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the agency present an initial regulatory flexibility analysis at the time of the publication of the rule describing the impact of the rule on small entities and seeking public comment on such impact. Small entities include small businesses, organizations and governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements with respect to this final rule, PBGC considers a small entity to be a plan with fewer than 100 participants. This criterion is consistent with certain requirements in Title I of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, as well as the definition of a small entity that the Department of Labor has used in similar circumstances for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Further, while some large employers that terminate plans may have small plans that terminate along with larger ones, in general most small plans are maintained by small employers. Thus, PBGC believes that assessing the impact of the final rule on small plans is an appropriate substitute for evaluating the effect on small entities. The definition of small entity considered appropriate for this purpose differs, however, from a definition of small business based on size standards promulgated by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) pursuant to the Small Business Act. Therefore, in the proposed rule, PBGC requested comments on the appropriateness of the size standard used in evaluating the impact on small entities of the amendments to the benefit payments regulation. No comments were received on this point.
On the basis of this definition of small entity, PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Pensions.
Pension insurance, Pensions.
Pension insurance, Pensions.
For the reasons given above, PBGC is amending 29 CFR parts 4001, 4022, and 4044 as follows.
29 U.S.C. 1301, 1302(b)(3).
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322(b), 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
The addition and revision read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii)
(c) * * *
(2)
(f)
(d)
(g)
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, and 1362.
(b) * * *
(4)
(c) * * *
(4)
(ii)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions incorporate by
This rule is effective on January 26, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by December 26, 2014. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0690 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by email at
On August 22, 2013, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted a formal revision (#13–05) to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision incorporates by reference the most current Federal PSD regulations which are codified at 40 CFR 52.21, and will allow future revisions to the Federal PSD program to be automatically incorporated into Maryland's SIP.
Maryland has previously adopted a PSD program through an IBR of a date-specific version of the Federal PSD program. The currently approved Maryland SIP incorporates the Federal regulations as published in the 2009 version of the Code of Federal Regulations, and “as amended by the `Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule' (Tailoring Rule; 75 FR 31514), and the `Deferral for CO
EPA took final action to approve Maryland's IBR of the 2009 version of 40 CFR 52.21 “as amended” by the Tailoring Rule on August 2, 2012 (77 FR 45949). Subsequently, MDE submitted a revision which incorporated the provisions of the Biomass Deferral into the Maryland SIP. On November 16, 2012, EPA took final action to approve that revision (78 FR 13497). EPA's August 2, 2012 approval incorporated a number of important required elements into Maryland's PSD program, including those related to the 2008 “Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM
On October 20, 2010, EPA promulgated additional PSD regulations relating to PM
The 2010 PSD PM
Additionally, EPA notes that on June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in
EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. In states that allow future revisions to the Federal PSD program to be automatically incorporated into the SIP as Maryland has done in this case, this will be accomplished as soon as EPA revises the federal PSD rules. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations is expected to be informed by additional legal processes before the D.C. Circuit. EPA is not expecting states to have revised their existing PSD program regulations at this juncture before the D.C. Circuit has addressed these issues and before EPA has revised its regulations at 40 CFRs 51.166 and 52.21. However, EPA is evaluating PSD program submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
Maryland's existing approved SIP contains the greenhouse gas permitting requirements reflected in 40 CFR 52.21 after EPA issued the Tailoring Rule. As a result, the PSD permitting program in Maryland previously approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT when sources emit or increase greenhouse gases in the amount of 75,000 tons per year (measured as carbon dioxide (CO
However, this revision does add to the Maryland SIP the elements of EPA's 2012 rule implementing Step 3 of the phase in of PSD permitting requirements for greenhouse gases described in the Tailoring Rule. 77 FR 41051 (July 12, 2012). This rule became effective on August 13, 2012. Specifically, the incorporation of the Step 3 rule provisions will allow GHG-emitting sources to obtain plantwide applicability limits (PALs) for their GHG emissions on a CO
While the automatic IBR of 40 CFR 52.21 being approved into Maryland's SIP through this action will incorporate some regulations that will be revised in subsequent EPA actions to address the Supreme Court decision, approving the automatic IBR into Maryland's SIP at this time will ensure that Maryland's
MDE's August 22, 2013 SIP revision request includes amendments to the following provisions of the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR): Regulation .01 under 26.11.01—General Administrative Provisions, and Regulation .14 under COMAR 26.11.06—General Emission Standards, Prohibitions, and Restrictions. The revisions remove the date-specific IBR of section 52.21, replacing it with an IBR of 40 CFR 52.21 “as amended.” As previously discussed, these revisions incorporate the current Federal PSD requirements, and will automatically incorporate any future changes to the Federal regulations into the Maryland SIP. EPA is approving the SIP revision in accordance with the CAA and the requirements for PSD permitting programs.
EPA is approving MDE's August 22, 2013 submittal as a revision to the Maryland SIP. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 26, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
This action pertaining to Maryland's PSD program may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference,
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the State of West Virginia's request to redesignate to attainment the West Virginia portion of the Martinsburg-Hagerstown, WV–MD nonattainment area (the Martinsburg Area or Area) for the 1997 annual fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on December 26, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0690. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Rose Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at
On August 5, 2013, the State of West Virginia through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) formally submitted a request to redesignate the West Virginia portion of the Martinsburg Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual PM
On April 16, 2014, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) was signed by the Regional Administrator for this rulemaking action. This NPR was published in the
In the May 5, 2014 NPR, EPA addressed the effects of one order and two decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court) on the approval of the redesignation request and approval: (1) The D.C. Circuit Court's December 30, 2011 order staying Cross-State Air Pollution Control Rule (CSAPR) (
Since the Regional Administrator's signature of the NPR on April 16, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision and order, and the D.C. Circuit Court issued an order regarding the status of EPA's regional trading programs for transported air pollution, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CSAPR. On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated and reversed the D.C. Circuit Court's decision regarding CSAPR and remanded that decision to the D.C. Circuit Court to resolve remaining issues in accordance with its ruling.
Also, in the May 5, 2014 NPR, EPA discussed the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit Court's decision regarding subpart 4 and a proposed rule, “Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of SIP Provisions for the 1997 and 2006 PM
EPA is taking final action on the redesignation request and SIP revisions submitted by the State of West Virginia on August 5, 2013 for the West Virginia portion of the Martinsburg Area for the 1997 annual PM
EPA is finding that the West Virginia portion of the Martinsburg Area has attained and is continuing to attain the 1997 annual PM
EPA is also approving the associated maintenance plan for the Martinsburg Area as a revision to the West Virginia SIP for the 1997 annual PM
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 26, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action, approving the redesignation request, the maintenance plan, MVEBs, and the 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory for the West Virginia portion of the Martinsburg Area for the 1997 annual PM
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(k) EPA approves the 1997 annual PM
(h) EPA approves as a revision to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan the comprehensive emissions inventory for the West Virginia portion for the Martinsburg WV-Hagerstown, MD PM
(f) EPA approves the following revised 2017 and 2025 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the West Virginia portion of the Martinsburg WV-Hagerstown, MD for the 1997 Annual PM
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule; delegation of authority.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation of EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). These regulations apply to certain NESHAPs promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR part 63, as amended between April 13, 2004 and April 24, 2013. The delegation of authority under this action does not apply to sources located in Indian Country. EPA is taking direct final action to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ.
This rule is effective on January 26, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by December 26, 2014. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0074, by one of the following methods:
•
• Email: Mr. Rick Barrett at
• Mail or delivery: Mr. Rick Barrett, Air Permits Section (6PD–R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
Mr. Rick Barrett (6PD–R), Air Permits Section, telephone (214) 665–7227; email:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refers to EPA.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ. With this delegation, TCEQ has the primary responsibility to implement and enforce the delegated standards. See sections V and VI, below, for a discussion of which standards are being delegated and which are not being delegated.
Section 112(l) of the CAA, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, authorizes EPA to delegate authority to any State or local agency which submits adequate regulatory procedures for implementation and enforcement of emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The hazardous air pollutant standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63.
Section 112(l) of the CAA enables EPA to approve State air toxics programs or rules to operate in place of the Federal air toxics program or rules. 40 CFR part 63, subpart E (subpart E) governs EPA's approval of State rules or programs under section 112(l).
EPA will approve an air toxics program if we find that:
(1) The State program is “no less stringent” than the corresponding Federal program or rule;
(2) The State has adequate authority and resources to implement the program;
(3) The schedule for implementation and compliance is sufficiently expeditious; and
(4) The program otherwise complies with Federal guidance.
In order to obtain approval of its program to implement and enforce Federal section 112 rules as promulgated without changes (straight delegation), only the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d) must be met. 40 CFR 63.91(d)(3) provides that interim or final Title V program approval will satisfy the criteria of 40 CFR 63.91(d) for part 70 sources.
As part of its Title V submission, TCEQ stated that it intended to use the mechanism of incorporation by reference to adopt unchanged Federal section 112 into its regulations. This applied to both existing and future standards as they applied to part 70 sources ((60 FR 30444 (June 7, 1995) and 61 FR 32699 (June 25, 1996)). On December 6, 2001, EPA promulgated final full approval of the State's operating permits program effective November 30, 2001 (66 FR 63318). The TCEQ was originally delegated the authority to implement certain NESHAPs effective May 17, 2005 (70 FR 13108). Under 40 CFR 63.91(d)(2), once a State has satisfied up-front approval criteria, it needs only to reference the previous demonstration and reaffirm that it still meets the criteria for any subsequent submittals. TCEQ has affirmed that it still meets the up-front approval criteria.
By letter dated January 16, 2008, TCEQ requested EPA to update its existing NESHAP delegation. The TCEQ requests delegation of certain Part 63 NESHAPs for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). TCEQ's request included newly incorporated NESHAPs promulgated by EPA and amendments to existing standards currently delegated, as amended between April 13, 2004 and October 29, 2007. These NESHAP were adopted by the TCEQ on December 5, 2007.
By letter dated August 28, 2013, EPA received a second request from TCEQ to update its existing NESHAP delegation. The TCEQ requests delegation of certain Part 63 NESHAPs for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). TCEQ's request included newly incorporated NESHAPs promulgated by EPA and amendments to existing standards that are currently delegated, as amended between October 30, 2007 and April 24, 2013. These NESHAP
EPA cannot delegate to a State any of the Category II Subpart A authorities set forth in 40 CFR 63.91(g) (2). These include the following provisions: § 63.6(g), Approval of Alternative Non-Opacity Standards; § 63.6(h)(9), Approval of Alternative Opacity Standards; § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Test Methods; § 63.8(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Monitoring; and § 63.10(f), Approval of Major Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting. In addition, some Part 63 standards have certain provisions that cannot be delegated to the States. Therefore, any Part 63 standard that EPA is delegating to TCEQ that provides that certain authorities cannot be delegated are retained by EPA and not delegated. Furthermore, no authorities are delegated that require rulemaking in the
All of the inquiries and requests concerning implementation and enforcement of the excluded standards in the State of Texas should be directed to the EPA Region 6 Office.
In addition, this delegation to TCEQ to implement and enforce certain NESHAPs does not extend to sources or activities located in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Under this definition, EPA treats as reservations, trust lands validly set aside for the use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been formally designated as a reservation. Consistent with previous federal program approvals or delegations, EPA will continue to implement the NESHAPs in Indian country because TCEQ has not submitted information to demonstrate authority over sources and activities located within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations and other areas in Indian country.
In approving this delegation, TCEQ will obtain concurrence from EPA on any matter involving the interpretation of section 112 of the CAA or 40 CFR part 63 to the extent that implementation, administration, or enforcement of these sections have not been covered by EPA determinations or guidance.
We retain the right, as provided by CAA section 112(l)(7), to enforce any applicable emission standard or requirement under section 112. EPA also has the authority to make certain decisions under the General Provisions (subpart A) of part 63. We are granting TCEQ some of these authorities, and retaining others, as explained in sections V and VI above. In addition, EPA may review and disapprove of State determinations and subsequently require corrections. (
Furthermore, we retain any authority in an individual emission standard that may not be delegated according to provisions of the standard. Also, listed in the footnotes of the part 63 delegation table at the end of this rule are the authorities that cannot be delegated to any State or local agency which we therefore retain.
TCEQ must provide any additional compliance related information to EPA, Region 6, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance within 45 days of a request under 40 CFR 63.96(a).
In receiving delegation for specific General Provisions authorities, TCEQ must submit to EPA Region 6 on a semi-annual basis, copies of determinations issued under these authorities. For part 63 standards, these determinations include: Section 63.1, Applicability Determinations; Section 63.6(e), Operation and Maintenance Requirements—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Section 63.6(f), Compliance with Non-Opacity Standards—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Section 63.6(h), Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emissions Standards—Responsibility for Determining Compliance; Sections 63.7(c)(2)(i) and (d), Approval of Site-Specific Test Plans; Section 63.7(e)(2)(i), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Test Methods; Section 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), Approval of Intermediate Alternatives to Test Methods; Section 63.7(e)(iii), Approval of Shorter Sampling Times and Volumes When Necessitated by Process Variables or Other Factors; Sections 63.7(e)(2)(iv), (h)(2), and (h)(3), Waiver of Performance Testing; Sections 63.8(c)(1) and (e)(1), Approval of Site-Specific Performance Evaluation (Monitoring) Test Plans; Section 63.8(f), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Monitoring; Section 63.8(f), Approval of Intermediate Alternatives to Monitoring; Section 63.9 and 63.10, Approval of Adjustments to Time Periods for Submitting Reports; Section 63.10(f), Approval of Minor Alternatives to Recordkeeping and Reporting; Section 63.7(a)(4), Extension of Performance Test Deadline.
EPA must oversee TCEQ's decisions to ensure the delegated authorities are being adequately implemented and enforced. We will integrate oversight of the delegated authorities into the existing mechanisms and resources for oversight currently in place. If, during oversight, we determine that TCEQ made decisions that decreased the stringency of the delegated standards, then TCEQ shall be required to take corrective actions and the source(s) affected by the decisions will be notified, as required by 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(ii). We will initiate withdrawal of the program or rule if the corrective actions taken are insufficient.
For the NESHAPs being delegated and included in the table below, all of the information required pursuant to the general provisions and the relevant subpart of the Federal NESHAP (40 CFR part 63) should be submitted by sources located outside of Indian country, directly to the TCEQ at the following address: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration, Air Permits Division (MC 163), P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711–3087. The TCEQ is the primary point of contact with respect to delegated NESHAPs. Sources do not need to send a copy to EPA. EPA Region 6 waives the requirement that notifications and reports for delegated standards be submitted to EPA in addition to TCEQ in accordance with 40 CFR 63.9(a)(4)(ii) and 63.10(a)(4)(ii). For those standards that are not delegated, sources must continue to submit all appropriate information to EPA.
In the future, TCEQ will only need to send a letter of request to EPA, Region 6, for NESHAP regulations that TCEQ has adopted by reference. The letter must reference the previous up-front approval demonstration and reaffirm that it still meets the up-front approval criteria. We will respond in writing to
The public was provided the opportunity to comment on the proposed approval of the program and mechanism for delegation of section 112 standards, as they apply to part 70 sources, on June 7, 1995, for the proposed interim approval of TCEQ's Title V operating permits program; and on October 11, 2001, for the proposed final approval of TCEQ's Title V operating permits program. In EPA's final full approval of Texas' Operating Permits Program on December 6, 2001 (66 FR 63318), the EPA discussed the public comments on the proposed final delegation of the Title V operating permits program. In today's action, the public is given the opportunity to comment on the approval of TCEQ's request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce certain section 112 standards for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources) which have been adopted by reference into Texas' state regulations. However, the Agency views the approval of these requests as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. Therefore, EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The delegation is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state request to receive delegation of certain Federal standards, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing delegation submissions, EPA's role is to approve submissions provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a delegation submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use VCS in place of a delegation submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 26, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) * * *
(44)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting the petition submitted by John Deere Des Moines Works (John Deere) of Deere & Company, in Ankeny, Iowa to exclude or “delist” up to 600 tons per calendar year of F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge filter cake generated by John Deere's wastewater treatment system from the list of hazardous wastes. This final rule responds to a petition submitted by John Deere to delist up to 600 tons per calendar year of F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge filter cake generated by John Deere's wastewater treatment system from the list of hazardous wastes.
After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), EPA has concluded the petitioned waste is not hazardous waste. The F006/F019 exclusion is a conditional exclusion for 600 cubic yards per year of the F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
This final rule is effective on November 25, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R07–RCRA–2014–0452. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Kenneth Herstowski, Waste Remediation and Permits Branch, Air and Waste Management Division, EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number (913) 551–7631; email address:
The information in this section is organized as follows:
After evaluating the petition for John Deere, EPA proposed, on August 20, 2014 (79 FR 49252), to exclude the waste from the lists of hazardous waste under section 261.31. EPA is finalizing the decision to grant John Deere's delisting petition to have its F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste, once it is disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
John Deere's petition requests a delisting from the F006/F019 waste listing under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. John Deere does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. John Deere also believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria, and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See Section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1)–(4) (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). In making the final delisting determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. (If EPA had found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition.) EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause the wastes to be hazardous. EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentrations of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's final decision to delist the waste from John Deere's facility is based on the information submitted in support of this rule, including a description of the waste and analytical data from the John Deere Des Moines, Ankeny, Iowa, facility.
This exclusion applies to the waste described in John Deere's petition only if the requirements described in 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, table 1 and the conditions contained herein are satisfied.
The delisted F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge will be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed or otherwise authorized by a state to manage industrial waste.
This rule is effective November 25, 2014. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1), allows rules to become effective in less than six months after the rule is published when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous waste. This reduction in existing requirements also provides a basis for making this rule effective immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting program. Thus, upon the exclusion being finalized, the wastes covered will be removed from Subtitle C control under the Federal RCRA program. This will mean, first, that the wastes will be delisted in any State or territory where the EPA is directly administering the RCRA program (
Some other generally authorized states have not received authorization for delisting. Thus, the EPA makes delisting determinations for such states. However, RCRA allows states to impose their own regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under Section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state, or that requires a state concurrence before the Federal exclusion takes effect, or that allows the state to add conditions to any Federal exclusion. We urge the petitioner to contact the state regulatory authority in each state to or through which it may wish to ship its wastes to establish the status of its wastes under the state's laws.
EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting program in place of the Federal program, that is, to make state delisting decisions. In such states, the state delisting requirements operate in lieu of the Federal delisting requirements. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized states unless the state makes the rule part of its authorized program. If John Deere transports the federally excluded waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, John
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or to an authorized state to exclude or delist, from the RCRA list of hazardous wastes, waste the generator believes should not be considered hazardous under RCRA.
Under Sec. 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to remove their wastes from hazardous waste regulation by excluding them from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of 40 CFR parts 260 through 265 and 268. Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste from a particular generating facility from the hazardous waste lists.
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow EPA to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste and that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
On January 28, 2014, John Deere (through its consultant) petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous waste contained in Section 261.31 and 261.32, F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge, generated from its John Deere Des Moines facility in Ankeny, Iowa.
John Deere requested that EPA grant an exclusion for 600 cubic yards per year of F006/F019 wastewater treatment sludge.
To support its petition, John Deere submitted: (1) Facility information on production processes and waste generation processes; (2) initial Filter Cake composite sample analytical results to determine constituents of concern (COC); and (3) Analytical results from six composite samples of Filter Cake for the COC. The initial sample was analyzed for EPA's list of hazardous constituents in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VIII, pesticides, PCBs. The COC selected from the initial composite sample results are barium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, zinc, cyanide, acetone and methyl ethyl ketone. Both total and leachable concentrations of the COC in the Filter Cake were determined.
John Deere generated the sampling data used in the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) under a Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan (June 2012 Revision). EPA believes that the sampling procedures used by John Deere satisfy EPA's criteria for collecting representative samples of the F006/F019 waste.
No comments were received during the comment period.
Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S. C. 801
EPA has determined that this 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 Agency's risk assessment did not identify risks from management of this material in a Subtitle D landfill. Therefore, EPA believes that any populations in proximity of the landfills used by this facility should not be adversely affected by common waste management practices for this delisted waste.
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 3001(f), RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 261 as follows:
42 U.S. C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau adopts a specific methodology for calculating reasonable comparability benchmarks for fixed broadband services. The methodology the Commission adopts today establishes reasonable comparability broadband benchmarks that vary, depending on the supported service's download and upload bandwidths and usage allowance.
Effective December 26, 2014.
Suzanne Yelen, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418–0626 or TTY (202) 418–0484.
This is a synopsis of the Wireline Competition Bureau's Report and Order in WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 14–1569, released October 29, 2014. The complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile (202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at
1. In this Report and Order (Order), the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) adopts a specific methodology for calculating reasonable comparability benchmarks for fixed broadband services. In the
2. The Bureau notes that because they are announcing the methodology late in the calendar year, the results for 2014 are illustrative and to inform parties that are potentially interested in bidding on Connect America funding for rural broadband experiments in the weeks ahead. The Bureau also will take into account the benchmarks published below when adjudicating Connect America Phase II challenges. The Bureau plans to announce the 2015 reasonable comparability benchmarks for fixed broadband services when the Bureau completes our analysis of the
3. The Bureau now adopts a methodology that will be used annually to develop reasonable comparability benchmarks for fixed broadband services offered to residential and small business customers, using the data from the annual urban rate survey. The Bureau adopts its proposal to use a weighted linear regression to estimate the mean rate for a specific set of service characteristics and then to add two standard deviations to this mean to determine the benchmark for services meeting those defined service characteristics. Because broadband service has multiple characteristics (
4. The Bureau adopts the Rural Associations' proposal to develop a single regression using a broader sample of observations, ranging in download speeds from 2 to 40 Mbps. Given that these benchmarks will be applicable to winning bidders in the rural broadband experiments, and those ETCs will be offering fixed broadband service to residential and small business locations significantly faster than the current 4/1 Mbps minimum, the Bureau concludes that it makes sense to include higher speed observations in the calculation. In addition, the Bureau calculates separate standard deviations for service offerings in the vicinity of 4/1 Mbps using observations where the download speed ranged from 2 up to 8 Mbps, and for services that exceed 8 Mbps downstream using observations with download speeds from 8 to 25 Mbps. The Bureau did so because they found that the standard deviation of rate differences from the average of services in the 8 to 25 Mbps range was higher than the standard deviation for services in the lower speed tier. The Bureau concludes that calculating two different standard deviations for the lower speed service and the higher speed service effectively addresses the Rural Associations' concern that these services are differentiated products. The Bureau incorporates this approach into the benchmark equations provided below.
5. In any given year, providers will need to determine the appropriate reasonable comparability benchmark based on the characteristics of the specific service offered to residential and small business customers that they are relying upon to meet their broadband performance obligations. To determine the applicable benchmark for a given service using the 2014 data, where a service is defined by its download, upload, and usage allowance, a provider would use equations developed based on the weighted regression methodology. For 2014, the equations are as follows:
For services with download speeds greater than or equal to 4 Mbps and less than or equal to 8 Mbps, the equation is
For services with download speeds greater than 8 Mbps but less than or equal to 25 Mbps, the equation is
6. In each equation, the variables
7. To facilitate these calculations, the Bureau will post an Excel file and online tool in which providers can plug in the relevant variables to determine the benchmark for specific service characteristics at
8.
9.
10. The Report and Order does not contain information collection requirements required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13.
11. The Commission will not submit this Report and Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) because the Commission has not yet defined the specific requirements associated with the standard adopted in this Report and Order. The Commission anticipates that when it does adopt the specific requirements applying the standard in this Report and Order, it will make all submissions required by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
12. Accordingly,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Publication of 2012 final theft data.
This document publishes the final data on thefts of model year (MY) 2012 passenger motor vehicles that occurred in calendar year (CY) 2012. The final 2012 theft data indicated an increase in the vehicle theft rate experienced in CY/MY 2012. The final theft rate for MY 2012 passenger vehicles stolen in calendar year 2012 is 1.1294 thefts per thousand vehicles, an increase of 14.21 percent from the rate of 0.9889 thefts per thousand in 2011. Publication of these data fulfills NHTSA's statutory obligation to periodically obtain accurate and timely theft data and publish the information for review and comment.
Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's telephone number is (202) 366–4139. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
NHTSA administers a program for reducing motor vehicle theft. The central feature of this program is the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR Part 541. The standard specifies performance requirements for inscribing and affixing vehicle identification numbers (VINs) onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts of high-theft lines of passenger motor vehicles.
The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from the most reliable source, accurate and timely theft data and publish the data for review and comment. To fulfill this statutory mandate, NHTSA has published theft data annually beginning with MYs 1983/84. Continuing to fulfill the section 33104(b)(4) mandate, this document reports the final theft data for CY 2012, the most recent calendar year for which data are available.
In calculating the 2012 theft rates, NHTSA followed the same procedures it used in calculating the MY 2011 theft rates. (For 2011 theft data calculations, see 79 FR 7090.) As in all previous reports, NHTSA's data were based on information provided to NHTSA by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The NCIC is a government system that receives vehicle theft information from nearly 23,000 criminal justice agencies and other law enforcement authorities throughout the United States. The NCIC data also include reported thefts of self-insured and uninsured vehicles, not all of which are reported to other data sources.
The 2012 theft rate for each vehicle line was calculated by dividing the number of reported thefts of MY 2012 vehicles of that line stolen during calendar year 2012 by the total number of vehicles in that line manufactured for MY 2012, as reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The final 2012 theft data show a slight increase in the vehicle theft rate when compared to the theft rate experienced in CY/MY 2011. The final theft rate for MY 2012 passenger vehicles stolen in calendar year 2012 increased to 1.1294 thefts per thousand vehicles produced, an increase of 14.21 percent from the rate of 0.9889 thefts per thousand vehicles experienced by MY 2011 vehicles in CY 2011. A similar increasing trend in vehicle thefts was reported in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) 2012 Uniform Crime Report showing a 0.6% increase in motor vehicle thefts (automobiles, trucks, buses and other vehicles) from 2011 to 2012. Historically, the data has shown an overall decreasing trend in theft rates since CY 1993, with periods of increase from one year to the next. The agency welcomed public comment on the cause for the slight increase, but none were received.
For MY 2012 vehicles, out of a total of 211 vehicle lines, nine lines had a theft rate higher than 3.5826 per thousand vehicles, the established median theft rate for MYs 1990/1991. (See 59 FR 12400, March 16, 1994). Of the nine vehicle lines with a theft rate higher than 3.5826, eight are passenger car lines, one is a multipurpose passenger vehicle line, and none are light-duty truck lines.
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014, NHTSA published the preliminary theft rates for CY 2012 passenger motor vehicles in the
Subsequent to the August 5, 2014, publication of preliminary theft data, BYD Motors, Inc. (BYD) submitted its EPA production data for the e6 vehicle line. NHTSA has corrected the final theft data to include an entry for the BYD e6 vehicle line. As a result of this correction, the final theft list has been revised accordingly. The BYD e6, previously omitted, is ranked No. 211 with a theft rate of 0.0000.
The following list represents NHTSA's final calculation of theft rates for all 2012 passenger motor vehicle lines. This list is intended to inform the public of calendar year 2012 motor vehicle thefts of model year 2012 vehicles and does not have any effect on the obligations of regulated parties under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, Theft Prevention.
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for recreational gray triggerfish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. Because recreational landings for gray triggerfish in the 2013 fishing year exceeded the recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for the stock, NMFS monitored recreational landings in 2014 for a persistence in increased landings. Through this temporary rule, NMFS now closes the recreational sector for gray triggerfish in the South Atlantic EEZ on November 26, 2014, as NMFS has projected the recreational ACL to have been met for the 2014 fishing year. This closure is necessary to protect the gray triggerfish resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, November 26, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015.
Catherine Hayslip, telephone: 727–824–5305, or email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic, which includes gray triggerfish, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The recreational ACL for gray triggerfish is 353,638 lb (160,407 kg), round weight. In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(q)(2), if the recreational ACL is exceeded, the Assistant Administrator, NMFS (AA), will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the length of the following fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. In the 2013 fishing year, recreational landings were 373,983 lb (169,636 kg), round weight, and therefore, exceeded the recreational ACL by 20,345 lb (9,228 kg), round weight. NMFS received landings projections on November 12, 2014, that indicated the fishery has likely met the recreational ACL. Therefore, this temporary rule closes the recreational sector for gray triggerfish within the snapper-grouper fishery in 2014, effective 12:01 a.m., local time, November 26, 2014.
During the closure, the bag and possession limit for gray triggerfish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is zero. The recreational sector for gray triggerfish will reopen on January 1, 2015, the beginning of the 2015 recreational fishing season. Upon reaching the commercial ACL, NMFS closed the commercial sector for gray triggerfish effective May 12, 2014 (79 FR 26375, May 8, 2014). Therefore, on November 26, 2014, no commercial or recreational harvest of gray triggerfish from the South Atlantic EEZ is permitted until January 1, 2015.
The Assistant Administrator (AA), Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic gray triggerfish within the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(q)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available recently obtained from the fishery. The AA finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the recreational sector for gray triggerfish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Additionally, such procedures are contrary to the public interest because there is a need to immediately notify the public of the recreational closure for gray triggerfish for the 2014 fishing year, to prevent recreational harvest of gray triggerfish from further exceeding the ACL, which will help protect this resource in the South Atlantic.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The FDIC is proposing to amend its filing requirements and processing procedures for notices filed under the Change in Bank Control Act (Notices). The proposed amendments are intended to accomplish several objectives. First, the proposed rule would consolidate into one subpart the current requirements and procedures for Notices filed with respect to State nonmember banks and certain parent companies thereof, and the requirements and procedures for Notices filed with respect to State savings associations and certain parent companies thereof. Second, the proposed rule would rescind the FDIC's separate regulation governing the requirements and procedures for Notices filed with respect to State savings associations and certain parent companies thereof and would rescind any guidance issued by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) relating to changes in control of State savings associations that is inconsistent with the proposed rule. Third, the proposed rule would adopt the best practices of the related regulations of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board of Governors). Finally, the proposed rule would clarify the FDIC's requirements and procedures based on its experience interpreting and implementing the existing regulation. This proposed rule is also part of the FDIC's continuing review of its regulations under the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996.
Comments must be received by January 26, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3064–AE24, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ann Johnson Taylor, Supervisory Counsel,
Section 7(j) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) generally provides that no person may acquire control of an insured depository institution unless the person has provided the appropriate Federal banking agency prior written notice of the transaction and the banking agency has not objected to the proposed transaction (the Change in Bank Control Act).
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5301,
Section 316(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act, further directed the FDIC and the OCC to consult with one another and to publish a list of the continued OTS regulations which would be enforced by each agency.
Although section 312(b)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Dodd-Frank Act granted the OCC rulemaking authority relating to savings associations, nothing in the Dodd-Frank Act affected the FDIC's existing authority to issue regulations under the FDI Act and other laws as the “appropriate Federal banking agency” or under similar statutory terminology.
As noted above, on June 14, 2011, operating pursuant to this authority, the Board reissued and redesignated certain regulations transferred from the former OTS. These regulations were adopted and issued as new FDIC regulations at parts 390 and 391 of title 12. When it republished these regulations as new FDIC regulations, the FDIC specifically noted that staff would evaluate the transferred regulations and might later recommend amending them, rescinding them, or incorporating the transferred regulations into other FDIC rules as appropriate.
Certain of the regulations transferred to the FDIC govern acquisitions of State savings associations under the Change in Bank Control Act (transferred CBCA regulation).
The scope of the proposed rule makes it clear that subpart E of part 303 would apply to acquisitions of control of State nonmember banks, State savings associations, and certain companies that control one or more State nonmember banks and/or State savings associations (parent companies). The FDIC believes that expanding the scope of subpart E of part 303 to include State savings associations and certain parent companies
In addition, the proposed rule would amend the scope of subpart E of part 303 to state that the subpart implements the Change in Bank Control Act
The proposed rule would define “acting in concert” as “knowing participation in a joint activity or parallel action towards a common goal of acquiring control of a covered institution whether or not pursuant to an agreement.” This definition is not substantively different from the definition of “acting in concert” in the existing subpart E of part 303.
The FDIC notes that a group of persons acting in concert becomes a different group of persons acting in concert when a member of the group leaves or a new member joins. For example, if certain members of a family have previously filed a Notice with, and received a non-objection from, the FDIC as a group acting in concert, each member of the group must file a new Notice and obtain the FDIC's non-objection when a member of the group ceases participation in the group and the group continues to hold sufficient shares to constitute “control.”
The FDIC also notes that if a person who is a member of a group acting in concert proposes to acquire voting securities that result in that person holding 25 percent or more of the voting securities in his/her/its own right, then the person must file a Notice with the FDIC because that person will have acquired control as defined by the Change in Bank Control Act. Such a person must file a Notice even if that person had already filed and been approved as a member of the group acting in concert.
The FDIC further notes that it will look closely at transactions where a lead investor has a material role in organizing a bank's capital offering. The presence of a lead investor(s) who solicits persons that the lead investor has a pattern of co-investing with suggests that the solicited investors, together with the lead investor, may constitute a group acting in concert. The FDIC will analyze the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether such persons constitute a group acting in concert.
As discussed in section II.c.3 below, the proposed rule would add certain rebuttable presumptions of acting in concert, including presumptions relating to companies. The proposed rule would define the term company by reference to section 2 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1841
The proposed rule would define “control” as “the power, directly or indirectly, to direct the management or policies of a covered institution or to vote 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of a covered institution.” This definition is not substantively different from the definition of “control” in the existing subpart E of part 303.
As discussed in section II.c.4, the proposed rule includes a presumption relating to convertible securities. The proposed rule would define convertible securities as debt or equity interests that may be converted into voting securities. The definition is not in the existing subpart E of part 303 or the transferred CBCA regulation, but convertible securities are not uncommon in the industry, and the FDIC's regulations need to recognize the influence they carry.
The proposed rule would define the term “covered institution” as “an insured State nonmember bank, an insured State savings association, and any company that controls, directly or indirectly, an insured State nonmember bank or an insured State savings association other than a holding company that is the subject of an exemption described in either section 303.84(a)(3) or (a)(8).” Therefore, the proposed rule could apply to an individual's acquisition of voting securities of a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company, provided the transaction is not otherwise exempted under 303.84(a)(3) or (a)(8). Subsections (a)(3) and (a)(8) would exempt transactions that are subject to Section 3 of the BHC Act and transactions for which the Board of Governors reviews a Notice. The 303.84(a)(3) and (a)(8) exemptions are discussed in section II.e.3 and 8.
The Board of Governors is not the primary regulator of all companies that control State nonmember banks since some State nonmember banks are not “banks” under the BHC Act.
As discussed in section II.c.3 below, the proposed rule would add certain rebuttable presumptions of acting in concert, including a presumption relating to a person's immediate family. The proposed rule would define “immediate family” as “a person's parents, mother-in-law, father-in-law, children, step-children, siblings, step-siblings, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, grandparents, and grandchildren, whether biological, adoptive, adjudicated, contractual, or de facto; the spouse of any of the foregoing; and the person's spouse.” This definition is similar to the definitions of “immediate family” in the OCC's and the Board of Governors' related regulations.
The FDIC would interpret the term “sibling” as one of two or more individuals having at least one common parent.
The proposed rule would define “person” as “an individual, corporation, limited liability company (LLC), partnership, trust, association, joint venture, pool, syndicate, sole proprietorship, unincorporated organization, voting trust, or any other form of entity; and includes each party to a voting agreement and any group of persons acting in concert.” The proposed rule would not adopt the definition of “person” in the transferred CBCA regulation and instead includes an amended version of the definition from the existing subpart E of part 303 because the definition from the existing subpart E of part 303 more closely tracks the definition of person in the Change in Bank Control Act.
As discussed in section II.c.3 below, the proposed rule includes a new presumption of acting in concert relating to a company and its controlling shareholder or management official. The proposed rule would define management official as “any officer, LLC manager, director, partner, or trustee of an entity, or other person with policy-making functions.” This definition is substantively identical to the definition previously adopted by the
Unlike the existing subpart E of part 303, the proposed rule includes a definition of “voting securities.” Including a definition of “voting securities” makes the proposed rule more consistent with the OCC's and the Board of Governors' related regulations. The proposed rule would define “voting securities” as shares of common or preferred stock, general or limited partnership shares or interests, membership interests, or similar interests if the shares or interests, by statute, charter, or in any manner, entitle the holder: (i) To vote for, or to select, directors, trustees, managers of an LLC, partners, or other persons exercising similar functions of the issuing entity; or (ii) to vote on, or to direct, the conduct of the operations or significant policies of the issuing entity. The proposed rule further states that shares of common or preferred stock, limited partnership shares or interests, membership interests, or similar interests are not “voting securities” if: (i) Any voting rights associated with the shares or interests are limited solely to the type customarily provided by State statute with regard to matters that would significantly and adversely affect the rights or preference of the security or other interest, such as the issuance of additional amounts or classes of senior securities, the modification of the terms of the security or interest, the dissolution of the issuing entity, or the payment of dividends by the issuing entity when preferred dividends are in arrears; (ii) the shares or interests represent an essentially passive investment or financing device and do not otherwise provide the holder with control over the issuing entity; and (iii) the shares or interests do not entitle the holder, by statute, charter, or in any manner, to select, or to vote for the selection of, directors, trustees, managers of an LLC, partners, or persons exercising similar functions of the issuing entity. The proposed definition of “voting securities” also states that shares of stock or other interests issued by a single issuer are deemed to be the same class of voting shares, regardless of differences in dividend rights or liquidation preference, if the shares are voted together as a single class on all matters for which the shares have voting rights that affect solely the rights or preferences of the shares.
The proposed definition derives from the Board of Governors' definition of “voting securities” with a few minor modifications.
The proposed rule would not define “acquisition” as does existing subpart E of part 303. The proposed rule also would not adopt several other definitions in the transferred CBCA regulation. For example, the terms “State savings association” and “affiliate” are also not defined in the proposed rule as those terms are defined in the FDI Act. The FDIC is not proposing to adopt these definitions because they were determined to be unnecessary or statutorily defined by the FDI Act.
Generally, the proposed rule would require any person, whether acting directly or indirectly, alone or in concert with others, to give the FDIC prior written notice before the acquisition of control of a covered institution, unless the acquisition is exempt.
The proposed rule includes a rebuttable presumption of control whenever a person acquires the power to vote 10 percent or more of a class of voting securities of a covered institution, if either (1) the institution has issued any class of securities subject to the registration requirements of section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or (2) immediately after the transaction, no other person will own a greater proportion of that class of voting securities. One change in the proposed rule from existing subpart E of part 303 is the removal of the provision that if two or more persons, not acting in concert, each propose to acquire simultaneously equal percentages of 10 percent or more of a class of voting securities of a covered institution, each such person shall file prior notice with the FDIC. The proposed rule clarifies the FDIC's policy by removing the implication that the largest shareholders only have to file a Notice if they simultaneously acquire the voting securities. By removing that provision,
The transferred CBCA regulation also includes a rebuttable presumption of control, but the presumption is triggered only if there exists one of the enumerated control factors.
It is also noted that the Board of Governors has issued a policy statement entitled
The existing subpart E of part 303 states that ownership interests other than those set forth in the rebuttable presumption of control and that represent less than 25 percent of a class of an institution's voting shares do not constitute control for purposes of the Change in Bank Control Act.
The proposed rule includes new rebuttable presumptions of acting in concert. The acting in concert presumptions included in the proposed rule are generally derived from the rebuttable presumptions of acting in concert in the Board of Governors' regulations.
The proposed rule includes an acting in concert presumption with respect to a company and any controlling shareholder or management official of that company. If both the company and controlling shareholder or management official own or control voting securities of a covered institution, then the FDIC would presume that the company and the controlling shareholder or management official are acting in concert.
Second, the proposed rule includes an acting in concert presumption between an individual and the individual's immediate family. If two or more members of an immediate family own or control voting securities of a covered institution, then the FDIC would presume that those persons are acting in concert. The definition of immediate family is discussed in section II.b.5 above.
The proposed rule also includes presumptions of acting in concert between (i) two or more companies under common control or a company and each other company it controls; (ii) persons that have made or propose to make a joint filing under sections 13 or 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
The proposed rule also includes a presumption that persons that are parties to any agreement, contract, understanding, relationship, or other arrangement, whether written or otherwise, regarding the acquisition, voting, or transfer of control of voting securities of a covered institution, other than through revocable proxies as described in 303.84(a)(5), are presumed to be acting in concert. The FDIC believes these presumptions should be included in the proposed rule because the interests of such parties are so aligned that there exists a natural tendency to act together towards a common goal.
The transferred CBCA regulation includes a presumption of acting in concert for a company that provides certain financial assistance to a controlling shareholder or management official of such company to enable the purchase of a State saving association's stock.
The proposed rule includes a rebuttable presumption that an acquisition of convertible securities, options, and warrants is presumed to constitute the acquisition of voting securities as if the conversion already occurred or the options or warrants were already exercised. The existing subpart E of part 303 does not explicitly include such a presumption; however, the transferred CBCA regulation, and the related regulations of the Board of Governors, treat such securities in a similar manner. The FDIC's longstanding position is that the acquisition of an option or warrant constitutes the acquisition of the underlying voting securities notwithstanding that they may only be exercised after a period of time. The FDIC also believes that nonvoting interests that may be converted into voting securities at the election of the holder of the convertible securities, or that convert after the passage of time, should be considered voting securities at all times for purposes of the Change in Bank Control Act. However, the FDIC recognizes that nonvoting securities that are convertible into voting securities carry less influence when the nonvoting securities may not be converted into voting securities in the hands of the investor and may only be converted after transfer by the investor: (i) In a widespread public distribution; (ii) in transfers in which no transferee (or group of associated transferees) would receive 2 percent or more of any class of voting securities of the banking organization; or (iii) to a transferee that would control more than 50 percent of the voting securities of the banking organization without any transfer from the investor. The FDIC would generally consider such convertible securities as nonvoting equity.
The proposed procedures for rebutting a presumption of control would remain unchanged from the existing subpart E of part 303.
The proposed rule includes an irrebuttable presumption that an acquisition of a loan in default secured by voting securities of a covered institution is deemed to be an acquisition of the underlying voting securities. This treatment would not be substantively different from the treatment of a loan in default secured by voting securities in the existing subpart E of part 303;
Notwithstanding any other provisions in the transferred CBCA regulation, the “Safe Harbor” provision permits an acquirer of an otherwise controlling interest in a State savings association that has no intention of participating in, or seeking to exercise control over, a State savings association's management or policies to avoid filing a Notice.
Existing subpart E of part 303 and the transferred CBCA regulation do not require prior notice for the acquisition of voting securities for certain types of acquisitions. For example, both regulations permit a person acquiring voting securities through inheritance or bona fide gift to provide notice within 90 calendar days of the acquisition. Existing subpart E of part 303 and the transferred CBCA regulation, however, differ materially in what transactions are eligible for an after-the-fact notice
The proposed rule, like the existing subpart E of part 303 and the transferred CBCA regulation, provides that acquisitions through bona fide gift that result in control of an institution would require the acquirer to provide notice to the FDIC within 90 days after the acquisition.
The proposed rule, as does the existing subpart E of part 303, provides that the acquisition of voting securities in satisfaction of a debt previously contracted for in good faith that would otherwise require prior notice requires the acquirer to provide notice to the FDIC within 90 days after the acquisition (note that the acquisition of a defaulted loan secured by an amount of a covered institution's voting securities that would result in the acquirer holding a controlling amount of the institution's voting securities requires prior notice).
The proposed rule, as does existing subpart E of part 303, would permit an acquirer to provide notice to the FDIC within 90 days after the acquisition of voting securities through an inheritance where the acquisition would result in the acquirer holding a controlling amount of the institution's voting securities. The proposed rule would provide a slightly longer period for filing a notice than the transferred CBCA regulation. The transferred CBCA regulation provides a sixty-day notice period for State savings associations.
The proposed rule, like the existing subpart E of part 303 and the transferred CBCA regulation, would permit the filing of a Notice within 90 days after being notified of a redemption of voting securities that results in the acquisition of control of the covered institution. The proposed rule is substantively the same as existing subpart E of part 303. The difference relates to a change in regulatory language to reflect that a person might acquire control without acquiring additional voting securities when a covered institution redeems voting securities. For example, if the two largest shareholders hold 23 and 21 percent of a covered institution's voting securities and the covered institution redeems all of the voting securities held by the person with 23 percent, the person with 21 percent would have to file a Notice. As such, the proposed rule uses the term “acquisition of control” instead of “a percentage increase in voting securities”. The transferred CBCA regulation provides different notice procedures for redemptions based on whether the redemption is pro rata or is not pro rata.
Existing subpart E of part 303 permits a person to provide the FDIC notice within 90 days after receiving notice of a sale of shares by any shareholder that is not within the control of a person and which results in that person becoming the largest shareholder.
The proposed rule would expressly provide that the FDIC may disapprove a Notice filed after-the-fact and that nothing in section 303.83 limits the FDIC's authority to disapprove a Notice. Existing subpart E of part 303 includes this provision with respect to acquisitions of control of State nonmember banks and certain parent companies of State nonmember banks; the proposed rule would also apply this provision to acquisitions of control of State savings associations and certain parent companies of State savings associations.
The proposed rule explicitly states that the relevant information that the FDIC may require under this section may include all of the information typically required for a prior notice; the relevant information may include, without limitation, all the information requested by the Interagency Notice of Change in Control form and the Interagency Biographical and Financial Report. This provision is not in existing subpart E of part 303, but is included in the proposed rule for transparency and to codify long-standing FDIC policy.
The proposed rule expressly states that if the FDIC disapproves a Notice, then the notificant must divest control of the covered institution which may include, without limitation, disposing of some or all of the voting securities so that the notificant(s) is no longer in control of the covered institution. This provision is not in existing subpart E of part 303, but is included in the proposed rule for clarity and to codify long-standing FDIC policy.
In addition to the provisions discussed above, the proposed rule does
Section 303.84(a)(1) includes grandfather provisions for long-held control interests in covered institutions. Under section 303.84(a)(1)(i), notice would not be required when a person acquires additional voting securities of covered institution if the person held the power to vote 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities continuously since the later of March 9, 1979, or the date the institution commenced business. This exemption from notice requirements is not substantively different from the exemption in the existing subpart E of part 303 and only updates terminology.
The transferred CBCA regulation has a substantively identical exemption to 303.84(a)(1)(i) in the proposed rule for persons that have previously held the power to vote 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities continuously since March 9, 1979; however, it does not exempt persons who held the power to vote 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities since the date the savings association commenced business.
Under section 303.84(a)(1)(ii), notice is not required when a person who is presumed to have controlled a covered institution continuously since March 9, 1979, acquires additional voting securities of an institution provided that the aggregate amount of voting securities held does not exceed 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities, or the FDIC has determined that the person has continuously controlled the institution since March 9, 1979.
The proposed rule would also exempt from notice requirements a person who has controlled a covered institution in compliance with the procedures of the Change in Bank Control Act or the repealed Change in Savings and Loan Control Act, or any regulations issued under either act, and who acquires additional voting securities.
Under the Change in Bank Control Act, and both the existing Subpart E of Part 303 and the transferred CBCA regulation, acquisitions of voting securities that are subject to approval under section 3 of the BHC Act,
The existing subpart E of part 303 exempts from notice requirements those transactions that are exempt under the BHC Act, foreclosures by institutional lenders, fiduciary acquisitions by banks, and increases of majority holdings by bank holding companies described in sections 2(a)(5), 3(a)(A), or 3(a)(B), respectively, of the BHC Act, 12 U.S.C. 1841(a)(5), 1842(a)(A), and 1842(a)(B).
The existing subpart E of part 303 exempts a customary one-time proxy solicitation from the notice requirements.
The existing subpart E of part 303 also exempts from notice requirements the receipt of voting shares through a pro rata stock dividend.
The proposed rule, like the existing subpart E of part 303, exempts the acquisition of voting securities in a foreign bank that has an insured branch in the United States.
The existing subpart E of part 303 exempts from notice requirements the acquisition of voting shares of a depository institution holding company that either the Board of Governors or the former OTS reviews under the Change in Bank Control Act.
The transferred CBCA regulation also includes an exemption for acquisitions of up to twenty-five percent of a class of stock by a tax-qualified employee stock benefit plan as defined in 12 CFR 192.25.
The filing procedures in the proposed rule would be identical to the filing procedures in the existing subpart E of part 303.
Additionally, the proposed rule would not specifically state that the notificant may amend the Notice, as in the transferred CBCA regulation, but it is current FDIC policy that notificants can amend a Notice at their own initiative or upon the request of the FDIC.
The procedural requirements in the proposed rule are substantively identical to the procedural requirements in the existing subpart E of part 303.
First, the proposed rule does not include the provision in the transferred CBCA regulation that failure by a State savings association to respond to a written request for information or documents within 30 calendar days would be deemed a withdrawal of the Notice or rebuttal filing.
Second, the limitation in the transferred CBCA regulation restricting the FDIC's additional information requests, after the initial information request, to only information regarding matters derived from the initial information request or Notice, or information of a material nature that was not reasonably available for the acquirer, was concealed, or pertained to developments after the time of the initial information request is not included in the proposed rule.
Additionally, the transferred CBCA regulation includes a list of factors that give rise to a rebuttable presumption that an acquirer may fail the integrity and financial condition statutory factors.
The proposed rule would not substantively amend the public notice requirements in the existing subpart E of part 303.
First, the transferred CBCA regulation does not explicitly permit the FDIC to delay publication requirements. The proposed rule, like the existing subpart E of part 303, would permit the FDIC to delay the publication required if the FDIC determines, for good cause, that it is in the public interest to grant a delay.
The proposed rule also permits the FDIC to shorten the public comment period to a period of not less than 10 days, or waive the public comment or newspaper publication requirements, or act on a Notice before the expiration of a public comment period, if it determines that an emergency exists or that disclosure of the Notice, solicitation of public comment, or delay until expiration of the public comment period would seriously threaten the safety and soundness of the institution to be acquired. The transferred CBCA regulation permits the FDIC to waive the public notice period and submission of comments for supervisory reasons.
The transferred CBCA regulation provides for a 30-day comment period, but the existing subpart E of part 303 and the proposed rule include a 20-day comment period.
The proposed rule would also require that if a Notice was not filed in accordance with the CBCA and this subpart within the time periods specified, the notificant must publish an announcement of the acquisition of control in a newspaper of general circulation in the community in which the home office of the FDIC-supervised institution acquired is located within 10 days after being directed to file a Notice by the FDIC. This express requirement is not included in the transferred CBCA regulation.
The transferred CBCA regulation includes a provision regarding how an applicant can request that information submitted in connection with a Notice be treated as confidential.
Finally, the transferred CBCA regulation explicitly states that the FDIC will notify the State savings association's State supervisor of the filing of a Notice.
The proposed rule includes two longstanding statutory reporting requirements that are not included in existing subpart E of part 303 or the transferred CBCA regulation. The first statutory reporting requirement relates to any foreign bank, or any affiliate thereof, that has credit outstanding to any person or group of persons which is secured, directly or indirectly, by 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of a covered institution.
The proposed rule does not include similar language to that in 12 CFR 391.45(i)–(j), which outline additional procedures for Notices that involve other filings to the FDIC. Notificants should review other applicable regulatory sections, such as 12 CFR 303.60
The transferred CBCA regulation also contains a rebuttal of control agreement.
The proposed rule also excludes the requirement in the transferred CBCA regulation that certain acquirers of beneficial ownership exceeding 10 percent of any class of stock of a State savings association file a certification of ownership. The FDIC believes that the regulatory burden of these filings exceeds the benefits derived from them.
All guidance issued by the OTS that would otherwise apply to changes in control of State savings associations and that is inconsistent with the provisions of any final rule issued by the FDIC on the subject would be rescinded on the effective date of an FDIC final rule regarding changes in control of State savings associations.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) control number.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed rule on small entities (defined in regulations promulgated by the Small Business Administration to include banking organizations with total assets of less than or equal to $550 million). A regulatory flexibility analysis, however, is not required if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and publishes its certification and a short explanatory statement in the
The proposed rule only affects persons acquiring control of covered small banking entities. As such, the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small banking entities as the proposed rule would not impose any new requirements or prohibitions on small banking entities and would not impose any direct costs on small banking entities. As discussed in the preamble, the proposed rule primarily revises the circumstances that require the filing of a Notice for persons acquiring control of a small banking entity. Any impact of the proposed rule would be borne by the persons acquiring a controlling interest in a covered institution and not by the covered institution directly. Furthermore, for State nonmember banks and certain of their parent companies, the proposal generally codifies existing FDIC practice and should only marginally affect the number of persons subject to notice requirements. While the changes for State savings associations are more material, the changes generally simplify the requirements under the transferred CBCA regulation and should not materially increase the number of change in control Notices that must be filed. Currently, the FDIC receives approximately 35 change in control Notices each year and the FDIC does not expect the proposed rule to increase the number of Notices received by more than one or two Notices annually. As such, the proposed rule should not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small banking entities.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the FDIC to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The FDIC invites comment on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand. For example:
• Has the FDIC organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could the FDIC present the rule more clearly?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? If not, how could the rule be more clearly stated?
• Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation
• Is this section format adequate? If not, which of the sections should be changed and how?
• What other changes can the agencies incorporate to make the regulation easier to understand?
Administrative practice and procedure, banks, banking, savings associations, change in bank control.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposes to amend parts 303 and 391 of chapter III of Title 12, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 378, 1464, 1813, 1815, 1817, 1818, 1819 (Seventh and Tenth), 1820, 1823, 1828, 1831a, 1831e, 1831o, 1831p–1, 1831w, 1835a, 1843(l), 3104, 3105, 3108, 3207, 5414; 15 U.S.C. 1601–1607.
This subpart implements the provisions of the Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, section 7(j) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) (CBCA), and sets forth the filing requirements and processing procedures for a notice of change in control with respect to the acquisition of control of a State nonmember bank, a State savings association, or certain parent companies of either a State nonmember bank or a State savings association.
For purposes of this subpart:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)(1)
(i) To vote for, or to select, directors, trustees, managers of an LLC, partners, or other persons exercising similar functions of the issuing entity; or
(ii) To vote on, or to direct, the conduct of the operations or significant policies of the issuing entity.
(2) Nonvoting shares. Shares of common or preferred stock, limited partnership shares or interests, membership interests, or similar interests are not “voting securities” if:
(i) Any voting rights associated with the shares or interests are limited solely to the type customarily provided by State statute with regard to matters that would significantly and adversely affect the rights or preference of the security or other interest, such as the issuance of additional amounts or classes of senior securities, the modification of the terms of the security or interest, the dissolution of the issuing entity, or the payment of dividends by the issuing entity when preferred dividends are in arrears;
(ii) The shares or interests represent an essentially passive investment or financing device and do not otherwise provide the holder with control over the issuing entity; and
(iii) The shares or interests do not entitle the holder, by statute, charter, or in any manner, to select, or to vote for the selection of, directors, trustees, managers of an LLC, partners, or persons exercising similar functions of the issuing entity.
(3) Class of voting securities. Shares of stock or other interests issued by a single issuer are deemed to be the same class of voting shares, regardless of differences in dividend rights or liquidation preference, if the shares are voted together as a single class on all matters for which the shares have voting rights other than matters described in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section that affect solely the rights or preferences of the shares.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i) The institution has registered securities under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l); or
(ii) No other person will own, control or hold the power to vote a greater percentage of that class of voting securities immediately after the transaction.
(2)
(i) A company and any controlling shareholder or management official of the company;
(ii) An individual and the individual's immediate family;
(iii) Companies under common control or a company and each company it controls;
(iv) Two or more persons that have made, or propose to make, a joint filing related to the proposed acquisition under sections 13 or 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78n), and the rules promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission;
(v) A person and any trust for which the person serves as trustee or any trust for which the person is a beneficiary; and
(vi) Persons that are parties to any agreement, contract, understanding, relationship, or other arrangement, whether written or otherwise, regarding the acquisition, voting, or transfer of control of voting securities of a covered institution, other than through revocable proxies as described in 303.84(a)(5).
(3)
(4)
(c)
(a)
(1) The acquisition of voting securities as a bona fide gift;
(2) The acquisition of voting securities in satisfaction of a debt previously contracted in good faith, except as provided in § 303.82(c); and
(3) The acquisition of voting securities through inheritance.
(b)
(1) The acquisition of control resulting from a redemption of voting securities by the issuing covered institution; and
(2) The acquisition of control as a result of any event or action (including without limitation the sale of securities) by any third party that is not within the control of the person acquiring control.
(c) The FDIC may disapprove a notice filed after an acquisition of control, and nothing in this section limits the authority of the FDIC to disapprove a notice pursuant to § 303.86(c).
(d) The relevant information that the FDIC may require under this section may include all information and documents routinely required for a prior notice as provided in section 303.85.
(e) If the FDIC disapproves a Notice filed under this § 303.83, the notificant(s) must divest control of the covered institution which may include, without limitation, disposing of some or all of the voting securities so that the notificant(s) is no longer in control of the covered institution, within such period of time and in the manner that the FDIC may determine.
(a) Exempt transactions. The following transactions do not require notice to the FDIC under this subpart:
(1) The acquisition of additional voting securities of a covered institution by a person who:
(i) Held the power to vote 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of the institution continuously since the later of March 9, 1979, or the date that the institution commenced business; or
(ii) Is presumed, under § 303.82(b) to have controlled the institution continuously since March 9, 1979, if the aggregate amount of voting securities held does not exceed 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of the institution or, in other cases, where the FDIC determines that the person has controlled the institution continuously since March 9, 1979;
(2) The acquisition of additional voting securities of a covered institution by a person who has lawfully acquired and maintained control of the institution (for purposes of § 303.82) after complying with the procedures, and received the non-objection of the FDIC, of this subpart or the repealed Change in Savings and Loan Control Act, 12 U.S.C. 1730(q), and the regulations thereunder then in effect, to acquire control of the institution;
(3) Acquisitions of voting securities subject to approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(a)), section 18(c) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(c)), or section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a);
(4) Any transaction described in sections 2(a)(5), 3(a)(A), or 3(a)(B) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(a)(5), 1842(a)(A), or 1842(a)(B)) by a person described in those provisions;
(5) A customary one-time solicitation of a revocable proxy;
(6) The receipt of voting securities of a covered institution through a pro rata stock dividend or stock split if the proportional interests of the recipients remain substantially the same;
(7) The acquisition of voting securities in a foreign bank that has an insured branch in the United States. (This exemption does not extend to the reports and information required under paragraphs 9, 10, and 12 of the CBCA (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(9), (10), and (12)); and
(8) The acquisition of voting securities of a depository institution holding company for which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System reviews a notice pursuant to the CBCA (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)).
(a)
(1) A notice required under this subpart shall be filed with the appropriate FDIC office and shall contain all the information required by paragraph 6 of the CBCA, section 7(j) of the FDI Act, (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(6)), or prescribed in the designated interagency forms which may be obtained from any FDIC regional director.
(2) The FDIC may waive any of the informational requirements of the notice if the FDIC determines that it is in the public interest.
(3) A notificant shall notify the appropriate FDIC office immediately of any material changes in the information contained in a notice submitted to the FDIC, including changes in financial or other conditions.
(4) When the acquiring person is an individual, or group of individuals acting in concert, the requirement to provide personal financial data may be satisfied by a current statement of assets and liabilities and an income summary, as required in the designated interagency form, together with a statement of any material changes since the date of the statement or summary. The FDIC may require additional information if appropriate.
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1) The 60-day notice period specified in § 303.82 shall commence on the day after the date of acceptance of a substantially complete notice by the appropriate regional director. The notificant(s) may consummate the proposed acquisition after the expiration of the 60-day notice period, unless the FDIC disapproves the proposed acquisition or extends the notice period as provided in the CBCA.
(2) The notificant(s) may consummate the proposed transaction before the expiration of the 60-day period, including any extensions, if the FDIC notifies the notificant(s) in writing of its intention not to disapprove the acquisition.
(c)
(a)
(1) Newspaper announcement. Any person(s) filing a notice under this subpart shall publish an announcement soliciting public comment on the proposed acquisition. The announcement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the community in which the home office of the covered institution to be acquired is located.
(2) Timing of Publication. The announcement shall be published as close as is practicable to the date the notice is filed with the appropriate FDIC office, but in no event more than 10 calendar days before or after the filing date.
(3) Contents of newspaper announcement. The newspaper announcement shall conform to the public notice requirements set forth in § 303.7.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a) Requirements of reporting stock loans.
(1) Any foreign bank or affiliate of a foreign bank that has credit outstanding to any person or group of persons, in the aggregate, which is secured, directly or indirectly, by 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of a covered institution, shall file a consolidated report with the appropriate FDIC office.
(2) Any voting securities of the covered institution held by the foreign bank or any affiliate of the foreign bank as principal must be included in the calculation of the number of voting securities in which the foreign bank or its affiliate has a security interest for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section.
(b) Definitions. For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Foreign bank shall have the same meaning as in section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101).
(2) Affiliate shall have the same meaning as in section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101).
(3) Credit outstanding includes any loan or extension of credit; the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance, or letter of credit, including an endorsement or standby letter of credit; and any other type of transaction that extends credit or financing to the person or group of persons.
(4) Group of persons includes any number of persons that the foreign bank or any affiliate of a foreign bank has reason to believe:
(i) Are acting together, in concert, or with one another to acquire or control voting securities of the same covered institution, including an acquisition of voting securities of the same covered institution at approximately the same time under substantially the same terms; or
(ii) Have made, or propose to make, a joint filing under section 13 or 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78n), and the rules promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(c) Exceptions. Compliance with paragraph (a) of this section is not required if:
(1) The person or group of persons referred to in paragraph (a) has disclosed the amount borrowed and the security interest therein to the appropriate FDIC office in connection with a notice filed under the CBCA, an application filed under either 12 U.S.C. 1841,
(2) The transaction involves a person or group of persons that has been the owner or owners of record of the stock for a period of one year or more; or, if the transaction involves stock issued by a newly chartered bank, before the bank is opened for business.
(d) Report requirements for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section.
(1) The consolidated report must indicate the number and percentage of voting securities securing each applicable extension of credit, the identity of the borrower, the number of voting securities held as principal by the foreign bank and any affiliate thereof, and any additional information that the FDIC may require in connection with a particular report.
(2) A foreign bank, or any affiliate of a foreign bank, shall file the consolidated report in writing within 30 days of the date on which the foreign bank or affiliate first believes that the security for any outstanding credit consists of 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities of a covered institution.
(e) If the foreign bank, or any affiliate thereof, is not supervised by the FDIC, it shall file a copy of the report filed under paragraph (a) of this section with its appropriate Federal banking agency.
(f) Reporting requirement. After the consummation of a change in control, a covered institution must notify the FDIC in writing of any changes or replacements of its chief executive officer or of any director occurring during the 12-month period beginning on the date of consummation. This notice must be filed within 10 days of such change or replacement and must include a statement of the past and current business and professional affiliations of the new chief executive officers or directors.
12 U.S.C. 1819 (Tenth).; Subpart A also issued under 12 U.S.C. 1462a; 1463; 1464; 1828; 1831p–1; 1881–1884; 15 U.S.C. 1681w; 15 U.S.C. 6801; 6805.; Subpart B also issued under 12 U.S.C. 1462a; 1463; 1464; 1828; 1831p–1; 1881–1884; 15 U.S.C. 1681w; 15 U.S.C. 6801; 6805.; Subpart C also issued under 12 U.S.C. 1462a; 1463; 1464; 1828; 1831p–1; and 1881–1884; 15 U.S.C. 1681m; 1681w.; Subpart D also issued under 12 U.S.C. 1462; 1462a; 1463; 1464; 42 U.S.C. 4012a; 4104a; 4104b; 4106; 4128.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).
Request for public comment.
The Federal Trade Commission publishes this request for public comment concerning a proposed parental consent method submitted by AgeCheq Inc. (“AgeCheq”) under the Voluntary Commission Approval Processes provision of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule. This is the second proposed new method submitted by AgeCheq.
Written comments must be received on or before December 29, 2014.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Miry Kim, Attorney, (202) 326–3622, Kandi Parsons, Attorney, (202) 326–2369, or Peder Magee, Attorney, (202) 326–3538, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580.
On October 20, 1999, the Commission issued its final Rule
Pursuant to § 312.12(a) of the Rule, AgeCheq has submitted a proposed parental consent method to the Commission for approval. The full text of its application is available on the Commission's Web site at
The Commission is seeking comment on the proposed parental consent method, and is particularly interested in receiving comment on the questions that follow. These questions are designed to assist the Commission's consideration of the petition and should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted. Responses to these questions should cite the number of the question being answered. For all comments submitted, please provide any relevant data, statistics, or any other evidence, upon which those comments are based.
1. Does the proposed method, both with respect to the process for obtaining consent for an initial operator and any subsequent operators, constitute a new methodology or is it already covered by existing methods enumerated in § 312.5(b)(1) of the Rule?
2. If this is a new method, provide comments on whether the proposed parental consent method, both with respect to an initial operator and any subsequent operators, meets the requirements for parental consent laid out in 16 CFR 312.5(b)(1). Specifically, the Commission is looking for comments on whether the proposed parental consent method is reasonably calculated, in light of available technology, to ensure that the person providing consent is the child's parent.
3. Does this proposed method pose a risk to consumers' personal information? If so, is that risk outweighed by the benefit to consumers and businesses of using this method?
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before December 29, 2014. Write “AgeCheq Application for Parental Consent Method, Project No. P–155400” on your comment and file your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment doesn't include any sensitive personal information, such as Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, including medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “AgeCheq Application for Parental Consent Method, Project No. P–155400” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC–5610 (Annex K), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex K), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Department of Defense has proposed an amendment to its regulation that implements the Military Lending Act. The proposed amendment was published on September 29, 2014, with comments due on November 28, 2014. This document extends the date for the receipt of comments until December 26, 2014.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on September 29, 2014 (79 FR 58601), is extended. Comments must be submitted not later than December 26, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by any of the following methods;
•
•
Marcus Beauregard, 571–372–5357.
The Department is extending the comment period after receiving requests from several organizations. These organizations expressed that they would not have sufficient time to adequately cover their concerns. The Department believes this extension will allow the public the additional time they have requested to be able to review the proposal and provide feedback on the questions asked in the proposal.
National Park Service, Interior
Proposed rule.
The National Park Service is proposing to construct a paved, multi-use visitor path in Bryce Canyon National Park. The path would be approximately 6.2 miles long and be open to several uses, including running, walking, and bicycling. National Park Service regulations require promulgation of a special regulation to designate new routes for bicycle use off park roads and outside developed areas.
Comments must be received by January 26, 2015.
You may submit your comments, identified by Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1024–AE23, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Daniel J. Cloud, Chief of Facility Management, Bryce Canyon National Park, at 435–834–4720 or at the address listed in the
Bryce Canyon National Park (BRCA or park) is in south-central Utah. The park encompasses approximately 35,835 acres and ranges between 6,600 and 9,100 feet in elevation. BRCA was originally established as a national monument by presidential proclamation in 1923. The park was renamed Utah National Park in 1924, and the name was changed to Bryce Canyon National Park in 1928.
The park's most noted feature is the eroded landscape below the east rim of the Paunsaugunt Plateau. The erosional force of frost-wedging and the dissolving power of rainwater have worn away the colorful and weak limestone rock into bizarre shapes, including slot canyons, windows, fins, and spires called “hoodoos.” Because the park transcends 2,500 feet of elevation, the park exists in three distinct climatic zones characterized by spruce/fir forest, ponderosa pine forest, and pinyon pine/juniper woodlands. The diversity of forest and meadow habitats provides a high degree of plant and animal diversity. BRCA is also one of the best places to experience a truly dark night sky.
The park's purpose statement, which provides the foundation for park management, administration, and use decisions, states that “Bryce Canyon National Park protects and conserves resources integral to a landscape of unusual scenic beauty exemplified by highly colored and fantastically eroded geological features, including rock fins and spires, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” (May 2014 Foundation Document). The park's Foundation Document identifies “increased use of alternative transportation (
The primary purpose of the multi-use path is to relieve safety problems for visitors of all ages who choose to use non-motorized transportation to experience the park and adjacent United States Forest Service (USFS) areas near Bryce Canyon City. Increases in visitation of the park (30% increase between 2008 and 2012) are leading to transportation system capacity problems and traffic congestion. Cyclists and pedestrians need a way to travel to and within the park that is safer, provides a better visitor experience, and promotes non-motorized travel between nearby communities and the park as well as between key destinations in the park.
The path would enhance the park's transportation system by connecting the park's gateway communities with high visitor use areas along the canyon rim in the Bryce Amphitheater and other key features of the park. The proposed path would also connect to the existing transportation system, including visitor shuttle buses, hiking trails and walking paths, parking lots, and roads. This would link major visitor attractions and facilities with both non-motorized and motorized transportation modes. Visitor safety would be improved by separating motor vehicles from bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized user groups where possible.
The multi-use path would consist of two contiguous sections constructed in two phases. The first segment would be approximately 3.9 miles long. This segment would begin at the park boundary near the main park road to/from Bryce Canyon City. The path
The second segment would be approximately 2.3 miles long and would mostly follow Bryce Point road to a terminus at a trailhead just below the Bryce Point parking area. The NPS would construct the second segment as resources become available.
In total, the path would be approximately 6.2 miles long within the boundary of the park. No portion of the proposed path would be constructed below the canyon rim on park lands, nor in proposed wilderness areas inside the park. For most locations, the path would consist of a 10-foot wide paved asphalt surface. The path would generally parallel the main park road to provide separation between users and vehicles to reduce the likelihood of related safety problems. Spurs from the main path alignment would be designed to provide visitor access to key viewpoints and other landscape features. The path would continue outside of the boundary of the park through Bryce Canyon City and Dixie National Forest. This would provide a safe, efficient, and family-friendly way to access these connected areas.
In September 2014, the NPS published the Multi-use Visitor Path Environmental Assessment (EA). The proposed rule would implement the preferred alternative (Alternative Alignment A) as described in the EA. The EA, which contains a full description of the purpose and need for taking action, scoping, the alternatives considered, maps of the proposed multi-use path, and the environmental impacts associated with the project, may be viewed on the park's planning Web site at
This proposed rule complies with the requirement of 36 CFR 4.30, which requires a special regulation to designate new bicycle routes off park roads and outside of developed areas. The EA addresses bicycle use on the multi-use path and evaluates (i) the suitability of the trail surface for bicycle use; and (ii) life cycle maintenance costs, safety considerations, methods to prevent or minimize user conflict, methods to protect natural and cultural resources and mitigate impacts, and integration with commercial services and alternative transportation systems in compliance with 36 CFR 4.30(d)(1)–(2).
The proposed rule would add a new section 7.94 to 36 CFR part 7—Special Regulations, Areas of the National Park Service for Bryce Canyon National Park. The proposed rule would authorize the superintendent to designate all or a portion of two segments of the proposed 6.2-mile-long multi-use path as a route for bicycle use. The Superintendent would notify the public of any such designation through one or more of the methods outlined in 36 CFR 1.7, and place the designation on maps that are available in the office of the Superintendent and other places convenient to the public.
The proposed rule would also authorize the superintendent to establish closures or restrictions for bicycle use on designated routes after considering public health and safety, resource protection, and other management activities and objectives, provided public notice is given under 36 CFR 1.7.
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 Executive Order 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. Executive Order 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.
This rule 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 U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or 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. It addresses public use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:
(a) 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
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175. During the environmental assessment process, we consulted with the 10 Native American groups associated with BRCA and determined that there are no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
We have prepared the EA to determine whether this rule will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. A copy of the EA can be found online at
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 Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)) and 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National parks, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7 as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also issued under 36 U.S.C. 501–511, DC Code 10–137 (2001) and DC Code 50–2201 (2001).
(a) The Superintendent may designate for bicycle use routes or portions of routes on the following sections of the park's multi-use recreational path:
(1) A section between the park boundary near Bryce Canyon City and Inspiration Point parking area (approximately 3.9 miles).
(2) A section between the intersection of Bryce Point road and Inspiration Point road and a trailhead near Bryce Point parking area (approximately 2.3 miles).
(b) The Superintendent will provide notice of all bicycle route designations through one or more of the methods listed in § 1.7 of this chapter, and place the designations on maps that are available in the office of the Superintendent and other places convenient to the public.
(c) The Superintendent may open or close designated bicycle routes, or portions thereof, or establish conditions or restrictions for bicycle use after considering public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, carrying capacity, and other management activities and objectives.
(1) The Superintendent will provide public notice of all such actions through one or more of the methods listed in § 1.7 of this chapter.
(2) Violating a closure, condition, or restriction is prohibited.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. The revisions incorporate by reference (IBR) the requirements of the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program into the Maryland SIP. Additionally, the revisions will allow Maryland's PSD program to automatically update with any revisions to the Federal regulations. In the Final Rules section of this
Comments must be received in writing by December 26, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0690 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by email at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title (“Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Prevention of Significant Deterioration”), that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has submitted updated regulations for receiving delegation of EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources). These regulations apply to certain NESHAP promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR part 63, as amended between May 25, 2005 and April 24, 2013. The delegation of authority under this action does not apply to sources located in Indian Country. EPA is providing notice proposing to approve the delegation of certain NESHAPs to TCEQ.
Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before December 26, 2014.
Comments may be mailed to Mr. Rick Barrett, Air Permits Section (6PD–R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Mr. Rick Barrett, (214) 665–7227; email:
In the final rules section of this
The EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this proposed approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn, and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to further implement the inflation adjustment of acquisition-related dollar thresholds. A statute requires an adjustment every five years of acquisition-related thresholds for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, except for the Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute (Davis-Bacon Act), Service Contract Labor Standards statute, and trade agreements thresholds. DoD, GSA, and NASA are also proposing to use the same methodology to adjust nonstatutory FAR acquisition-related thresholds in 2015.
Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addresses shown below on or before January 26, 2015 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2014–022 by any of the following methods:
• Regulations.gov:
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
• Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405.
Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, at 202–208–4949, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite FAR Case 2014–022.
This rule proposes to amend multiple FAR parts to further implement 41 U.S.C. 1908. Section 1908 requires an adjustment every five years (on October 1 of each year evenly divisible by five) of statutory acquisition-related thresholds for inflation, using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers, except for the Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute (Davis-Bacon Act), Service Contract Labor Standards statute, and trade agreements thresholds (see FAR 1.109). As a matter of policy, DoD, GSA, and NASA are also proposing to use the same methodology to adjust nonstatutory FAR acquisition-related thresholds on October 1, 2015.
This is the third review of FAR acquisition-related thresholds since the statute was passed on October 28, 2004 (section 807 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005). The last review was conducted under FAR Case 2008–024 during FY 2010. The final rule was published in the
This case builds on the review of FAR thresholds in FY 2005 and FY 2010, using the same interpretation of an acquisition-related threshold. 41 U.S.C. 1908 is applicable to “a dollar threshold that is specified
There are other thresholds in the FAR that, while not specified in law, nevertheless meet all the other criteria. These thresholds may have their origin in Executive order or regulation.
Examples of thresholds that are not “acquisition-related,” as defined in this case, are thresholds relating to claims, penalties, withholding, payments, required levels of insurance, small business size standards, liquidated damages, etc. This rule does not address thresholds that are not acquisition-related.
41 U.S.C. 1908 does not permit escalation of acquisition-related thresholds established by the Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute (Davis Bacon Act), the Service Contract Labor Standards statute, or the United States Trade Representative pursuant to the authority of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.
Also, the statute does not authorize the FAR to escalate thresholds originating in Executive order or the implementing agency (such as the Department of Labor or the Small Business Administration), unless the Executive order or agency regulations are first amended.
If an acquisition-related threshold is based on statute, the matrix at
With the exception of thresholds set by the Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute (Davis-Bacon Act), Service Contract Labor Standards statute, and the United States Trade Representative pursuant to the authority of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 41 U.S.C. 1908 requires that the FAR Council adjust the acquisition-related thresholds for inflation using the CPI for all urban consumers. Acquisition-related thresholds in statutes that were in effect on October 1, 2000, are only subject to escalation from that date forward. For purposes of this proposed rule, the matrix includes calculation of escalation based on the estimated CPI value for March 2015 (currently estimated at 243.0) divided by the CPI for the date of enactment of the statute or regulation (October 2000, for statutes enacted prior to October 1, 2000). The Councils will subsequently adjust as necessary before issuance of the final rule.
Once the escalation factor is applied to the acquisition-related threshold, then the threshold must be rounded as follows:
The calculations in this proposed rule are all based on the base year amount, because escalated amounts in the 2010 rule were subject to rounding and using those amounts as the base would distort future calculations.
In 2010, some thresholds (
The thresholds for defining a major system were previously stated in FY 1990 constant dollars for DoD and in FY 1980 constant dollars for civilian agencies. The 2005 rule converted the base year for these major system thresholds to 2004 dollars, that were then adjusted in October 2005 and also adjusted in October 2010. Although the FAR will continue to escalate the major systems threshold for the civilian agencies, DoD has determined that for DoD, the major systems thresholds in the FAR must be consistent with the major systems thresholds in DoD Instruction 5000.02, established in accordance with the authority in 10 U.S.C. 2302d(c)(1). This allows the Secretary of Defense to adjust the amounts (and the base fiscal year) provided in subsection (a) on the basis of DoD escalation rates (rather than the CPI for all urban consumers). The revised figures were calculated by the DoD Comptroller, and coordinated with the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) Office and the DoD General Counsel. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2302d(c)(3), DoD reported these thresholds to Congress in December 2013.
This proposed rule has been coordinated with the Department of Labor and the Small Business Administration in areas of the regulation for which they are the lead agency. As appropriate, any changes to cost accounting standards (CAS) thresholds will be coordinated with the CAS Board and addressed under a separate case.
No statutory authorization is required to escalate thresholds that are policy-based within the FAR. For consistency, escalation of the FAR policy acquisition-related thresholds is recommended using the same formula applied to the statutory thresholds, unless there is a valid reason for not doing so.
This rule includes the following proposed changes to heavily-used thresholds:
• The micro-purchase threshold of $3,000 (FAR 2.101) will increase to $3,500. The Title 41 recodification (Pub. L. 111–350, enacted January 4, 2011) relocated the micro-purchase authorization to 41 U.S.C. 1902, and raised the micro-purchase threshold to $3,000 (equivalent to the escalated value in the FAR). However, as Congress stated in House Report 111–42, the recodification statute did not intend to make any substantive changes, therefore the inflation calculation will continue to be calculated based on the October 2000 amount of $2,500, not the January 2011 value of $3,000.
• The simplified acquisition threshold (FAR 2.101) of $150,000 will not change.
• The FedBizOpps preaward and post-award notices (FAR Part 5) remain at $25,000 because of trade agreements.
• Commercial items test program ceiling (FAR 13.500) will increase from $6.5 million to $7 million.
• The cost or pricing data threshold (FAR 15.403–4) will increase from $700,000 to $750,000.
• The prime contractor subcontracting plan (FAR 19.702) floor will increase from $650,000 to $700,000,
• The threshold for reporting first-tier subcontract information including executive compensation will increase from $25,000 to $30,000 (FAR subpart 4.14 and section 52.204–10).
This proposed rule is based on a projected CPI of 243 for March 2015. If the actual CPI for March 2015 is higher than 243, then additional statutory thresholds may be subject to escalation in the final rule, even though not included in the proposed rule.
• FAR 12.102(g) is being deleted as obsolete.
• The $30,000 threshold at FAR 13.106–2(c)(2) and (d) returns to $25,000 to harmonize with the 5.101(a)(1) threshold for synopsizing preaward notices in FedBizOpps.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This rule will amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement 41 U.S.C. 1908 and to amend other acquisition-related dollar thresholds that are based on policy rather than statute in order to adjust for the changing value of the dollar. 41 U.S.C. 1908 requires adjustment every five years of statutory acquisition-related dollar thresholds, except for Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute (Davis-Bacon Act), Service Contract Labor Standards statute, and trade agreements thresholds. While reviewing all statutory acquisition-related thresholds, this case presented an opportunity to also review all nonstatutory acquisition-related thresholds in the FAR that are based on policy.
The objective of the case is to maintain the status quo, by adjusting acquisition-related thresholds for inflation. The legal basis is 41 U.S.C. 1908. The statute does not authorize the FAR to escalate thresholds originating in Executive orders or the implementing agency (such as the Department of Labor or the Small Business Administration), unless the Executive order or agency regulations are first amended.
This rule will have a minimal impact on small business concerns that submit offers or are awarded contracts by the Federal Government. However, most of the threshold changes proposed in this rule are not expected to have any significant economic impact on small business concerns because the threshold changes are intended to maintain the status quo by adjusting for changes in the value of the dollar. Often any impact will be beneficial, by preventing burdensome requirements from applying to more and more acquisitions, as the dollar loses value.
One threshold change in this rule which may temporarily impact small business concerns is the increase in the micro-purchase threshold (FAR 2.101) from $3,000 to $3,500. This will temporarily narrow the dollar range within which acquisitions are automatically set aside for small business concerns, because the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000 will not increase at this time. To assess the impact of the increase in the micro-purchase threshold from $3,000 to $3,500, data was requested from FPDS–NG. For FY 2013, there were 83,951 contracts and calls/orders between $3,000 and $3,500, with a value of $272,567,926. Of these actions, 34,828 (value of $113,280,333) were awarded to small business concerns. DoD, GSA, and NASA expect that many of these awards will still go to small business concerns, even if there is no longer a requirement to automatically set the procurement aside for small business concerns.
The rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements. Changes in thresholds for approved information collection requirements are intended to maintain the status quo and prevent those requirements from increasing over time.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
There are no practical alternatives that will accomplish the objectives of the statute.
The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2014–022), in correspondence.
The Paperwork Reduction Act does apply. The proposed changes to the FAR do not impose new information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose amending 48 CFR parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 32, 42, 50, 52, and 53 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
The revised text reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(1) The Department of Defense is responsible for the system and the total expenditures for research, development, test, and evaluation for the system are estimated to be more than $185 million based on Fiscal Year 2014 constant dollars or the eventual total expenditure for the acquisition exceeds $835 million based on Fiscal Year 2014 constant dollars (or any update of these thresholds based on a more recent fiscal year, as specified in the DoD Instruction 5000.02, “Operation of the Defense Acquisition System”);
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204–10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards, in all solicitations and contracts of $30,000 or more.
The revision reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(7) * * *
(v) Determination for a single-award BPA exceeding $115 million, if applicable (see paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section);
The revised text reads as follows:
The revised text reads as follows:
The revised text reads as follows:
(e) The Contractor shall not split or break down first-tier subcontract awards to a value less than $30,000 to avoid the reporting requirements in paragraph (d) of this clause.
The revised text reads as follows:
The revised text reads as follows:
The revised text reads as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
_(2) 52.203–13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (
_(4) 52.204–10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (
_(8) 52.209–6, Protecting the Government's Interest When Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment. (
_(17)(i) 52.219–9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (
(iv) Alternate III (
_(29) 52.222–35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (
_(31) 52.222–37, Employment Reports on Veterans (
_(33) 52.222–54, Employment Eligibility Verification (
(c) * * *
(8) 52.226–6, Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations (
(e)(1)
(i) 52.203–13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (
(v) 52.222–35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (
(vii) 52.222–37, Employment Reports on Veterans (
(xiii) 52.222–54, Employment Eligibility Verification (
(xv) 52.226–6, Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations (
Flow down required in accordance with paragraph (e) of FAR clause 52.226–6.
(e)(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) 52.203–13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (
(C) 52.219–8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (
(E) 52.222–35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (
(L) Employment Eligibility Verification (
(M) 52.226–6, Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations. (
The revised text reads as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) 52.244–6, Subcontracts for Commercial Items (
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) 52.204–10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (
(iv) 52.222–35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (
(vi) 52.222–37, Employment Reports on Veterans (
(xi) 52.226–6, Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations (
(2) * * *
(i) 52.209–6, Protecting the Government's Interest When Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment (
The revised text reads as follows:
The revised text reads as follows:
The revised text reads as follows:
The revised text reads as follows:
The revised text reads as follows:
(c)(1) * * *
(i) 52.203–13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (
(v) 52.222–35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (
(vii) 52.222–37, Employment Reports on Veterans (
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; availability of a final environmental impact statement and a draft record of decision.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), make available the final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed revisions to the regulations for the nonessential experimental population designation of the Mexican wolf and our draft record of decision (ROD), under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Our intended action is to revise the regulations established in our 1998 Final Rule for the nonessential experimental population of the Mexican wolf. We also propose to extend the authority of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program's section 10(a)(1)(A) research and recovery permit to areas that are outside of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area. In the EIS we analyzed the environmental consequences of a range of alternatives, including the Proposed Action and No Action alternative, for our proposed rule. The action would be implemented through a final rule, a revised section 10(a)(1)(A) research and recovery permit, and the provision of Federal funding.
We will consider comments received on or before December 27, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments on the final EIS and draft ROD only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Sherry Barrett, Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road, NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; by telephone 505–761–4704; or by facsimile 505–346–2542. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. Further contact information can be found on the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program's Web site at
With this
We have described all alternatives in detail, and we have evaluated them in our final EIS. Our draft decision is based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences as described in our final EIS.
You may obtain a copy of the final EIS and draft ROD by going to the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program Web site at
On June 13, 2013 (78 FR 35719), we published a proposed rule to revise the existing nonessential experimental population designation of the Mexican wolf. That proposal had a 90-day comment period ending September 11, 2013. On August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47268), we published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement in conjunction with the proposed rule to revise the existing nonessential experimental population designation of the Mexican wolf. That notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement had a 45-day comment period ending September 19, 2013. On September 5, 2013 (78 FR 54613), we extended the public comment period on the proposed rule to revise the existing nonessential experimental population designation of the Mexican wolf to end on October 28, 2013, and announced a public hearing. On October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64192), we once again extended the public comment period on the proposed rule to revise the existing nonessential experimental population designation of the Mexican wolf to end on December 17, 2013, and announced public hearings on the proposed rule to revise the existing nonessential experimental population designation of the Mexican wolf.
On July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43358), we published a revised proposed rule to the
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the final EIS and the draft ROD by one of the methods listed in
Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the supporting documentation we used, will be available for public inspection on
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has submitted the following information collection to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for USAID, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington DC 20503. Copies of submission may be obtained by calling (202) 712–5007.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by December 26, 2014 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the reporting, herd monitoring, and management of swine enteric coronavirus diseases.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before January 26, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the reporting, herd monitoring, and management of swine enteric diseases, contact Dr. Troy Bigelow, Senior Staff Veterinarian-Swine, Surveillance, Preparedness and Response Services, VS, APHIS, 210 Walnut Street, Room 891, Des Moines, IA 50309; (515) 284–4121. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2727.
On June 5, 2014, VS issued a Federal Order to establish reporting, herd monitoring, and management requirements for two swine enteric coronavirus diseases (SECD). Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus was identified in the United States in May 2013, and has spread to at least 31 States. In February 2014, a related virus, porcine delta coronavirus, was identified in 13 States. Infections with these swine enteric coronaviruses can cause significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in young piglets. In fact, since identification of the porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, it has caused approximately 7 million piglet deaths. These two swine enteric coronavirus diseases are transmitted by the fecal-oral route from infected swine or contaminated materials. Only swine are affected. These diseases do not affect other animals or people, and are not a food safety concern. However, the U.S. swine population has minimal immunity against these coronaviruses; therefore, the entire population remains at risk.
Porcine epidemic diarrhea virus minimally affected trade when it was first confirmed in May 2013. However, as the spread of the disease drew media attention, negative trade impacts increased. Unfortunately, trading partners are beginning to restrict the export of not only live animals, but also animal-derived products, such as blood products and other byproducts. While no restrictions have been imposed on pork meat exports, some U.S. trading partners have begun to discuss such restrictions. The lack of sufficient information to describe the current disease situation and to outline specific Federal and State Government actions taken to control the disease only increases our trading partners' concern.
The Federal Government, States, herd veterinarians, and industry have collaborated to manage these infections in the United States. This collaboration includes certain information collection activities that were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on an emergency basis. These information collection activities are
In addition to the above approved information collection activities, we are also adding invoicing for herd plan completion, a reimbursement form (VS 8–19), State and Tribal involvement in SECD documentation and reporting, and declaration of negative (status).
We are asking OMB to approve these information collection activities, as described, for 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request approval to revise and extend a currently approved information collection, the Milk and Milk Products Surveys. Revision to burden hours will be needed due to changes in the size of the target population, sample design, and/or questionnaire length.
Comments on this notice must be received by January 26, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number 0535–0020, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
R. Renee Picanso, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (202) 720–4333. Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from David Hancock, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 690–2388 or at
Mandatory dairy product information reporting is based on the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the Dairy Market Enhancement Act of 2000 and the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002 (U.S.C. 1637–1637b). This program requires each manufacturer to report to USDA the price, quantity, and moisture content of dairy products sold and each entity storing dairy products to report information on the quantity of dairy products stored. Any manufacturer that processes, markets, or stores less than 1,000,000 pounds of dairy products per year is exempt. USDA is required to maintain information, statistics, or documents obtained under these Acts in a manner that ensures that confidentiality is preserved regarding the identity of persons and proprietary business information, subject to verification by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) under Public Law 106–532. This Notice is submitted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
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
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
On October 3, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Diocenyr Ribamar Barbosa-Santos (“Barbosa-Santos”) was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701,
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Barbosa-Santos's conviction for violating the IEEPA, and in accordance with Section 766.25 of the Regulations, BIS has provided notice and an opportunity for Barbosa-Santos to make a written submission to BIS. BIS has not received a submission from Barbosa-Santos.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Barbosa-Santos's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five (5) years from the date of Barbosa-Santos's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Barbosa-Santos had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
First, from the date of this Order until October 3, 2018, Diocenyr Ribamar Barbosa-Santos, with a last known address of 3928 Shiver Road, Fort Worth, TX 76244–8692, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Barbosa-Santos by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.
Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Barbosa-Santos may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.
Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Barbosa-Santos. This
Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until October 3, 2018.
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee (RPTAC) will meet December 9, 2014, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.
1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.
2. Opening remarks by Bureau of Industry and Security.
3. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public.
4. Export Enforcement update.
5. Regulations update.
6. Working group reports.
7. Automated Export System update.
8. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on October 29, 2014, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
The Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) will meet on December 11, 2014, 8:30 a.m., Room 3884, at the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on emerging technology and research activities, including those related to deemed exports.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Remarks by Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
3.
4. Recruitment for ETRAC members.
5. Harmonization of definitions—fundamental research.
6.
7. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and l0(a)(3).
The open sessions will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on October 2, 2014, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)1 and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
The President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA) will meet on December 10, 2014, 10:00 a.m., at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 4830, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The PECSEA provides advice on
1. Opening remarks by the Chairman and Vice Chairman.
2. Opening remarks by the Bureau of Industry and Security.
3. Export Control Reform Update.
4. Presentation of papers or comments by the Public.
5. Data Transmission and Security Subcommittee Presentation.
6. Process Improvements and Trusted Trader Subcommittee Presentation.
7. Outreach Subcommittee Update.
8. Update: One-year Anniversary of the First ECR Transition Rule Statistics.
9. Consolidated Screening List Demonstration and Discussion.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first served basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its
Bob Palmer, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–9068.
The Department published the
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties are addressed in the Issues & Decision Memo. A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues & Decision Memo is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
In the
In our
In the
Because the calculated net U.S. sales values for the individually-examined respondents with weighted-average dumping margins that are not zero or
In the
The Department used the rate of 2.42 USD/kg in the most recent completed administrative review of this antidumping order for the PRC-wide entity.
The weighted-average dumping margins for this POR are as follows:
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and U.S Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. As the Department stated in the most recent administrative review,
The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all 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 Jacobi, Cherishmet and the non-examined, separate rate respondents, the cash deposit rate will be equal to their weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or
We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or 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.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee Ecosystem Subcommittee (Subcommittee) will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.
The Subcommittee will meet Monday and Tuesday, December 15–16, 2014. The meeting will start at 9 a.m. each day and continue until business is completed on each day.
Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820–2280 or Dr. Martin Dorn, Alaska Fisheries Science Center; telephone: (206) 526–6548.
The Subcommittee will meet with the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Team, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. The purpose of the meeting is to review the indicators used in the Annual State of the California Current Ecosystem Report, which is delivered to the Pacific Council each March, and consider how the report might be refined and improved.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during the meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document 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 intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820–2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting in Hawaii in December 2014 regarding social science in the fishery management council process.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, December 17, 2014, Thursday, December 18, 2014, and Friday, December 19, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meeting will take place at the Council office, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI; telephone: (808) 522–8220. Site visits for meeting participants to points of interest on the Fishing Community of Oahu will be conducted on Friday, December 19, 2014.
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808) 522–8220.
The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522–8220 (voice) or (808) 522–8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open subcommittee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Honor Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery (ACANC). The meeting is open to the public. For more information about the Committee and the Honor Subcommittee, please visit
The Honor Subcommittee will meet from 8:30 a.m.–10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 9, 2014.
Building 123, Conference Room, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211.
Ms. Renea C. Yates; Designated Federal Officer for the committee and the Honor Subcommittee, in writing at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, VA 22211, or by email at
Due to scheduling conflicts, the Designated Federal Officer was unable to submit a
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The purpose of this notice is to initiate the scoping process for the preparation of an integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for proposed improvements to the existing navigation project at Redwood City Harbor and San Bruno Shoal.
A public scoping meeting will be held on December 10, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. (PST). Submit comments concerning this notice on or before December 15, 2014.
The scoping meeting location is: the Redwood City Hall, 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA 94063. Meeting will be held at the City Council Chamber Meeting Room. Mail written comments concerning this notice to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Project Management Division, ATTN: SPN–2014–125242, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103–1398. Comment letters should include the commenter's physical mailing address, the project title and the Corps file number in the subject line.
Katherine Reyes, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, Project Management Division, ATTN: CESPN–PM–B, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco CA 94103–1398, (415) 503–6847,
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The primary Federal actions under consideration are dredging, channel realignment, dredged material placement, and transport of dredged material for the purpose of ocean placement.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the Port of Redwood City will serve as Lead Agency in preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Corps and the Port of Redwood City have agreed to jointly prepare a Draft EIS/EIR to optimize efficiency and avoid duplication. The Draft EIS/EIR is intended to be sufficient in scope to address the Federal, state and local requirements and environmental issues concerning the proposed activities and permit approvals.
Six dredge material placement sites are being evaluated. Multiple sites may be used depending on the quantity of material dredged from the channels and the capacity of the placement sites. The potential dredge material placement sites include:
1. Ravenswood Pond Complex (Upland Beneficial Reuse Site).
2. Eden Landing Pond Complex (Upland Beneficial Reuse Site).
3. Alviso Pond Complex (Upland Beneficial Reuse Site).
4. SF–11 Alcatraz (In-Bay Aquatic).
5. Dumbarton Bridge—Passive Sediment Transport (In-Bay Aquatic).
6. San Francisco Deep Ocean Disposal Site (SFDODS) (Ocean Aquatic).
Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, December 9, 2014. A business meeting will be held the following day on Wednesday, December 10, 2014. The hearing and business meeting are open to the public and will be held at the Washington Crossing Historic Park Visitor Center, 1112 River Road, Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania.
The public is advised to check the Commission's Web site periodically prior to the hearing date, as items scheduled for hearing may be postponed if additional time is deemed necessary to complete the Commission's review, and items may be added up to ten days prior to the hearing date. In reviewing docket descriptions, the public is also asked to be aware that project details commonly change in the course of the Commission's review, which is ongoing.
There will be no opportunity for additional public comment at the December 10 business meeting on hearing items for which the hearing was completed on December 9 or a previous date. Commission consideration on December 10 of items for which the public hearing is closed may result in either approval of the item (docket or resolution) as proposed, approval with changes, denial, or deferral. When the Commissioners defer an action, they may announce an additional period for written comment on the item, with or without an additional hearing date, or they may take additional time to consider the input they have already received without requesting further public input. Any deferred items will be considered for action at a public meeting of the Commission on a future date.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of filing.
On October 21, 2014, Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP, as owner and operator of a new base load electric powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the
Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE–20, Room 8G–024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586–5260.
Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301
The following owner of a proposed new base load electric powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:
OWNER: Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP.
CAPACITY: 630 megawatts (MW).
PLANT LOCATION: Salem, MA.
IN-SERVICE DATE: Second quarter of 2017.
Take notice that on November 7, 2014, Boardwalk Storage Company, LLC (Boardwalk Storage), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, TX 77046, filed in Docket No. CP15–13–000, an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for authorization to abandon its natural gas storage Cavern 24 and the storage services provided by that cavern, located at the Choctaw Gas Storage Facility in Iberville Parish, Louisiana. Specifically, Boardwalk Storage requests that Cavern 24 and the associated wellhead be abandoned by sale to its parent Boardwalk Louisiana Midstream, LLC in order for it to convert the cavern into storage of natural gas liquids, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Michael E. McMahon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel; J. Kyle Stephens, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs; M.L. Gutierrez, Director, Regulatory Affairs at 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, TX 77046, phone: (713) 479–8252, fax: (713) 479–1745, or email:
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Comment Date: December 9, 2014.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/15.
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 date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
284.123(g) Protests Due:
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s).
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
The Commission staff is consulting with the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (South Carolina SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
The Programmatic Agreement, when executed by the Commission, the South Carolina SHPO, and the Advisory Council, would satisfy the Commission's section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR 800.13[e]). The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section 106 for the project would be fulfilled through the Programmatic Agreement, which the Commission staff proposes to draft in consultation with certain parties listed below.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, as licensee for the Parr Hydroelectric Project, is invited to participate in consultations to develop the Programmatic Agreement and to sign as a concurring party to the Programmatic Agreement. For purposes of commenting on the Programmatic Agreement, we propose to restrict the service list for Project No. 1894–000 as follows:
Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned proceedings may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. A copy of any such motion must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission (888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426) and must be served on each person whose name appears on the official service list. If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further notice will be issued ruling on the motion.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States” (EPA ICR No. 2397.02, OMB Control No. 2040–0284) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 26, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0719, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Amelia Letnes, State and Regional Branch, Water Permits Division, OWM Mail Code: 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–5627; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Title IV of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002: Drinking Water Security and Safety” (EPA ICR No. 2103.05, OMB Control No. 2040–0253) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 26, 2014.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OW–2003–0013, to (1) EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Karen Edwards, Water Security Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Mailcode: 4608T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202–564–3797; fax number: 202–566–0055; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission released a public notice announcing the meeting and agenda of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The intended effect of this action is to make the public aware of the NANC's next meeting and agenda.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014, 10:00 a.m.
Requests to make an oral statement or provide written comments to the NANC should be sent to Carmell Weathers, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5–C162, Washington, DC 20554.
Carmell Weathers at (202) 418–2325 or
This is a summary of the Commission's document in CC Docket No. 92–237, DA 14–1609 released November 7, 2014. The complete text in this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile (202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at
The North American Numbering Council (NANC) has scheduled a meeting to be held Tuesday, December 9, 2014, from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW–C305, Washington, DC. This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many participants as possible. The public may submit written statements to the NANC, which must be received two business days before the meeting. In addition, oral statements at the meeting by parties or entities not represented on the NANC will be permitted to the extent time permits. Such statements will be limited to five minutes in length by any one party or entity, and requests to make an oral statement must be received two business days before the meeting.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
*The Agenda may be modified at the discretion of the NANC Chairman with the approval of the DFO.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Notice of open meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FDIC Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee (the “SR Advisory Committee”), which will be held in Arlington, Virginia. The SR Advisory Committee will provide advice and recommendations on a broad range of issues regarding the resolution of systemically important financial companies pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203 (July 21, 2010), 12 U.S.C. 5301
Wednesday, December 10, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held in Auditorium C on the Third Floor of the FDIC William Seidman Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive (Building C), Arlington, Virginia.
Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898–7043.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice of the establishment of new systems of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) gives notices of two new proposed Privacy Act systems of records. The two new proposed systems are: Suspended Counterparty System (FHFA–23); and Employee Adverse Action and Disciplinary Records System (FHFA–24). The Suspended Counterparty System will contain information that FHFA will use to implement the Suspended Counterparty Program by which the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the twelve Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) (hereafter, collectively, “regulated entities” or individually, “regulated entity”) are required to report to FHFA when they become aware that an individual or institution and any affiliates thereof, who are currently or have been engaged in a covered transaction with a regulated entity within three years of when the regulated entity becomes aware of covered misconduct, have engaged in fraud or other financial misconduct.
The Employee Adverse Action and Disciplinary Records System will contain information on current or former FHFA employees who have been disciplined or had a performance-based action taken against them; who have a proposed disciplinary or performance-based action against them; or who are or have been suspected of misconduct.
To be assured of consideration, comments must be received on or before December 26, 2014. These two new systems of records will become effective on January 5, 2015 without further notice unless comments necessitate otherwise. FHFA will publish a new notice if the effective date is delayed to review comments or if changes are made based on comments received.
Submit comments to FHFA
•
•
•
•
For the Suspended Counterparty System: Tasha Cooper, Associate General Counsel at (202) 649–3091; for the Employee Adverse Action and Disciplinary Records System: Kakeisla Qaasim at (202) 649–3743; or David A. Lee, Senior Agency Official for Privacy,
This notice informs the public of FHFA's proposal to establish and maintain two new systems of records. This notice satisfies the Privacy Act requirement that an agency publish a system of records notice in the
As required by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), and 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, 35), FHFA has submitted a report describing the two new systems of records covered by this notice, to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget.
The proposed new systems of records described above are set forth in their entirety below.
Suspended Counterparty System.
Sensitive but unclassified.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, and any alternate work site utilized by employees of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) or by individuals assisting such employees.
Information about individuals who are suspected of or have been found to have engaged in fraud or possible fraud or who are suspected of or have been found to have engaged in other financial misconduct.
Records may include name, address, Social Security number, date of birth, professional license number or other identifying information, type of sanction, date of sanction, court or agency responsible, description of misconduct, affiliate information (name, address, professional license number or other identifying information, description of how the affiliate is related to the subject), online profile or account information, and information pertaining to criminal prosecutions, civil actions, enforcement proceedings, and investigations resulting from or relating to fraud or suspected fraud or other financial misconduct. Such records may also include information on individuals: (a) Who have been referred to FHFA for possible suspension; (b) who are currently or have been engaged in a covered transaction with a regulated entity within three years of when the regulated entity becomes aware of the covered misconduct; or (c) who are affiliates of such persons or institutions.
The system is established and maintained pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 4513(a)(2) and 12 CFR part 1227.
The information in this system of records will be used by FHFA to implement the Suspended Counterparty Program. Under the Suspended Counterparty Program the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the twelve Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) (hereafter, collectively, “regulated entities” or individually, “regulated entity”) are required to report to FHFA when they become aware that an individual or institution and any affiliates thereof, who are currently or have been engaged in a covered transaction with a regulated entity within three years of when the regulated entity becomes aware of the covered misconduct, have engaged in fraud or other financial misconduct. Such implementation includes reviewing the reports submitted and any additional information needed to make a determination of whether action is needed by FHFA to limit the risk of the regulated entities continuing to do business with the individual or an institution, or in order to protect the safe and sound operation of the regulated entities.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside FHFA as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) When (a) it is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) FHFA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by FHFA or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure is made to such agencies, entities, and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist in connection with FHFA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(2) Where there is an indication of a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local, tribal, foreign or a financial regulatory organization charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing a statute, or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto.
(3) To any individual during the course of any inquiry or investigation conducted by FHFA, or in connection with civil litigation, if FHFA has reason to believe that the individual to whom the record is disclosed may have further information about the matters related therein, and those matters appeared to be relevant at the time to the subject matter of the inquiry.
(4) To any individual with whom FHFA contracts to reproduce, by typing, photocopy or other means, any record within this system for use by FHFA and its employees in connection with their official duties or to any individual who is utilized by FHFA to perform clerical or stenographic functions relating to the official business of FHFA.
(5) To members of advisory committees that are created by FHFA or by Congress to render advice and recommendations to FHFA or to Congress, to be used solely in connection with their official, designated functions.
(6) To a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to
(7) To contractor personnel, interns, and others performing or working on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, or project for FHFA.
(8) To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations or in connection with criminal law proceedings or in response to a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction.
(9) To the Office of Management and Budget, Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Labor, Office of Personnel Management, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Special Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, or other Federal agencies to obtain advice regarding statutory, regulatory, policy, and other requirements related to the purpose for which FHFA collected the records.
(10) To DOJ, (including United States Attorney Offices), or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative or administrative body, when it is necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. FHFA
2. Any employee of FHFA in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee of FHFA in his/her individual capacity where DOJ or FHFA has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof, is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and FHFA determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is compatible with the purpose for which FHFA collected the records.
(11) To the National Archives and Records Administration or other Federal agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(12) To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
None.
Records are maintained in electronic format, paper form, and magnetic disk or tape. Electronic records are stored in computerized databases. Paper and magnetic disk, or tape records are stored in locked file rooms, locked file cabinets, or locked safes.
Records may be retrieved by name, address, email address, telephone number, Social Security number, professional license number, type of sanction, court or agency responsible for sanction, person who referred the individual or entity to FHFA, or some other unique identifier.
Records are safeguarded in a secured environment. Buildings where records are stored have security cameras and 24-hour security guard service. Computerized records are safeguarded through use of access codes and other information technology security measures. Paper records are safeguarded by locked file rooms, locked file cabinets, or locked safes. Access to the records is restricted to those who require the records in the performance of official duties related to the purposes for which the system is maintained and who have agreed to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the information.
Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the appropriate National Archives and Records Administration General Records Schedule and FHFA Records Retention and Disposition Schedule. Disposal is by shredding or other appropriate disposal methods.
Office of General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Direct inquiries as to whether this system contains a record pertaining to an individual to the Privacy Act Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or
Direct requests for access to a record to the Privacy Act Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or
Direct requests to contest or appeal an adverse determination for a record to the Privacy Act Appeals Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or
Information is provided by the subject of the record, the Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Office of Finance, FHFA and FHFA–OIG, Federal and State financial regulators, and members of the public.
None.
Employee Adverse Action and Disciplinary Records System.
Sensitive but unclassified.
Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, and any alternate work site utilized by employees of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) or by individuals assisting such employees.
Current or former FHFA employees who have been disciplined or had a performance-based action taken against them; who have a proposed disciplinary or performance-based action against them; or who are or have been suspected of misconduct.
Records may include case files and documents related to adverse actions and performance-based actions not covered under the types of records set forth in the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Privacy Act System of Records Notice (OPM/GOVT–3 Records of Adverse Actions, Performance Based Reduction in Grade and Removal Actions, and Termination of Probationers) or any successor system of records notice. The case file may include the individual's name, address and other personally identifiable information; documents related to disciplinary or adverse actions or performance-based action such as:
5 U.S.C. 4301
The records in this system are maintained to document proposed and final agency actions/decisions on disciplinary actions, adverse actions, and performance-based actions.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside FHFA as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(1) When (a) it is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) FHFA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by FHFA or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure is made to such agencies, entities, and persons who are reasonably necessary to assist in connection with FHFA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(2) Where there is an indication of a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local, tribal, foreign or a financial regulatory organization charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing a statute, or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto.
(3) To any individual during the course of any inquiry or investigation conducted by FHFA, or in connection with civil litigation, if FHFA has reason to believe that the individual to whom the record is disclosed may have further information about the matters related therein, and those matters appeared to be relevant at the time to the subject matter of the inquiry.
(4) To any individual with whom FHFA contracts to reproduce, by typing, photocopy or other means, any record within this system for use by FHFA and its employees in connection with their official duties or to any individual who is utilized by FHFA to perform clerical or stenographic functions relating to the official business of FHFA.
(5) To members of advisory committees that are created by FHFA or by Congress to render advice and recommendations to FHFA or to Congress, to be used solely in connection with their official, designated functions.
(6) To a Congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the request of that individual.
(7) To contractor personnel, interns, and others performing or working on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, or project for FHFA.
(8) To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations or in connection with criminal law proceedings or in response to a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction.
(9) To the Office of Management and Budget, Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Labor, Office of Personnel Management, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Special Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, or other Federal agencies to obtain advice regarding statutory, regulatory, policy, and other requirements related to the purpose for which FHFA collected the records.
(10) To DOJ, (including United States Attorney Offices), or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative or administrative body, when it is necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. FHFA
2. Any employee of FHFA in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee of FHFA in his/her individual capacity where DOJ or FHFA has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof, is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and FHFA determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is compatible with the purpose for which FHFA collected the records.
(11) To the National Archives and Records Administration or other Federal agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(12) To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
None, except as may be authorized under OPM/GOVT–3, or under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) when attempting to collect a claim of the United States Government.
Records are maintained in controlled access areas. Buildings where records are stored have security cameras and 24-hour security guard service. Records are maintained in electronic format, paper form, and magnetic disk or tape. Electronic records are protected by restricted access procedures, including user identifications and passwords. Paper and magnetic disk, or tape records are stored in locked file rooms, locked file cabinets, or locked safes. Only FHFA staff whose official duties require access are allowed to view, administer, and control these records.
Records may be retrieved by the employee's name or other unique identifier.
Records are safeguarded in a secured environment. Buildings where records are stored have security cameras and 24-hour security guard service. Computerized records are safeguarded through use of access codes and other information technology security
Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the appropriate National Archives and Records Administration General Records Schedules and FHFA Records Retention and Disposition Schedules. Disposal is by shredding or other appropriate disposal system.
Office of Human Resources Management, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Direct inquiries as to whether this system contains a record pertaining to an individual to the Privacy Act Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or
Direct requests for access to a record to the Privacy Act Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or
Direct requests to contest or appeal an adverse determination for a record to the Privacy Act Appeals Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, or
Individuals about whom the records pertain, witnesses, supervisors, co-workers, contractor personnel, counselors, and others, along with related documentation and correspondence from relevant individuals or entities.
None.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).
Notice and request for comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the FTC is seeking public comments on its request to OMB for a three-year extension of the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in the Trade Regulation Rule entitled Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products (Amplifier Rule or Rule), 16 CFR part 432 (OMB Control Number 3084–0105). That clearance expires on December 31, 2014.
Comments must be received by December 26, 2014.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Requests for copies of the collection of information and supporting documentation should be addressed to Jock K. Chung, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Mail Code CC–9528, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–2984.
On August 18, 2014, the Commission sought comment on the information collection requirements in the Amplifier Rule (79 FR 48748). No comments were received. As required by OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment.
(a) Testing—High fidelity manufacturers—300 new products/year × 1 hour each = 300 hours; and
(b) Disclosures—High fidelity manufacturers—[(300 new products/year × 1 specification sheet) + (300 new products/year × 1 brochure)] × 15 minutes each = 150 hours.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before December 26, 2014. Write “Amplifier Rule: FTC File No. P974222” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you are required to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comment online, or to send it to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Amplifier Rule: FTC File No. P974222” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC–5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before December 26, 2014. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at
Comments on the information collection requirements subject to review under the PRA should also be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, address comments to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395–5167.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for extending the use of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0990–0330, scheduled to expire on 12/31/14. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before December 26, 2014.
Submit your comments to
Information Collection Clearance staff,
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the OMB control number <OCN> and document identifier HHS–OS–0990–0330 30D for reference.
OMHA was established by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 (Pub. L. 108–173) and became operational on July 1, 2005. The MMA legislation and implementing regulations issued on March 8, 2007 instituted a number of changes in the appeals process. The MMA legislation also directed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to consider the feasibility of conducting hearings using telephone or video-teleconference (VTC) technologies. In carrying out this mandate, OMHA makes use of VTC to provide appellants with a vast nationwide network of access points for hearings close to their homes. The first three-year administration cycle of the OMHA survey began in FY08 and a second three-year cycle began in FY12. The survey will continue to be conducted annually over a three-year period, beginning in FY15.
OS 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.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by providing falsified and/or fabricated data to his supervisor and colleagues. Specifically, Respondent:
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating the research record of patch-clamp data. Specifically, Respondent:
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by submitting and publishing multiple falsified and/or fabricated action potential traces and summary data in at least sixty-nine (69) images in twelve (12) different figures across seven (7) publications and three (3) grant applications by duplication and relabeling of traces; resizing, modifying, and splicing different traces; and modifying and/or duplicating bar graphs.
The evidence established that Respondent engaged in research misconduct, as defined by the PHS regulation, in that he significantly departed from accepted research practices by engaging in the intentional and knowing fabrication and falsification of data files.
Dr. Dzhura has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement (Agreement) and has voluntarily agreed for a period of three (3) years, beginning on October 29, 2014:
(1) To exclude himself from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility or involvement in nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as “covered transactions” pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR part 376
(2) to exclude himself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant; and
(3) to retract or correct the following publications:
Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453–8200.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed changes to the currently approved information collection project: “Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (AMPS) Household Component” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by December 26, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395–6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427–1477, or by email at
For over thirty years, results from the MEPS and its predecessor surveys (the 1977 National Medical Care Expenditure Survey, the 1980 National Medical Care Utilization and Expenditure Survey and the 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey) have been used by OMB, DHHS, Congress and a wide number of health services researchers to analyze health care use, expenses and health policy.
Major changes continue to take place in the health care system. The MEPS is needed to provide information about the current state of the health care system as well as to track changes over time. The MEPS permits annual estimates of use of health care and expenditures and sources of payment for that health care. It also permits tracking individual change in employment, income, health insurance and health status over two years. The use of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) as a sampling frame expands the MEPS analytic capacity by providing another data point for comparisons over time.
Households selected for participation in the MEPS–HC are interviewed in person five times. These rounds of interviewing are spaced about 5 months apart. The interview will take place with a family respondent who will report for him/herself and for other family members.
The MEPS–HC has the following goal:
• To provide nationally representative estimates for the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population for health care use, expenditures, sources of payment and health insurance coverage.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the cost and use of health care services and with respect to health statistics and surveys. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(3) and (8); 42 U.S.C. 299b–2.
To achieve the goals of the MEPS–HC the following data collections are implemented:
1. Household Component Core Instrument. The core instrument collects data about persons in sample households. Topical areas asked in each round of interviewing include condition enumeration, health status, health care utilization including prescribed medicines, expense and payment, employment, and health insurance. Other topical areas that are asked only once a year include access to care, income, assets, satisfaction with health plans and providers, children's health, and adult preventive care. While many of the questions are asked about the entire reporting unit, which is typically a family, only one person normally provides this information.
2. Adult Self Administered Questionnaire. A brief self-administered questionnaire (SAQ) will be used to collect self-reported (rather than through household proxy) information on health status, health opinions and satisfaction with health care for adults 18 and older. The items on satisfaction with health care are a subset from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems. The health status items are from the Short Form 12 Version 2, which has been widely used as a measure of self-reported health status in the United States, the Kessler Index of non-specific psychological distress, and the Patient Health Questionnaire.
3. Diabetes Care SAQ. A brief self-administered, paper-and-pencil questionnaire on the quality of diabetes care is administered once a year, during rounds 3 and 5, to persons identified as having diabetes. Included are questions about the number of times the respondent reported having a hemoglobin A1c blood test, whether the respondent reported having his or her feet checked for sores or irritations, whether the respondent reported having an eye exam in which his or her pupils were dilated, the last time the respondent had his or her blood cholesterol checked and whether the diabetes has caused kidney or eye problems. Respondents are also asked if their diabetes is being treated with diet, oral medications or insulin.
4. Permission forms for the MEPS–MPC Provider and Pharmacy Survey. As in previous panels of the MEPS, we will ask respondents for permission to obtain supplemental information from their medical providers (hospitals, physicians, home health agencies and institutions) and pharmacies.
The MEPS–HC was last approved by OMB on December 20th, 2012 and will expire on December 31, 2015. The OMB control number for the MEPS–HC is 0935–0118. All of the supporting documents for the current MEPS–HC can be downloaded from OMB's Web site at.
The MEPS is a multi-purpose survey. In addition to collecting data to yield annual estimates for a variety of measures related to health care use and expenditures, the MEPS also provides estimates of measures related to health status, consumer assessment of health care, health insurance coverage, demographic characteristics, employment and access to health care indicators. Estimates can be provided for individuals, families and population subgroups of interest. Data from the MEPS–HC are intended for a number of annual reports required to be produced by the Agency, including the National Health Care Quality Report and the National Health Care Disparities Report.
AHRQ proposes to make the following changes to questions asked of respondents:
Closing—questions pertaining to respondent email and administration status of the Preventive Care self-administered questionnaire;
Re-enumeration—addition of questions pertaining to educational level attainment and the determination of institutional status;
Provider Probes—determination if health care was received in an overnight facility; and
Health Insurance—questions were added regarding interaction with the health insurance marketplace, enrollment through state health insurance exchanges, the extent of subsidized health insurance, monthly premiums, health insurance metal plan names, and medical debt.
Preventive Care—a field test will be conducted to assess response lost through self-administration.
Questions were removed from the following sections: Access to Care, Medical Conditions, Charge Payment, Child Preventive Health, Disability Days, Emergency Room, Employment, Health Status, Health Insurance, Hospital Stay, Income, Medical Provider Visits, Outpatient Departments, and Satisfaction with Health Plan.
Questions were removed to reduce burden and redundancy, and additional questions were removed due to difficulty in respondent interpretation, low frequency in response or minimal variation, and limited ability of respondent to respond accurately.
There are no changes to the current burden estimates.
There are no changes to the current cost estimates.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
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,
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
Drug Overdose Response Investigation (DORI) Data Collections—New—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
State and local health authorities frequently call upon CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) to assist in their response to urgent public health problems resulting from drug use, misuse, abuse, and overdose. When called, NCIPC supports the states and local health authorities by conducting Drug Overdose Response Investigations (DORI), which entails a rapid and flexible epidemiological response. Urgent requests, such as DORIs, depend on the time and resources available, number of persons involved, and other circumstances unique to the urgent conditions at hand, and usually involve the development of procedures, specific data collection
This request is for a new generic approval to conduct information collections during DORIs. A three-year clearance is requested to ensure: (1) Rapid deployment of data collection tools and (2) timely information collection of vital information. Of particular interest is response to increasing trends in, or changing characteristics of, overdose from prescription drugs (with a special interest in opioid analgesics such as oxycodone or methadone; benzodiazepines such as alprazolam) and/or illicit drugs (
Specifically, this request covers investigative collections with the following aims: (1) To understand sudden increases in drug use and misuse associated with fatal and nonfatal overdoses; (2) to understand the drivers and risk factors associated with those trends; and (3) to identify the groups most affected. This will allow CDC to effectively advise states on recommended actions to control local epidemics. Thus, the ultimate goals of these collections are to minimize adverse health consequences, provide epidemiological data collection support to the states and, based on the findings from the investigation, appropriately assist with implementation of prevention and control measures.
Data is collected by epidemiologists, psychologists, medical professionals, subject matter experts, and biostatisticians. Examples of data collection modes that may be employed during DORIs include: Archival record abstractions and reviews, face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, web-based questionnaires, and self-administered questionnaires.
For example, information collected through archival chart review from hospitals and medical examiners could include demographics, drug use history, reported medical and mental health conditions, place of overdose, place of death, drug paraphernalia on the scene, mode of administration, observers present, naloxone administration, hospital admittance, autopsy findings, and toxicology results. Information collected through interviews with representatives from agencies involved in preventing, intervening, or responding to drug overdose could include professional history, personal experience with drug overdose cases or investigations, prevention or intervention efforts engaged in, and perceptions of characteristics of, or changes in drug overdose cases (
Respondent type will also vary by investigation, but will include organizations typically involved in prevention, intervention, and response to drug overdose (
During a DORI, data is collected once, with the rare need for follow-up. There are no costs to 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,
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
Evaluating Locally-Developed HIV Prevention Interventions for African-American MSM in Los Angeles (OMB No. 0920–0913, expires 01/15/2015)—[Extension]—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Data on HIV cases reported in 33 U.S. states with HIV reporting indicate the burden of HIV/AIDS is most concentrated in the African American population compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Of the 49,704 African American males diagnosed with HIV between 2001 and 2004, 54% of these cases were among men who have sex with men (MSM). In Los Angeles County (LAC), the proportion of HIV/AIDS cases among African American males attributable to male-to-male sexual transmission is even greater (75%). In the absence of an effective vaccine, behavioral interventions represent one of the few methods for reducing high HIV incidence among African American MSM (AAMSM). Unfortunately, in the third decade of the epidemic, very few of the available HIV-prevention interventions for African American populations have been designed specifically for MSM. In fact, until very recently none of CDC's evidence-based, HIV-prevention interventions had been specifically tested for efficacy in reducing HIV transmission among MSM of color. Given the conspicuous absence of (1) evidence-based HIV interventions and (2) outcome evaluations of existing AAMSM interventions, our collaborative team intends to address a glaring research gap by implementing a best-practices model of comprehensive program evaluation.
As of November 7, 2014, 888 men were screened using the eligibility screener, 711 were eligible, and 520 men were consented, enrolled, and completed the baseline assessment. There are a total of 227 men who completed 3-month follow-up and 193 men who completed 6-month follow-up. Each enrolled participant completed a client satisfaction survey for each of the three intervention sessions they attended. Finally, twenty-two men consented for and completed qualitative interviews. There were unanticipated delays in getting our initial OMB approval and delays in enrollment which prevented the study from reaching the desired sample size of 528 and completing data collection within the original 3-year timeframe. When the current information collection request (ICR) expires on January 31st, 2015, we will need to enroll, consent, and baseline approximately 10 more participants. To reach these additional 10 participants, we anticipate having to screen approximately more 20 men. During this extended period, an additional 185 men will complete the 3-month assessment, 225 men will complete the 6-month follow-up questionnaires, and 14 men will consent for and complete the success case study qualitative interviews. We anticipate that all data collection activities will be completed by the end of 2015.
The purpose of this project is to test in a real world setting the efficacy of an HIV transmission prevention intervention for reducing sexual risk among African American men who have sex with men in Los Angeles County. The intervention is a 3-session, group-level intervention that will provide participants with the information, motivation, and skills necessary to reduce their risk of transmitting or acquiring HIV. The intervention is being evaluated using baseline, 3 month and 6 month follow up assessments. This project is also conducting in-depth qualitative interviews with a total of 36 men in order to assess the experiences with the intervention, elicit recommendations for improving the intervention, and to better understand the factors that put young African American MSM at risk for HIV.
CDC is requesting approval for a 1-year clearance to complete data collection. The data collection system involves screenings, limited locator information, contact information, baseline questionnaire, client satisfaction surveys, 3-month follow-up questionnaire, 6-month follow-up questionnaire, and case study interviews. An estimated 20 men will be screened for eligibility in order to enroll 10 additional men to reach the desired sample size of 528. The baseline and follow up questionnaires contain questions about participants' socio-demographic information, health and healthcare, sexual activity, substance use, and other psychosocial issues. The duration of each baseline, 3-month, and 6-month questionnaires are estimated to be 60 minutes; the Success Case Study interviews 90 minutes; Outreach Recruitment Assessment 5 minutes; limited locator information form 5 minutes; participant contact information form 10 minutes; each client satisfaction survey 5 minutes.
There is no cost to participants other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 459.
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463) of October 6, 1972, that the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has amended their charter to add the Tribal Epidemiology Centers as a non-voting liaison representative. The amended filing date is November 5, 2014.
For information, contact Samuel Groseclose, DVM, MPH, Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health and Preparedness and Response, Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D44, Atlanta, Georgia, 30333, telephone (404) 639–0637, or fax (404) 639–7977.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
The meeting announced below concerns Cooperative Research Agreements in the area of Agricultural, Forestry, and Fishing Safety and Health Research, PAR–14–175, initial review.
In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m., January 21, 2015 (Closed).
1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m., January 22, 2015 (Closed).
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee.
Limited teleconference access is also available.
Login information is as follows:
Participants can join the event directly at:
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Immediately in Effect Guidance Document: Product Labeling for Laparoscopic Power Morcellators.” FDA is issuing this guidance to recommend the addition of specific safety statements to the product labeling for laparoscopic power morcellators (LPMs). The Agency is making these recommendations in light of scientific information that suggests that the use of these devices contributes to the dissemination and upstaging of an occult uterine malignancy in women undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery for presumed fibroids. FDA believes this effort will promote the safe and effective use of LPMs when used for gynecologic surgeries.
Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Rebecca Nipper, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1540, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–6527.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Immediately in Effect Guidance Document: Product Labeling for Laparoscopic Power Morcellators.” This guidance is being implemented without prior public comment because the Agency has determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate (21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)). FDA believes that immediate implementation of the guidance is needed to assist in addressing a significant public health issue. Although this guidance document is immediately in effect, FDA will consider all comments received and revise the guidance document when appropriate.
As the number of laparoscopic and minimally invasive procedures has increased through the introduction of new surgical technologies and techniques, additional safety information has become available regarding the use of LPMs. Recent discussions within the patient and clinical communities, as well as the peer-reviewed medical literature, have raised awareness of the risk of spreading unsuspected cancerous tissue beyond the uterus when LPMs are used during gynecologic surgeries intended to treat benign fibroids. Numerous case reports and case series have been published that describe the iatrogenic dissemination, implantation, and subsequent growth of unsuspected neoplastic tissue within the peritoneal cavity following laparoscopic morcellation of uterine tissue believed to contain fibroids based on preoperative diagnosis.
FDA's recent analysis of available information suggested that the risk of an occult uterine sarcoma in a woman undergoing surgical intervention for presumed fibroids is substantially higher than had previously been assumed or reported. FDA's analysis also suggested that patient outcomes, including survival, may be significantly adversely impacted from this upstaging of disease. Patient selection and choice of surgical technique can reduce the risk of spreading cancer. Specifically, the prevalence of unsuspected cancer in women undergoing hysterectomy for fibroids increases with age such that the benefit/risk profile of using LPMs is worse in peri- and post-menopausal women compared to pre-menopausal women. The surgical technique of en bloc tissue removal eliminates the need to perform morcellation, thereby reducing the risk of iatrogenic dissemination and upstaging an occult sarcoma. Importantly, no screening procedure that can reliably detect sarcoma preoperatively has been identified.
FDA considers this new scientific information to represent a significant change to the benefit/risk profile for these devices, prompting the issuance of a Safety Communication on April 17, 2014 (Ref. 1), and convening of the FDA's Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee on July 10–11, 2014 (Ref. 2), to further discuss the use and labeling of LPMs during gynecologic surgeries. FDA is issuing this document after considering the input of the Panel and other stakeholders, including comments made during the Open Public Hearing portion of the Panel meeting.
As a result of the new information and discussions during the public Advisory Committee meeting, FDA recommends that manufacturers of LPMs with a general indication or a specific gynecologic indication prominently include two specific Contraindications and a specific Boxed Warning in their product labeling. FDA believes this may be information that manufacturers should disclose to users under sections 201(n), 502(a), and 502(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(n), 352(a) and 352(f)(2)). The issuance of this guidance represents another step in addressing this serious public health issue. In the future, additional safety communications, guidance, or rulemaking may be undertaken to further support the safe and effective use of LPMs.
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 product labeling for LPMs. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0120; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0485.
In addition, FDA concludes that the labeling statements in the guidance do not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Rather, the labeling statements are “public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public.” (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Office of the Director (OD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited on one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 5,536.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852–3804; telephone: 301–496–7057; fax: 301–402–0220. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.
Technology descriptions follow.
Description of Technology: T-cell-based immunotherapies allow a patient's immune system to concentrate its efforts and destroy cancer cells. In the present technology, the researchers at the National Cancer Institute have developed chimeric antigen receptors (or CARs), which encode an antigen binding domain specific for thymic stromal lymphopoietin receptor (TSLPR) and a T-cell signaling domain. TSLPR is over-expressed on the surface of approximately 10% of adult and pediatric B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemias (BCP–ALL).
Available for licensing is the above-reference CAR technology as well as methods for diagnosing and treating cancer using these CARs.
Potential Commercial Applications:
Competitive Advantages: CAR receptors are specific for TSLPR.
Development Stage:
Inventors: Terry Fry and Haiying Qin (NCI).
Publication: Qin H, et al. Pre-clinical development of a novel chimerical antigen receptor targeting high-risk pediatric ALL over-expressing Tslpr. Blood 2013 Nov 15;122(21):2665.
Intellectual Property:
Licensing Contact: Patrick McCue, Ph.D.; 301–435–5560;
Description of Technology: The invention is directed to small molecules containing a novel, bridged, bicyclic thiazepinone pharmacophore. Invention compounds inhibit the Nav1.7 sodium channel. Additionally, invention compounds bind the human norepinephrine transporter (NET), with selectivity over the serotonin transporter (SERT) and dopamine transporter (DAT).
Invention compounds could be used to treat neuropathic pain associated with diabetes and fibromyalgia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), urinary incontinence, depression, anxiety, and other mood disorders.
Invention compounds can be conjugated with fluorescent or radioactive tags, and used to probe the structure and activity of the Nav1.7 sodium channel and NET.
Potential Commercial Applications:
Competitive Advantages:
Development Stage:
Inventors: Hans F. Luecke (NIDDK), Michael T. Scerba (NIDDK), Dongwook Kang (Daegu Catholic University).
Licensing Contact: Lauren Nguyen-Antczak, Ph.D., J.D.; 301–435–4074;
Collaborative Research Opportunity: The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate or commercialize use of bridged bicyclic thiazepinones. For collaboration opportunities, please contact Marguerite J. Miller, M.B.A. at
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.
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.
6701 Rockledge Drive,
Bethesda, MD 20892.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, November 17, 2014, 11:00 a.m. to November 17, 2014, 03:00 p.m., National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the date of the meeting from November 17, 2014 to December 8, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Cures Acceleration Network Review Board. The meeting will be open to the public, viewing virtually by WebEx. Individuals can register to view and access the meeting by the link below.
1. Go to “Event Status” on the left hand side of page, then click “Register”. On the registration form, enter your information and then click “Submit” to complete the required registration.
2. You will receive a personalized email with the live event link.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to finalizing the agenda and scheduling of meeting topics.
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.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, 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.
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.
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:
OMB's “Mandatory Information Requirements for Federal Assistance Program Announcements” (45 FR 39592, June 11, 1980) requires a statement concerning the official government programs contained in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Normally NIH lists in its announcements the number and title of affected individual programs for the guidance of the public. Because the guidance in this notice covers virtually every NIH and Federal research program in which DNA recombinant molecule techniques could be used, it has been determined not to be cost effective or in the public interest to attempt to list these programs. Such a list would likely require several additional pages. In addition, NIH could not be certain that every Federal program would be included as many Federal agencies, as well as private organizations, both national and international, have elected to follow the NIH Guidelines. In lieu of the individual program listing, NIH invites readers to direct questions to the information address above about whether individual programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance are affected.
The Office of Policy, DHS.
Notice of task assignment for the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Jeh Johnson tasked his Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) to establish a subcommittee entitled the DHS Grant Review Task Force on Friday November 7, 2014. The DHS Grant Review Task Force will provide recommendations to the Homeland Security Advisory Council on how to improve the allocation of annual grant funds among jurisdictions. This notice informs the public of the establishment of the DHS Grant Review Task Force and is not a solicitation for membership.
Mike Miron, Director, Homeland Security Advisory Council and the DHS Grant Review Task Force at 202–447–3135 or
The Homeland Security Advisory Council provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, and actionable advice and recommendations for the consideration of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters related to homeland security. The Homeland Security Advisory Council is comprised of leaders of local law enforcement, first responders, state and local government, the private sector, and academia.
Transportation Security Administration, DHS.
30-Day notice.
This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652–0028, abstracted below to OMB for review and approval of an extension of the currently approved collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a
Upon registering for a voluntary advanced self-defense training class provided by TSA, the collection process involves requesting the name, contact information, airline employee number, and Social Security number (last four digits) from flight and cabin crew members of air carriers to verify employment status and to confirm eligibility to participate. Eligible training participants are flight and cabin crew members of a U.S. airline conducting scheduled passenger operations. On attending class in person, crew members are asked to show a second form of identification to confirm registration information. Additionally, each participant is asked to complete a voluntary course evaluation form after the training concludes.
Send your comments by December 26, 2014. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to
Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA–11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6011; telephone (571) 227–2062; email
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
TSA requests this renewal so that TSA may collect limited biographical information from flight and cabin crew members to continue to confirm their eligibility to participate in this training program and to confirm their attendance. TSA confirms the eligibility of the participant by contacting the participant's employer, and confirms attendance by comparing the registration information against a sign-in sheet provided in the classroom. TSA also asks participants to complete an anonymous and voluntary evaluation form after participation in the training to assess the quality of the training.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public meeting of the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG). The TAMWG is a Federal advisory committee that affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the Trinity Management Council (TMC). The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight.
The in-person meeting will be held at the Weaverville Fire District, 125 Bremer Street, Weaverville, CA 96093.
Elizabeth W. Hadley, Redding Electric Utility, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001; telephone: 530–339–7327; email:
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the Trinity Adaptive Management Working Group (TAMWG) will hold a meeting.
The TAMWG affords stakeholders the opportunity to give policy, management, and technical input concerning Trinity River (California) restoration efforts to the Trinity Management Council (TMC). The TMC interprets and recommends policy, coordinates and reviews management actions, and provides organizational budget oversight.
• Designated Federal Officer (DFO) updates,
• TMC Chair update,
• Executive Director's update,
• TRRP workgroup/Science Coordinator update,
• Implementation update,
• Phase 1 workshop summary presentation,
• TAMWG Information Needs and Communication Discussion,
• TAMWG objectives identification discussion,
• Potential hole filling associated with Dutch Creek restoration site,
• Addition of Humboldt County to the TMC,
• TMC current issues, and
• Public Comment.
The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the TAMWG to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed in “Public Input,” so that the information may be available to the TAMWG for their consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to Elizabeth Hadley in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, one electronic copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Registered speakers who wish to expand on their oral statements, or those who wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to Elizabeth Hadley up to 7 days after the meeting.
Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by Elizabeth Hadley (see
U.S. Geological Survey.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to Public Law 106–503, the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will hold its next meeting in the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) Boardroom at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, California. The Committee is comprised of members from academia, industry, and State government. The Committee shall advise the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on matters relating to the USGS's participation in
The Committee will receive reports on the status of activities of the Program and progress toward Program goals and objectives. The Committee will assess this information and provide guidance on the future undertakings and direction of the Earthquake Hazards Program. Focus topics for this meeting include a program review and strategic planning for 2016–2018.
Meetings of the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee are open to the public.
January 28–29, 2015, commencing at 9:00 a.m. on the first day and adjourning at 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2015.
Dr. William Leith, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 905, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192, (703) 648–6786,
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of filing of plats of survey; Colorado.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office is publishing this notice to inform the public of the intent to officially file the survey plat listed below and afford a proper period of time to protest this action prior to the plat filing. During this time, the plat will be available for review in the BLM Colorado State Office.
Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plat described in this notice will happen on December 26, 2014.
BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215–7093.
Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239–3856.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 8 South, Range 70 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on October 30, 2014.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office is publishing this notice to inform the public of the official filing of the survey plat listed below. The plat will be available for viewing at
The plat described in this notice was filed on August 28, 2014.
BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215–7093.
Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239–3856.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The supplemental plat of sections 12 and 13 in Township 13 South, Range 91 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted and filed on November 3, 2014.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plats of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States office in Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the
Bureau of Land Management-Eastern States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
Survey in Arkansas requested by the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma. Surveys in Iowa were requested by the National Park Service. Surveys in Wisconsin and Mississippi were requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The lands surveyed are:
The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the survey of the subdivision of sections 22 and 27 of Township 1 North, Range 11 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in the State of Arkansas, and was accepted September 25, 2014.
The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, a portion of the 1838 adjusted record meanders, the survey of the subdivision of section 10, and the metes-and-bounds surveys of the Effigy Mounds National Monument boundary of Township
The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south boundary, a portion of the subdivisional lines, a portion of the adjusted 1849 record meanders; the survey of the subdivision of sections 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, and 33, the survey of the Effigy Mounds National Monument boundary in the west half of the southwest quarter of section 27, and the informational traverse of the westerly right-of-way line of Iowa State Highway 76 in the west half of the southeast quarter of section 28 of Township 96 North, Range 3 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in the State of Iowa, and was accepted September 29, 2014.
The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the north boundary and the survey of a parcel of land held in trust for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians in sections 2 and 3 of Township 13 North, Range 7 East, of the Choctaw Meridian, in the State of Mississippi, and was accepted September 24, 2014.
The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the south and east boundaries and a portion of the subdivisional lines, the subdivision of sections 25, 35 and 36, and the survey of land held in trust for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians in sections 25, 35 and 36 of Township 13 North, Range 7 East, of the Choctaw Meridian, in the State of Mississippi, and was accepted September 30, 2014.
The plat of survey represents the retracement, resurvey and monumentation of certain boundaries of lands held in trust for the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, east of state highway 13 in government lot 2 of section 31, Township 51 North, Range 3 West, Fourth Principal Meridian, in the State of Wisconsin, and was accepted September 25, 2014.
We will place a copy of the plats we described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information.
If BLM receives a protest against the surveys, as shown on the plat, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest.
We will not officially file the plats until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before October 31, 2014. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202–371–6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by December 10, 2014. 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.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before September 27, 2014. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202–371–6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by December 10, 2014. 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.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before September 20, 2014. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202–371–6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by December 10, 2014. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 26, 2015.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Tracey Robertson, Chief, Federal Firearms Licensing Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405 or email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
Form number: ATF Form 7 (5310.12)/7CR (5310.16).
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other: Individuals or households.
Abstract: In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(a)(1) each person intending to engage in business as a firearms or ammunition importer or manufacturer, or dealer in firearms shall file an application, pay the required fee with ATF and obtain a license before engaging in business. The information requested on the form will be used to determine eligibility for the license as required by 18 U.S.C. Section 923. Additionally, this form will be used by the public when applying for a Federal firearms license to collect curios and relics to facilitate a personal collection in interstate and foreign commerce. The change to this collection is to combine information from the Application for Federal Firearms License (ATF Form 7 (5310.12)) and the Application for Federal Firearms License (Collector of Curios and Relics) (ATF Form 7CR (5310.16)) into one form. The information requested on the form covers all firearms license types.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E–405B, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 26, 2015.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Tracey Robertson, Chief, Federal Firearms Licensing Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405 or email at
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
Form number: ATF Form 5300.34.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Individuals or households.
Other: None.
Abstract: The form will be used by the public when applying for Federal firearms license and collector of curios and relics license to facilitate a personal collection in interstate and foreign commerce. The information requested on the form will be used by ATF to determine whether the individual is qualified to be a responsible person in a firearms business or as a collector. The form will also be used to add responsible persons to existing Federal firearms licenses.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E–405B, Washington, DC 20530.
On November 19, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled
A Complaint that was filed along with the proposed Consent Decree alleges that the City of Lima (“Lima”) has violated the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations, certain terms and conditions of Lima's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and corresponding requirements under Ohio state law by discharging untreated sewage from its combined sewer system, partially treated wastewater that has bypassed full wastewater treatment, and raw wastewater from its sanitary sewer system into the environment. The proposed Consent Decree would resolve the claims alleged in the Complaint in exchange for Lima's commitments to: (i) Make major upgrades and improvements to its wastewater treatment plant and sewer systems; (ii) pay a $49,000 civil penalty; and (iii) perform a Supplemental Environmental Project that will make environmental enhancements to areas along the banks of the Ottawa River in Lima, at an expected cost of approximately $218,000.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decrees may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)] (PRA). The PRA helps ensure that respondents can provide requested data in the desired format with minimal reporting burden (time and financial resources), that collection instruments are clearly understood, and that the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, ETA is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data about quality pre-apprenticeship programs that prepare qualified entrants for registered apprenticeships and contribute to the development of a diverse and skilled workforce.
Submit written comments to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before January 26, 2015.
Submit written comments to John V. Ladd, Administrator, Office of Apprenticeship, Room N–5311, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202–693–2796 (this is not a toll-free number). Fax: 202–693–3799. Email:
John V. Ladd, Administrator, Office of Apprenticeship, Room N–5311, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone number: 202–693–2796 (this is not a toll-free number).
Through a variety of approaches, pre-apprenticeship programs can be adapted to meet the needs of differing populations being trained, the various employers and sponsors they serve, and the specific opportunities available in the local labor market. The development of an online database of quality pre-apprenticeship programs will provide a valuable tool for job seekers, Registered Apprenticeship program sponsors, and America's Job Center front line staff. A dedicated database will provide a way for job seekers and Registered Apprenticeship programs to access pre-apprenticeship programs that meet the requirements outlined in Training and Employment Notice (TEN) 13–12: “Defining a Quality Pre-Apprenticeship Program and Related Tools and Resources.” In 2009, ETA consulted with stakeholders and partners, including through several in-person listening sessions with labor, employers and the public and through webinars targeted at workforce development partners. In addition, ETA engaged the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship (ACA) to develop recommendations that resulted in the development of TEN 13–12. The development and implementation of a “pre-apprenticeship pathways to success” database will enable ETA to identify pre-apprenticeship programs that meet the “quality pre-apprenticeship” definition and the quality framework criteria. Even more importantly, a national database of pre-apprenticeship programs will facilitate connections between pre-apprenticeship program participants and registered apprenticeship program sponsors, resulting in expanded opportunities. This voluntary data collection will be accomplished using an online form. The public seeking information about pre-apprenticeship programs would go to a map on a Web site, choose a state, and view information about the location of pre-apprenticeship programs, including general descriptions of the services and training they provide.
The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
• Address 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;
• address the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden that would be imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• address ways in which ETA can enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• address ways in which ETA can minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, such as through the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
We will summarize and/or include in the request for OMB approval of the ICR, the comments received in response to this comment request. In addition, those comments will become part of the public record.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on September 19, 2014, applicable to workers of Alsip Acquisition LLC, d.b.a. FutureMark Alsip, Alsip, Illinois (TA–W–85,512). The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the
At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm.
The firm is engaged in the production of coated printing paper. Workers at FutureMark Paper Company, Westport, Connecticut supplied sales services.
The investigation confirmed that worker separations at FutureMark Paper Company, Westport, Connecticut (TA–W–85,512A) are attributable to increased imports of coated printing paper, as are the worker separations at the Alsip Acquisition LLC, d.b.a. FutureMark Alsip, Alsip, Illinois (TA–W–85,512). The worker group includes individuals who worked from their homes in New Jersey but reported to the Westport, Connecticut office.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–85,512 and TA–W–85,512A is hereby issued as follows:
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 21, 2014, applicable to workers of AT&T Services, Inc., Information Technology Operations Division, including on-site leased workers from Accenture LLP, OnX USA LLC (Formerly Agilysys), and IBM Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia (TA–W–83,242), AT&T Services, Inc., Information Technology Operations Division, including on-site leased workers from Accenture LLP, OnX USA LLC (Formerly Agilysys), IBM Corporation, Paragon Computer Professional, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Paragon Solutions and Wavecreste, Inc., (Formerly Genesis Networks Inc.), Middletown, New Jersey (TA–W–83,242A), AT&T Services, Inc., Information Technology Operations Division, Columbus, Ohio (TA–W–83,242B), and AT&T Services, Inc., Information Technology Operations Division, including on-site leased workers from IBM Corporation, Dallas, Texas (TA–W–83,242C). The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the
In response to request from the company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the supply of telecommunications services.
The investigation confirmed that worker separations at AT&T Services, Information Technology Operations Division, White Plains, New York are attributable to the same acquisition of services that contributed importantly to separations at the four certified locations. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers located at AT&T Services, Inc., Information Technology Operations Division, White Plains, New York.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–83,242 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of AT&T Services, Inc., Information Technology Operations Division, including on-site leased workers from Accenture LLP, OnX USA LLC (Formerly Agilysys), and IBM Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia (TA–W–83,242), AT&T Services, Inc., Information Technology Operations Division, including on-site leased workers from Accenture LLP, OnX USA LLC (Formerly Agilysys), IBM Corporation, Paragon Computer Professional, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Paragon Solutions and Wavecreste, Inc., (Formerly Genesis Networks Inc.,), Middletown, New Jersey (TA–W–83,242A), AT&T Services, Inc., Information Technology Operations Division, Columbus, Ohio (TA–W–83,242B), and AT&T Services, Inc., Information Technology Operations Division, including on-site leased workers from IBM Corporation, Dallas, Texas (TA–W–83,242C), AT&T Services, Inc., Information Technology Operations Division, San Ramon, California (TA–W–83,242D) and AT&T Services, Inc., Information Technology Operations Division, White Plains, New York (TA–W–83,242E), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 22, 2012, through February 21, 2016, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through February 21, 2016, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on September 14, applicable to workers of GDF SUEZ Mt. Tom Power Plant, a subsidiary of GDF SUEZ Energy North America, including on-site leased workers from Guidant Group, Holyoke, Massachusetts. The Department's notice of determination was published in the
In response to a petition filed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 455 on behalf of workers at GDF SUEZ Energy North America, Holyoke, Massachusetts, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of electricity.
The state workforce office reports that on-site leased workers from ATEECA also worked on-site at the subject firm.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include on-site leased workers from ATEECA, Holyoke, Massachusetts.
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–85,479 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of GDF SUEZ Mt. Tom Power Plant, a subsidiary of GDF SUEZ Energy North America, including on-site leased workers from Guidant Group and ATEECA, Holyoke, Massachusetts, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 12, 2013, through September 4, 2016, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than December 5, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than December 5, 2014.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA–W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA–W) number issued during the period of
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
B. there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;
2. the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.
1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.
2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.
3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
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 26, 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 requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
Waste permit; Applicant requests that 16 total passengers and crew aboard the 56 meter sailing yacht SY Fidelis be allowed into the Antarctic Treaty area, to cruise along the Antarctic Peninsula for tourism and sightseeing purposes. Applicant proposes to make select stops at non-protected area landings, for day-time sightseeing. Applicant intends to follow Appendix 2 for all food waste and garbage, and the boat has an onboard sewage treatment plant that meets MARPOL 6 standards. Contingency plans are in place in case of accidental releases to the environment.
Antarctic Peninsula, South Shetland Islands.
January 1 to February 1, 2015.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from October 30, 2014 to November 12, 2014. The last biweekly notice was published on November 12, 2014.
Comments must be filed by December 26, 2014. A request for a hearing must be filed by January 26, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1262, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2014–0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2014–0252 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR Part 2.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications,
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The proposed changes remove the TS Index and make other editorial and administrative corrections to the TSs. These administrative changes are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated, and, consequently, the probability and consequence of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature so no new or different accidents result from the proposed changes. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed administrative changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, do not affect any accident analyses, and do not relax any safety system settings.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change is: (1) Adding BAW–10240(P)(A) to the list of approved methodologies for determining core operating limits at MPS2.
The proposed change to TS 6.9.1.8.b permits the use of the appropriate methodology to analyze accidents for cores containing fuel with M5 cladding to ensure that the plant continues to meet applicable design criteria and safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change to the list of NRC-approved methodologies listed in TS 6.9.1.8.b has no impact on plant operation and configuration. The list of methodologies in TS 6.9.1.8.b does not impact either the initiation of an accident or the mitigation of its consequences.
The NRC has previously approved use of M5 fuel rod cladding material provided that licensees ensure compliance with the conditions set forth in the NRC SE [Safety Evaluation] for topical report BAW–10240(P)(A). Confirmation that these conditions are satisfied is performed under 10 CFR 50.59 as part of the normal core reloads process.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed addition of topical report BAW–10240(P)(A) to the list of NRC approved methodologies listed in TS 6.9.1.8.b, has no impact on any plant configuration or system performance. There is no change to the parameters within which the plant is normally operated, and thus, the possibility of a new or different type of accident is not created.
Therefore, the addition of BAW–10240(P)(A) to TS 6.9.1.8.b does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident or malfunction from those previously evaluated within the FSAR.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the list of NRC-approved methodologies listed in TS 6.9.1.8.b has no impact on any plant configuration or system performance. Topical report BAW–10240(P)(A) has been reviewed and approved by the NRC for use with M5 fuel rod cladding. Approved methodologies will be used to ensure that the plant continues to meet applicable design criteria and safety analysis acceptance criteria.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change affects the allowable limit for RWST temperature. Since the RWST is a passive component used as a water supply for ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] and QSS that operate only following an accident, the proposed change cannot cause an accident or affect the probability of any accident.
Evaluations have been performed to address the impact of raising the maximum RWST temperature on the performance of the ECCS and QSS. The evaluations demonstrate that NPSH [Net Positive Suction Head] margin would be maintained for the ECCS and QSS pumps that take suction from the RWST following a Safety Injection Actuation Signal or a Containment Depressurization Actuation Signal. Pipe and component stress limits continue to be met at the higher RWST temperature. Thus, it is concluded that the ECCS and QSS will continue to meet the design basis requirements.
The FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter 15 accident analyses and Chapter 6 containment analyses were performed assuming an RWST temperature that bounds the proposed technical specification change. Thus, the proposed change has no significant impact on the consequences of an accident as documented in the current analysis of record.
Changing the ACTION statement to include the wording “the next” is administrative and editorial in nature. This proposed change does not alter the effective technical content of the ACTION statement.
Thus, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any analyzed accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change only increases the allowable range for the RWST temperature. As such, it cannot initiate a transient or accident. Evaluations have been performed that demonstrate that the ECCS and QSS systems will have adequate NPSH and the design bases will be met.
Thus, the proposed change cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Evaluations have been performed that demonstrate that the ECCS and QSS pumps will maintain NPSH margin when taking suction from the RWST at the higher temperature limit. The mechanical component stress requirements will continue to be met at the higher temperature.
Thus, the ECCS and QSS will continue to operate as required to mitigate a design basis accident.
The accident analyses were performed with assumed RWST temperatures that bound this proposed change. The containment analysis and accident analyses demonstrate that the design basis requirements are met.
Thus, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
(a) Delete TS index pages i through xix.
(b) Replace the first sub-letter under TS Table 4.3–2 Item 4, Steam Line Isolation—“Manual Initiation,” which currently appears as sub-letter “d” on Page 3/4 3–37, with sub-letter “a.”
(c) Revise TS 6.3.2, Facility Staff Qualifications, from:
“If the operations manager does not hold a senior reactor operator license for Millstone Unit No. 3, then the operations manager shall have held a senior reactor operator license at a pressurized water reactor, and the assistant operations manager shall hold a senior reactor operator license for Millstone Unit No. 3.”
to:
“The operations manager or at least one operations middle manager shall hold a senior reactor operator license for Millstone Unit No. 3.”
(d) Replace the term “SORC” in paragraph b of the “Licensee initiated changes to the REMODCM,” described in TS 6.13 with the term “FSRC.”
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The proposed changes remove the TS Index and make other editorial and administrative corrections to the TSs. These administrative changes are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated, and, consequently, the probability and consequences of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature so no new or different accidents result from the proposed changes. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed administrative changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, do not affect any accident analyses, and do not relax any safety system settings.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS allowable value changes involve changes in the margin between the allowable values and the setpoints. The proposed TS changes do not change the trip setpoints. The proposed TS changes do not degrade the performance of, or increase the challenges to, any safety systems assumed to function in the accident analysis. The proposed TS changes do not impact the usefulness of the [surveillance requirements] SRs in evaluating the operability of required systems and components, or the way in which the surveillances are performed. In addition, the [* * *] trip setpoints for the associated TRM [Technical Requirements Manual] functions are not considered an initiator of any analyzed accident, nor does a revision to the allowable value introduce any accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not significantly increased. The proposed change does not affect the performance of any equipment credited to mitigate the radiological consequences of an accident. Evaluation of the proposed TS changes demonstrated that the availability of credited equipment is not significantly affected because of the reduction in margin between the allowable values and the trip setpoints.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes involves changes in allowable value settings to correct non-conservative values. The proposed TS changes do not introduce any failure mechanisms of a different type than those previously evaluated, since there are no physical changes being made to the facility.
No new or different equipment is being installed. No installed equipment is being operated in a different manner. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced. The way surveillance tests are performed remains unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change involves changes in the allowable value settings to correct non-conservative values. The impact of the change on system availability is not significant, based on the frequency of the testing being unchanged, the existence of redundant systems and equipment, and overall system reliability. The proposed change does not significantly impact the condition or performance of structures, systems, and components relied upon for accident mitigation. The proposed change does not result in any hardware changes or in any changes to the analytical limits assumed in accident analyses. Existing operating margin between plant conditions and actual plant setpoints is not significantly reduced due to these changes. The proposed change does not impact any safety analysis assumptions or results.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions. The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an accident. Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
As documented in NUREG–1493, Type B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2 Type A test history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of failure mechanisms that can be categorized as (1) activity based and (2) time based. Activity based failure
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted to allow one time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for both Units 1 and 2 and exceptions from conducting post modification ILRT following replacement of the Units 1 and 2 Steam Generators. These exceptions were for things that have already taken place so their deletion is solely an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no impact on how the units are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident do not involve any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change to the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted to allow one time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for both Units 1 and 2 and exceptions from conducting post modification ILRT following replacement of the Units 1 and 2 Steam Generators. These exceptions were for things that have already taken place so their deletion is solely an administrative action that does not result in any change in how the units are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.16 involves the extension of the Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15 year ILRT Interval and the 75 month Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 94–01, Revision 3–A. Industry experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section XI and TS serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted to allow one time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for both Units 1 and 2 and exceptions from conducting post modification ILRT following replacement of the Units 1 and 2 Steam Generators. These exceptions were for things that have already taken place so their deletion is an administrative action and does not change how the units are operated and maintained, thus there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The NRC considered the impact of previously evaluated accidents during the rulemaking process, and by promulgation of the revised 10 CFR 55 rule, determined that this impact remains acceptable when licensees have an accredited licensed operator training program which is based on a Systems Approach to Training (SAT). EGC maintains an Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) National Academy for Nuclear Training (NANT) accredited program which is based on a SAT. The NRC has concluded in Regulatory Information Summary (RIS) 2001–01, “Eligibility of Operator License Applicants,” and NUREG–1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards For Power Reactors,” that standards and guidelines applied by INPO in their accredited training programs are equivalent to those put forth by or endorsed by the NRC. Therefore, maintaining an INPO accredited SAT-based licensed operator training program is equivalent to maintaining an NRC approved licensed operator training program which conforms to applicable NRC Regulatory Guidelines or NRC endorsed industry standards. The proposed changes conform to NANT ACAD 10–001 licensed operator education and experience eligibility requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves changes to the licensed operator training programs, which are administrative in nature. The EGC licensed operator training programs have been accredited by the National Nuclear Accrediting Board (NNAB) and are based on a SAT, which the NRC has previously found to be acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes are administrative in nature. The proposed TS changes do not affect plant design, hardware, system operation, or procedures for accident mitigation systems. The proposed changes do not significantly impact the performance or proficiency requirements for licensed operators. As a result, the ability of the plant to respond to and mitigate accidents is unchanged by the proposed TS changes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of Shutdown Margin (SDM). SDM is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all BWR [boiling-water reactor] fuel types at all times during the fuel cycle.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant that is, no new or different type of equipment will be installed or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types at all times during the fuel cycle.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change acts to remove current Reactor Coolant System (RCS) chemistry limits and monitoring requirements from the TS and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related procedures. Monitoring and maintaining RCS chemistry minimizes the potential for corrosion of RCS piping and components. Corrosion effects are considered a long-term impact on RCS structural integrity. Because RCS chemistry will continue to be monitored and controlled, removing the current TS requirements and relocating the requirements to the UFSAR and related procedures will not present an adverse impact to the RCS and subsequently, will not impact the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Furthermore, once relocated to the UFSAR and related procedures, changes to RCS chemistry limits and monitoring requirements will be controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change acts to remove current Reactor Coolant System (RCS) chemistry limits and monitoring requirements from the TS and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related procedures. The proposed change does not introduce new modes of plant operation and
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of the proposed change. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any SSC as a result of the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their accident mitigation functions. The proposed change acts to remove current Reactor Coolant System (RCS) chemistry limits and monitoring requirements from the TS and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related procedures. The proposed change will maintain limits on RCS chemistry parameters and will continue to provide associated monitoring requirements. The proposed change does not physically alter any SSC. There will be no effect on those SSCs necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, loss of cooling accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), or any other margin of safety. The applicable radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes request that the P/T limits curves in TS 3.4.10, “RCS Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits” be revised by extending each of the P/T Limits curves below 0 psig to allow operation with the RPV [reactor pressure vessel] at a vacuum.
The P/T curves are used as operational limits during heatup or cooldown maneuvering, when pressure and temperature indications are monitored and compared to the applicable curve to determine that operation is within the allowable region. The P/T curves provide assurance that station operation is consistent with previously evaluated accidents.
Thus, the probability of an accident or the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change the response of any plant equipment to transient conditions. The proposed changes do not introduce any new equipment, modes of system operation, or failure mechanisms.
Therefore, there are no new types of failures or new or different kinds of accidents or transients that could be created by these changes. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not increased by these proposed changes, since the Loss of Coolant Accident analyzed in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] assumes a complete break of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. The proposed changes to the P/T Limits curves do not change this assumption.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 12, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2014.
The supplement dated September 11, 2014, expanded the scope of the application as originally noticed and, therefore, the September 11, 2014, supplement was published in the
The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. Several comments were received and evaluated.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final NSHC determination, including the comments received, are contained in a safety evaluation dated October 31, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2014.
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 30, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 3, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated November 6, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 9, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the SE dated September 29, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on December 3, 2014, Room T–2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen (Telephone 301–415–5844 or Email:
Information regarding changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the DFO if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (240–888–9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Metallurgy & Reactor Fuels will hold a meeting on December 2, 2014, Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review Draft Regulatory Guide DG–1309, “Guidelines for Evaluating the Effects of Light-Water Reactor Coolant Environments in Fatigue Analyses of Metal Components.” The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301–415–7111 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240–888–9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on December 4–6, 2014, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
[
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided 30 minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the Cognizant ACRS Staff with a CD containing each presentation at least 30 minutes before the meeting.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92–463 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting may be closed, as specifically noted above. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting.
ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301–415–8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on December 3, 2014, Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss the Braidwood Units 1 and 2 and Byron
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Kent Howard (Telephone 301–415–2989 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240–888–9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Weeks of November 24, December 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 2014.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 24, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 1, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 8, 2014.
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be Webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 22, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 29, 2014.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Glenn Ellmers at (301) 415–0442 or via email at
The Briefing on Equal Employment Opportunity, Diversity, and Small Business Programs on December 11, 2014, has been rescheduled on December 18, 2014.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or send an email to
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
Notice and request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received within 60 calendar-days of publication of this Notice.
Copies of the subject form may be obtained from the Agency submitting officer.
OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: Essie Bryant, Records Manager, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527; (202) 336–8563.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
Notice and request for comments.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to publish a Notice in the
Comments must be received within 60 calendar-days of publication of this Notice.
Copies of the subject form may be obtained from the Agency submitting officer.
OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: Essie Bryant, Records Manager, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527; (202) 336–8563.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on an information collection request (ICR) 3206–0257, Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104–106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 26, 2014. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, Attention: PRA Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to
The proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Office of Personnel Management and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the Office of Personnel Management's services will be unavailable.
The Office of Personnel Management will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Notice.
This notice identifies Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency that were established or revoked from August 1, 2014, to August 31, 2014.
Senior Executive Resources Services, Senior Executive Services and Performance Management, Employee Services, 202–606–2246.
In accordance with 5 CFR 213.103, Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities available for use by all agencies are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Schedule A, B, and C appointing authorities applicable to a single agency are not codified in the CFR, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) publishes a notice of agency-specific authorities established or revoked each month in the
No Schedule A authorities to report during August 2014.
No Schedule B authorities to report during August 2014.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were approved during August 2014.
The following Schedule C appointing authorities were revoked during August 2014.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954–1958 Comp., p. 218.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (
William Neal Patterson at (202) 606–1984 or by mail at U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street NW., Washington, DC 20415. Please cite “2013 Service Contract Inventory” in all correspondence.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the OPM Performance Review Board.
Carmen Garcia, Employee Services—OPM Human Resources, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606–4999.
Section 4314(c) (1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review boards. The board reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and considers recommendations to the appointing authority regarding the performance of the senior executive.
The following have been designated as members of the Performance Review Board of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management:
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning removal of Return Receipt for Merchandise service from the Mail Classification Schedule. 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 17, 2014, the Postal Service filed a formal request to remove Return Receipt for Merchandise service from the Mail Classification Schedule (MCS).
To support its Request, the Postal Service filed a copy of the Governors' Decision authorizing the request, a Statement of Supporting Justification required by 39 CFR 3020.32, and proposed changes to the MCS.
The Postal Service seeks to remove Return Receipt for Merchandise service from both the Market Dominant and Competitive parts of the MCS. Request at 1; Attachment C. The Postal Service notes that the service does not provide purchasers with the ability to track packages online and is therefore outdated given the availability of alternative Ancillary Services that provide overlapping or improved features compared to those offered by Return Receipt for Merchandise.
The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2015–8 to consider the Request pertaining to the proposed removal of Return Receipt for Merchandise service from the MCS.
Interested persons may submit comments on whether the Postal Service's filings in the captioned docket are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B and subpart E. Comments are due no later than December 3, 2014. The public portions of the filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Anne C. O'Connor to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. MC2015–8 to consider the Postal Service's Request.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Anne C. O'Connor is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in these proceedings are due no later than December 3, 2014.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service hereby provides notice that it has filed a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to remove Return Receipt for Merchandise service from the Mail Classification Schedule's market-dominant product list.
John F. Rosato, 202–268–8597, or
On November 17, 2014, the United States Postal Service® (Postal Service) filed a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to remove Return Receipt for Merchandise service from the Mail Classification Schedule's market-dominant product list, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642. Approval of this request would simplify the Postal Service's Ancillary Services product by recognizing that: (1) Return Receipt for Merchandise service has become outmoded; and (2) equivalent or improved product features can be obtained by transitioning to Signature Confirmation
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service hereby provides notice that it has filed a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to transfer First-Class Mail Parcels from the Mail Classification Schedule's Market-Dominant Product List to its Competitive Product List.
John F. Rosato, 202–268–8597, or
On November 14, 2014 the United States Postal Service® filed a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to transfer First-Class Mail Parcels from the Mail Classification Schedule's market-dominant product list to its competitive product list, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642. The transfer would: (1) Remove First-Class Mail Parcels from the Market-Dominant Product List; and (2) replace it with a new “retail” subcategory within the competitive product list's First-Class Package Service product. The new retail subcategory would provide the same service standards and pricing structure as the current First-Class Mail Parcels product. Documents pertinent to this request are available at
On October 14, 2014, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (“MIAX”) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) (together with MIAX, the “Parties”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a plan for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities, dated October 13, 2014 (“17d–2 Plan” or the “Plan”). The Plan was published for comment on October 23, 2014.
Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d–1 and Rule 17d–2 under the Act.
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d–2 under the Act.
The proposed 17d–2 Plan is intended to reduce regulatory duplication for firms that are common members of both MIAX and FINRA.
Specifically, under the 17d–2 Plan, FINRA would assume examination and enforcement responsibility relating to compliance by Dual Members with the rules of MIAX that are substantially similar to the applicable rules of FINRA,
Under the Plan, MIAX would retain full responsibility for surveillance, examination and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving MIAX's own marketplace, including, without limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated persons (
The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act
The Commission notes that, under the Plan, MIAX and FINRA have allocated regulatory responsibility for those MIAX rules, set forth in the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the rule, or a common member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Plan, FINRA would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by the Parties from time to time.
According to the Plan, MIAX will review the Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules of MIAX or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of Common Rules to add MIAX rules not included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete MIAX rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no longer substantially similar to FINRA rules; and confirm that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be MIAX rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules.
The Commission is hereby declaring effective a Plan that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the oversight and enforcement of all MIAX rules that are substantially similar to the rules of FINRA for common members of MIAX and FINRA. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to MIAX rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules provided in the Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a MIAX rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA rule; delete a MIAX rule from the Certification that is substantially similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification a MIAX rule that is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d–2 under the Act.
This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4–678. The Parties shall notify all
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 adopt an all-inclusive annual listing fee and modify certain other listing fees. While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on January 1, 2015.
The text of the proposed rule change is available 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.
Nasdaq proposes to adopt an all-inclusive annual listing fee, which will simplify billing and provide transparency and certainty to companies as to the annual cost of listing, modify annual fees for listed companies that remain on the existing fee schedule, and clarify certain fee rules.
Nasdaq understands from speaking with listed companies that many companies object to the number and in some cases the variable nature of certain of Nasdaq's listing fees. For example, a company may owe fees when it issues additional shares as a result of events that do not raise money and cannot always be forecasted or budgeted for by the company, such as the exercise by employees of stock options or the implementation of a reverse stock split. To address such concerns, Nasdaq has determined to create an alternative fee schedule, which eliminates fees related to the issuance of additional shares, record-keeping changes, and substitution listing events, thereby simplifying and clarifying for companies the annual fees to which they are subject. In addition, under this alternative fee structure, Nasdaq will also eliminate the fee for a written interpretation of the listing rules and for review by Nasdaq Staff of a compliance plan. As a result, companies subject to this alternative structure will pay only a single annual fee to Nasdaq, which will include all the ordinary costs of listing for the year.
As detailed in the charts below, for companies listed on the Capital Market, other than ADRs and Closed-end Funds, the all-inclusive annual fee will range from $42,000 to $75,000; for ADRs listed on the Capital Market the all-inclusive annual fee will range from $37,000 to $45,000. On the Global and Global Select Markets, the all-inclusive annual fee for companies other than ADRs and Closed-end Funds will range from $45,000 to $155,000 and the all-inclusive annual fee for ADRs will range from $45,000 to $75,000. The all-inclusive annual fee for Closed-end Funds listed on any market tier will range from $30,000 to $100,000. In each case, a company's all-inclusive annual fee will be based on its total shares outstanding.
While this alternative is being introduced in response to feedback from Nasdaq's listed-companies, Nasdaq also understands that this innovation may not be appealing to all companies and therefore proposes to allow currently listed companies the option to switch to the proposed all-inclusive annual fee schedule for 2015 or to wait until 2018, when it will become mandatory for all companies. However, Nasdaq will offer incentives to companies that voluntarily elect the all-inclusive annual fee schedule for 2015.
All companies that list after January 1, 2015 will be subject to the proposed all-inclusive annual fee. However, Nasdaq acknowledges that companies that have already applied to list, or apply in the near term, may have made their listing decision based on Nasdaq's current fee schedule. As such, Nasdaq proposes to make the following accommodation for any company that applied to list on Nasdaq prior to January 1, 2015, and lists after that date. Until December 31, 2017, such an applicant will be billed the all-inclusive annual fee based on the lower of its then-current total shares outstanding or the total shares outstanding reflected in information held by Nasdaq as of the date of listing. As such, regardless of any increase in shares outstanding, the tier upon which the all-inclusive annual fee is based for such companies will not increase until at least January 1, 2018.
The proposed rule change also raises the annual fees that will be paid by listed companies that remain on the existing fee schedule. The annual fee paid by most Capital Market companies last increased effective January 1, 2013.
The revised annual fees for most companies listed on the Capital Market will range from $32,000 to $45,000 based on total shares outstanding, compared with the current $32,000. The revised annual fees for most companies listed on the Global or Global Select Markets will range from $40,000 to $125,000 based on total shares outstanding, compared with the current range of $35,000 to $99,500.
The following charts summarize the current annual fee, the proposed annual fee and the proposed all-inclusive annual fee applicable to domestic and foreign companies, ADRs, and Closed-end Funds.
The revised fees for domestic and foreign companies, other than ADRs and Closed-end Funds, are as follows:
The revised fees for ADRs and Closed-end Funds are as follows:
Finally, Nasdaq proposes to make certain clarifying changes to the existing annual fee rule text and incorporate these same concepts in the proposed all-inclusive fee. First, Nasdaq proposes to clarify how annual fees (including the proposed all-inclusive annual fees) are assessed when a company first lists or transfers between market tiers. Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to codify its practice of pro-rating annual fees based on the month of a company's listing, and provide examples to demonstrate how this proration is applied. Nasdaq's rules already provide that annual fees previously paid are not refundable if a company's securities are removed from Nasdaq. Nasdaq proposes to continue to apply this provision to the proposed all-inclusive fee and to also clarify under both the annual fee and the all-inclusive fee that if a company is removed before it has paid the applicable fee, the fee is nonetheless owed and that Nasdaq will not waive the amount owed.
In the case of a company that transfers between Nasdaq's tiers, the proposed rule change would clarify that the annual fee or all-inclusive annual fee, as applicable, would be prorated based on the month of the company's transfer. However, no amount of the annual fee previously assessed or paid would be refunded if the prorated fee for the new market tier is lower.
The proposed rule would also modify the way a company is charged if it has securities listed on both the Global or Global Select Market and the Capital Market under both the standard annual fee and the all-inclusive annual fee. Presently, while Nasdaq's rules provide that Nasdaq will aggregate shares of all securities listed on the Global Market (including the Global Select Market) in calculating the fee for the Global Market and shares of all securities listed on the Capital Market in calculating the fee for the Capital Market, the rules do not address the situation where the same company has a security listed on each the Global or Global Select Market and the Capital Market. As a result, a company presently is charged separately for the securities on each market tier. Nasdaq believes that this is an inequitable result, and proposes to modify the rules such that in this situation shares listed on the Capital Market are not assessed a separate fee for the Capital Market, but instead are aggregated with the shares listed on the Global or Global Select Market in calculating the fee for that market.
Nasdaq proposes to clarify that where Nasdaq rules waive fees in connection with certain merger situations, the company will receive a credit for the amount waived if the acquired company has already paid that fee. Conversely, in cases where the acquired company has not paid the fee, the forgiven fee will be treated as a waiver. The proposed rule will also extend those fee waivers and credits to companies paying the all-inclusive annual fee. In addition, the proposed rule change will specify which of the entities involved in a merger will receive the waiver or credit. Further, while the rule currently requires that a company apply for a fee waiver if it is applicable, Nasdaq proposes instead to apply these waivers and credits automatically for all eligible companies.
Nasdaq also proposes to delete current IM–5920–1, which provides a waiver for listed securities exempt from registration under Section 12(g) of the Act pursuant to Rule 12g3–2(b). After Nasdaq registered as a national securities exchange, these securities were initially permitted to list pursuant to an exemption from Section 12(a) of the Act.
The proposed rule change will also modify the fee accommodation available to companies that list upon emerging from bankruptcy to reflect the addition of the all-inclusive annual fee alternative. Under that rule, the annual fee for a company that lists upon emerging from bankruptcy is the minimum annual fee for the year of listing and the subsequent two full calendar years (the “Bankruptcy Annual Fee Accommodation”). As revised, such a company can opt to transition to the all-inclusive annual fee for 2015, just like any other company. And, consistent with the current rule, a company that does so will pay the minimum all-inclusive annual fee until the end of its second full calendar year following listing. In this manner, irrespective of when the company listed, it will receive the benefit of the Bankruptcy Annual Fee Accommodation. Moreover, the company will receive the benefits of proposed IM–5910–1(b)(1) for the period after the Bankruptcy Annual Fee Accommodation ends until December 31, 2017.
Last, Nasdaq proposes to modify a cross reference to the record-keeping fee in Rule 5250(e)(3), since that fee will not be payable by all companies, update the preamble to the listing fee section to reflect the changes discussed herein and remove from the rules certain effective dates that are no longer applicable.
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, Nasdaq has designated that the changes be operative on January 1, 2015. Until January 1, 2015, Nasdaq will maintain the existing, applicable fee schedule in its online manual, and will also display the changes proposed herein as being effective in the future.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
As a preliminary matter, Nasdaq competes for listings with other national securities exchanges and companies can easily choose to list on, or transfer to, those alternative venues.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed all-inclusive annual fees are reasonable because Nasdaq is eliminating multiple fees in favor of a single annual fee for listed companies. Under the proposed fee structure, companies can pay less than they would if they remain on the existing structure and pay annual fees, listing of additional shares fees (which can be as much as $65,000 annually) or incur record-keeping or substitution listing fees. The proposed all-inclusive annual fees are also equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because they will be assessed based on a company's shares outstanding, consistent with the way Nasdaq and other national securities exchanges charge fees today.
Nasdaq also believes that the proposed incentives offered to companies that elect the all-inclusive annual listing fee for 2015 are reasonable and not unfairly
The proposed increase to the annual fee for companies that do not elect the all-inclusive fee, which increase is also reflected in the all-inclusive annual fee, is also an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and not unfairly discriminatory based on the enhancements Nasdaq has made since fees were last increased in 2010, for Global and Global Select Market companies, and 2013, for most Capital Market companies.
Changes to the tier ranges for fees charged issuers that do not elect the all-inclusive fee, including ADRs and Closed-end Funds, are not unreasonable nor unfairly discriminatory because these changes were based on a review of the number and size of companies in the existing tier ranges, their historic use of listing-related services, and the fees charged by other markets.
Nasdaq believes that having lower maximum fees for ADRs under the proposed all-inclusive and standard annual fees is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and not unfairly discriminatory because the U.S. listing is not typically an ADR's primary listing. In addition, because ADRs are foreign private issuers, which currently pay a maximum listing of additional shares fee of $7,500, it is appropriate to charge ADRs a lower all-inclusive annual fee than a domestic company, which could pay a listing of additional shares fee of up to $65,000. On the other hand, Nasdaq believes that it is no longer appropriate to grant a preference for listing of additional shares fees to foreign private issuers other than ADRs, because Nasdaq is generally the primary listing for such companies and other exchanges charge additional listing fees for these companies in the same manner as domestic companies. As a result, Nasdaq proposes that foreign private issuers other than ADRs pay the same all-inclusive annual fee as domestic issuers, even though they are subject to a lower listing of additional shares fee under the current fee schedule. Nasdaq would continue to base its fees for these companies only on the shares issued and outstanding in the United States, however, so to the extent a foreign private issuer has another listing, it would only pay fees on those shares that trade on Nasdaq. As a result, Nasdaq believes it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and not unfairly discriminatory to require foreign private issuers, other than ADRs, pay all-inclusive fees on the same schedule as domestic companies. In addition, in light of the historic benefit provided to foreign private issuers by way of a lower listing of additional shares fee, Nasdaq believes it is not unreasonable nor unfairly discriminatory to maintain that benefit until the existing annual fee schedule is completely phased out in 2018.
Nasdaq also believes that it is appropriate to maintain a separate fee schedule for Closed-end Funds based on their unique characteristics. These companies are particularly sensitive to the expenses they incur, given that they compete for investment dollars based on return. In addition, they need to issue shares as a primary means to expand their businesses and raise additional money to invest. As such, Nasdaq already applies a different annual fee and maximum quarterly listing of additional shares fee for these companies, and the proposed rule change maintains a separate, lower fee schedule for them, which remains an equitable allocation of reasonable fees that is not unfairly discriminatory. Nasdaq believes that continuing to assess separate fees for the review of delisting decisions by the Hearings Panels and the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees that is not unfairly discriminatory. These reviews come only after Nasdaq staff has either allowed the company the maximum extension permitted under the listing rules or determined that such an extension is inappropriate. Such reviews are not an ordinary cost of a company's annual listing and any benefit from consideration by the Hearings Panel or Listing and Hearing Review Council is limited to the particular company that requests review and is not precedential with respect to other companies. As such, Nasdaq believes it is appropriate to exclude the fees associated with these activities from the all-inclusive annual fee.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed clarifying changes describing how fees are assessed when a company first lists or transfers between Nasdaq's tiers is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees. In addition, these changes and the addition of examples demonstrating the application of various rules will clarify Nasdaq's rules, and thereby remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest. Nasdaq rules already provide that a company that is removed or voluntarily delists will not receive a refund of the listing fee. Clarifying that a company that transfers to the Capital Market from the Global or Global Select Market receives a credit for the fee previously assessed, but not a refund, aligns the treatment within the rules of these companies with that of companies that are removed or voluntarily delist. Similarly, clarifying that a company that paid an annual fee or all-inclusive annual fee for the year will not be subject to a second fee if it delists and relists in the same year assures that companies do not pay twice for the same services. As such, in each of these cases the company receives listing services for the year it paid the annual fee, and the proposed changes are therefore equitable allocations of reasonable fees.
Prorating fees for new listings based on the month of listing or transfer assures that companies are not subject to fees before listing and are not subject to the higher fees of a particular market tier before they are listed on that tier, subject to the constraints of Nasdaq's monthly billing cycles. The rules already allocate annual fees in this manner for companies that transfer between Nasdaq market tiers.
Aggregating shares listed on the Global or Global Select Market with shares listed on the Capital Market when calculating fees provides an equitable allocation of fees in a manner that is not unfairly discriminatory because it provides the same benefit to a company with shares on both market tiers as is available to a company with all of its shares on the Global or Global Select Market and such a company does
A company that listed upon emerging from bankruptcy currently pays the minimum annual fee for the year of listing and subsequent two years. Allowing such companies that opt in to the all-inclusive annual fee to also pay the minimum fee on that fee schedule during the same period, and forgiving a portion of the all-inclusive annual fee in certain merger situations where the annual fee is similarly forgiven, is not unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory because these proposed changes extend benefits available to companies under the existing fee schedule to companies that will be on the all-inclusive fee schedule, thereby perpetuating features that the Commission has previously concluded satisfy the statutory requirements. Clarifying when a company receives a credit, instead of a waiver, and which company involved in a merger receives that credit or waiver clarifies Nasdaq's rules and is not unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory because these clarifications give effect to the intent of the current waivers while respecting the difference between the two entities involved in a merger.
Finally, Nasdaq believes that the proposed fees are consistent with the investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The market for listing services is extremely competitive and listed companies may freely choose alternative venues based on the aggregate fees assessed, and the value provided by each listing. This rule proposal does not burden competition with other listing venues, which are similarly free to set their fees. Further, this proposed rule change would introduce an all-inclusive annual listing fee, which no other market currently offers and which may therefore increase competition with other listing venues. Nasdaq believes that this innovative fee proposal reflects the existing competition between listing venues and will further enhance such competition. For these reasons, Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition for listings.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest; for the protection of investors; or 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 amend its NYSE MKT rules concerning supervision to harmonize the rules with certain Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) rules and make other conforming change. 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 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 rules concerning supervision to harmonize them with certain FINRA rules and make other conforming changes. Set forth below are descriptions of the harmonization process, the current NYSE MKT rules, and the proposed NYSE MKT rules. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Adopt new rule text that is substantially similar to FINRA Rules 3110, 3120, 3150, and 3170; (2) delete the following rules: Rule 342—Equities (except for certain text in Rule 342.13—Equities regarding qualifications and exam requirements for individuals with supervisory responsibilities), Rule 351(e)—Equities, Rule 354—Equities, Rule 401—Equities, and Rule 401A—Equities; and (3) make other conforming changes.
On July 30, 2007, FINRA's predecessor, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (“NYSER”) consolidated their member firm regulation operations into a combined organization, FINRA. Pursuant to Rule 17d–2 under the Act, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSER, and FINRA entered into an agreement (the “Agreement”) to reduce regulatory duplication for their members by allocating to FINRA certain regulatory responsibilities for NYSE rules and rule interpretations (“FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules”).
As part of its effort to reduce regulatory duplication and relieve firms that are members of FINRA, the Exchange, and NYSE of conflicting or unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA is now engaged in the process of reviewing and amending the NASD and FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules in order to create a consolidated FINRA rulebook.
FINRA recently harmonized NASD and FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules and interpretations concerning supervision. More particularly, FINRA: (1) Adopted FINRA Rules 3110 and 3120 to largely replace NASD Rules 3010 and 3012, respectively; (2) incorporated into FINRA Rule 3110 and its supplementary material the requirements of NASD IM–1000–4, NASD IM–3010–1, FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rule 401A, and FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rule 342.21; (3) replaced NASD Rule 3010(b)(2) with new FINRA Rule 3170; (4) replaced NASD Rule 3110(i) with new FINRA Rule 3150; and (5) deleted the following FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules and NYSE Rule Interpretations: (i) NYSE Rule 342 and related NYSE Rule Interpretations; (ii) NYSE Rule 343 and related NYSE Rule Interpretations; (iii) NYSE Rule 351(e) and related NYSE Rule Interpretation; (iv) NYSE Rule 354; (v) NYSE Rule 401; and (vi) NYSE Rule 401A.
FINRA has announced that the effective date for its rule change will be December 1, 2014. The Exchange proposes to make its proposed rule change effective on the same date as FINRA and will announce the effective date via an Information Memo.
Rule 342(a)—Equities requires each office, department or business activity of a member or member organization (including foreign incorporated branch offices) to be under the supervision and control of the member or member organization establishing it and of the personnel delegated such authority and responsibility. The person in charge of a group of employees must reasonably discharge his or her duties and obligations in connection with supervision and control of the activities of those employees related to the business of their employer and compliance with securities laws and regulations.
Rule 342(b)—Equities provides that the general partners or directors of each member organization must provide for appropriate supervisory control and must designate a general partner or principal executive to assume overall authority and responsibility for internal supervision and control of the organization and compliance with securities laws and regulations. This person must:
• Delegate to qualified principals or employees responsibility and authority
• Establish a separate system of follow-up and review to determine that the delegated authority and responsibility is being properly exercised.
Rule 342(c)—Equities provides that prior consent of the Exchange must be obtained for each office established by a member or member organization, other than a main office.
Rule 342(d)—Equities provides that qualified persons acceptable to the Exchange must be in charge of:
• Any office of a member or member organization;
• Any regional or other group of offices; and
• Any sales department or activity.
Rule 342(e)—Equities provides that the amounts and types of credit extended by a member organization must be supervised by members or principal executives qualified by experience for such control in the types of business in which the member organization extends credit.
Supplementary Materials 342.10–.30—Equities provide additional guidance relating to the definition of branch offices, annual fees, foreign branch offices, the acceptability of supervisors, the experience of senior management, small offices, the supervision of registered representatives, the review of communications with the public, bookkeeping, the supervision of producing managers, information requests, trade review and investigation, the definition of related financial instrument, internal controls, annual branch office inspection, risk-based surveillance and branch office identification, criteria for inspection programs, and annual reports and certifications.
Rule 351(e)—Equities provides that each member not associated with a member organization and a principal executive of each member organization must take one or both of the following two actions in relation to the trades that are subject to the review procedures required by Rule 342.21(a)—Equities:
• Sign a written statement in the form specified in the rule and deliver it to the Exchange by the 15th day of the month following the calendar quarter in which the trade occurred.
• As to any such trade that is the subject of an internal investigation pursuant to Rule 342.21(b)—Equities, but has not been both resolved and included in the written statement, report in writing to the Exchange:
• The commencement of the internal investigation, the identity of the trade and the reason why the trade could not be the subject of the written statement (report by the 15th day of the month, following the calendar quarter in which the trade occurred);
• the quarterly progress of each open investigation (report by the 15th day of the month following the quarter); and
• the completion of the investigation, detailing the methodology and results of the investigation, any internal disciplinary action taken, and any referral of the matter to the Exchange, another self-regulatory organization (“SRO”), the Commission or another federal agency, and including, where no internal disciplinary action has been taken and no such referral has been made, a written statement in relation to the trade in the form specified below (report within one week after completion of the investigation).
Rule 351(e)—Equities also provides that when a statement pertains to one or more trades that have been the subject of an internal investigation pursuant to Rule 342.21(b)—Equities but as to which no internal disciplinary action has been taken and no referral of the matter to the Exchange, another SRO, or a federal agency has been made, the written statement must also refer to the particular trade(s) (rather than to the trades of a particular calendar quarter) and must omit the clause excepting trades reported as the subject of an investigation.
Rule 354(a)—Equities provides that, by April 1 of each year, each member organization must submit a copy of its Rule 342.30—Equities annual report on supervision and compliance to its control person(s) or, if the member organization has no control person, to the audit committee of its Board of Directors or its equivalent committee or group. In the case of a control person that is an organization (a “controlling organization”), the member organization must submit the report to the general counsel of the controlling organization and to the audit committee of the controlling organization's Board of Directors or its equivalent committee or group.
Rule 354(b)—Equities provides that, for the purpose of Rule 354(a)—Equities, “control person” means a person who controls the member organization within the meaning of Rule 2—Equities otherwise than solely by virtue of being a director, general partner, or principal executive (or person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions) of the member organization.
Rule 401(b)—Equities provides that each member and member organization must maintain written policies and procedures, administered pursuant to the internal control requirements prescribed under Rule 342.23—Equities, specifically with respect to the following activities:
• Transmittals of funds (
• from customer accounts to third-party accounts (
• from customer accounts to outside entities (
• from customer accounts to locations other than a customer's primary residence (
• between customers and registered representatives (including the hand-delivery of checks).
• Customer changes of address.
• Customer changes of investment objectives.
The policies and procedures required under Rule 401(b)(1), (2), and (3)—Equities must include a means/method of customer confirmation, notification, or follow-up that can be documented.
Rule 401A(a)—Equities provides that, for every customer complaint they receive that is subject to the reporting requirements of Rule 4530(d)—Equities,
• Acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 15 business days of receiving it, and
• Respond to the issues raised in the complaint within a reasonable period of time.
Rule 401A(b)—Equities provides that each acknowledgement and response required by this rule must be conveyed to the complaining customer by an appropriate method. More specifically:
• Acknowledgements and responses to written complaints must be either:
• in writing, mailed to the complaining customer's last known address, or
• electronically transmitted to the email address from which the complaint
• Acknowledgements and responses to verbal complaints must be either:
• in writing, mailed to the complaining customer's last known address, or
• made verbally to the complaining customer, and recorded in a log of verbal acknowledgements and responses to customer complaints.
Rule 401A(c)—Equities provides that written records of the acknowledgements, responses, and logs required by this rule must be retained in accordance with Rule 440—Equities.
The Exchange proposes to delete the foregoing rules relating to supervision (except as noted below), which are, in main part, either duplicative of, or do not align with, the proposed supervision requirements discussed below, and adopt the text of FINRA Rules 3110, 3120, 3150, and 3170, subject to certain technical and conforming changes.
The Exchange proposes to retain the requirements contained in Rule 342.13(a) and (b)—Equities regarding qualifications and exam requirements for individuals with supervisory responsibilities. The proposed new version of Rule 342(a)—Equities, corresponding to current Rule 342.13(a)—Equities, would provide that any member or employee identified as in charge of: (1) any office of a member or member organization, (2) any regional or other group of offices, or (3) any sales department or activity must have a creditable record and pass the General Securities Sales Supervisor Qualification Examination (Series 9/10) or another examination acceptable to the Exchange. The proposed new version of Rule 342(a) would also adopt the current requirement contained in the Interpretation to NYSE Rule 342
Further, the proposed new version of Rule 342(a)—Equities would adopt the current examples of a related sales or managerial position in the Interpretation to NYSE Rule 342 and the requirement that in order to qualify as a supervisory person, a principal executive
The proposed new version of Rule 342(b)—Equities, corresponding to current Rule 342.13(b)—Equities, would provide that the individuals designated as having day-to-day compliance responsibilities for their respective firms, or who supervise ten or more persons engaged in compliance activities, have the knowledge necessary to carry out their job responsibilities (
• Compliance supervisors at member organizations whose activities are solely related to execution of orders on the Exchange trading floor and who do not conduct any business with the public;
• Compliance supervisors at member organizations whose commissions and other fees from public business (retail and institutional) are under $500,000 in the preceding calendar year and who introduce to another broker-dealer; and
• Supervisors of ten or more persons whose compliance responsibilities are limited to the registration of member organization employees with the various regulators and SROs.
Proposed Rule 3110—Equities is based primarily on requirements in the FINRA rulebook and current Rule 342—Equities relating to, among other things, supervisory systems, written procedures, internal inspections, and review of correspondence.
Proposed Rule 3110(a)—Equities would cover supervisory systems and would require each member organization to establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules. Under the proposed rule, final responsibility for proper supervision would rest with the member organization. In addition, a member organization's supervisory system would be required to provide, at a minimum, for the following:
• The establishment and maintenance of written procedures as required by proposed Rule 3110—Equities.
• The designation, where applicable, of an appropriately registered principal with authority to carry out the supervisory responsibilities of the member organization for each type of business in which it engages for which
• The registration and designation as a branch office or an office of supervisory jurisdiction (“OSJ”) of each location, including the main office, that meets the definitions contained in proposed Rule 3110(e)—Equities.
• The designation of one or more appropriately registered principals in each OSJ and one or more appropriately registered representatives or principals in each non-OSJ branch office with authority to carry out the supervisory responsibilities assigned to that office by the member organization.
• The assignment of each registered person to an appropriately registered representative or principal who would be responsible for supervising that person's activities.
• The use of reasonable efforts to determine that all supervisory personnel are qualified, either by virtue of experience or training, to carry out their assigned responsibilities.
• The participation of each registered representative and registered principal, either individually or collectively, no less than annually, in an interview or meeting conducted by persons designated by the member organization at which compliance matters relevant to the activities of the representative and principal are discussed, which may occur in conjunction with the discussion of other matters and may be conducted at a central or regional location or at the representative's or principal's place of business.
In proposed Rule 3110(b)—Equities, the Exchange proposes to consolidate provisions from current Rule 401A—Equities relating to the review of customer complaints, with various provisions and rules from the FINRA rulebook that currently require written procedures, including provisions relating to the supervision and review of registered representatives' transactions and correspondence. In addition, proposed supplementary material, which is discussed in detail below, would codify and expand guidance in these areas.
Proposed Rule 3110(b)(1)—Equities would address written procedures and would require each member organization to establish, maintain, and enforce written procedures to supervise the types of business in which it engages and the activities of its associated persons that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and applicable Exchange rules.
Under proposed Rule 3110(b)(2)—Equities, the supervisory procedures required by proposed Rule 3110(b)—Equities would include procedures for the review by a registered principal, evidenced in writing, of all transactions relating to the investment banking or securities business of the member organization. Consistent with FINRA Rule 3110(b)(3), proposed Rule 3110(b)(3)—Equities would be marked “Reserved.”
Under proposed Rule 3110(b)(4)—Equities, the supervisory procedures required by proposed Rule 3110(b)—Equities would also include procedures for the review of incoming and outgoing written (including electronic) correspondence and internal communications relating to the member organization's investment banking or securities business and be appropriate for the member organization's business, size, structure, and customers. The supervisory procedures would require the member organization's review of:
• Incoming and outgoing written (including electronic) correspondence to properly identify and handle in accordance with firm procedures, customer complaints, instructions, funds and securities, and communications that are of a subject matter that require review under Exchange rules and federal securities laws; and
• Internal communications to properly identify those communications that are of a subject matter that require review under Exchange rules and federal securities laws.
Such reviews must be conducted by a registered principal and must be evidenced in writing, either electronically or on paper. Those communications include (without limitation):
• Communications between non-research and research departments concerning a research report's contents (Rule 472(b)(3)—Equities);
• Certain communications with the public that require a principal's pre-approval (Rule 2210—Equities); and
• The identification and reporting to the Exchange of customer complaints (Rule 4530—Equities).
Proposed Rule 3110(b)(5)—Equities, would require a member organization's supervisory procedures to include procedures to capture, acknowledge, and respond to all written (including electronic) customer complaints, essentially incorporating the customer complaint requirement in current Rule 401A—Equities, including the limitation on including only written (including electronic) customer complaints. The Exchange believes that oral complaints are difficult to capture and assess, and that they raise competing views as to the substance of the complaint being alleged. Consequently, the Exchange believes that oral complaints do not lend themselves as effectively to a review program as written complaints, which are more readily documented and retained. However, the Exchange reminds member organizations that the failure to address any customer complaint, written or oral, may be a violation of Rule 2010—Equities.
Under proposed Rule 3110(b)(6)—Equities, the supervisory procedures required by proposed Rule 3110(b)—Equities must set forth the supervisory system established by the member organization pursuant to proposed Rule 3110(a)—Equities, and would include:
• The titles, registration status, and locations of the required supervisory personnel and the responsibilities of each supervisory person as these relate to the types of business engaged in, applicable securities laws and regulations, and Exchange rules.
• A record, preserved by the member organization for a period of not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, of the names of all persons who are designated as supervisory personnel and the dates for which such designation is or was effective.
• Procedures prohibiting associated persons who perform a supervisory function from:
• Supervising their own activities; and
• Reporting to, or having their compensation or continued employment determined by, a person or persons they are supervising.
• If a member organization determines, with respect to any of its supervisory personnel, that compliance with the preceding two bullets is not possible because of the member organization's size or a supervisory personnel's position within the firm, the member organization would be required to document:
• The factors the member organization used to reach such determination; and
• How the supervisory arrangement with respect to such supervisory personnel otherwise complies with proposed Rule 3110(a)—Equities.
• Procedures reasonably designed to prevent the supervisory system required pursuant to proposed Rule 3110(a)—Equities from being compromised due to the conflicts of interest that may be present with respect to the associated person being supervised, including the position of such person, the revenue such person generates for the firm, or any compensation that the associated person conducting the supervision may derive from the associated person being supervised.
Proposed Rule 3110(b)(7)—Equities would require a member organization to keep and maintain a copy of its written supervisory procedures, or such relevant portions, in each OSJ and at each location where supervisory activities are conducted on behalf of the member organization. Each member organization would be required to promptly amend its written supervisory procedures to reflect changes in applicable securities laws or regulations, including Exchange rules, and as changes occur in its supervisory system. Each member organization would be responsible for promptly communicating its written supervisory procedures and amendments to all associated persons to whom such written supervisory procedures and amendments are relevant based on their activities and responsibilities.
Proposed Rule 3110(c)—Equities would cover internal inspections. Proposed Rule 3110(c)(1)—Equities would require each member organization to conduct a review, at least annually (on a calendar-year basis), of the businesses in which it engages. The review must be reasonably designed to assist the member organization in detecting and preventing violations of, and achieving compliance with, applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules. Each member organization would be required to review the activities of each office, which would include the periodic examination of customer accounts to detect and prevent irregularities or abuses. Each member organization would also be required to retain a written record of the date upon which each review and inspection is conducted.
In addition, proposed Rule 3110(c)(1)—Equities would require each member organization to inspect at least annually (on a calendar-year basis) every OSJ and any branch office that supervises one or more non-branch locations. Each member organization would also be required to inspect at least every three years every branch office that does not supervise one or more non-branch locations. In establishing how often to inspect each non-supervisory branch office, the member organization would be required to consider whether the nature and complexity of the securities activities for which the location is responsible, the volume of business done at the location, and the number of associated persons assigned to the location require the non-supervisory branch office to be inspected more frequently than every three years. If a member organization establishes a more frequent inspection cycle, the member organization would be required to ensure that at least every three years, the inspection requirements enumerated in proposed Rule 3110(c)(2)—Equities have been met. The member organization's written supervisory and inspection procedures would have to set forth the non-supervisory branch office examination cycle, an explanation of the factors the member organization used in determining the frequency of the examinations in the cycle, and the manner in which a member organization would comply with proposed Rule 3110(c)(2)—Equities if using more frequent inspections than every three years.
Under proposed Rule 3110(c)(1)—Equities, each member organization would also be required to inspect every non-branch location on a regular, periodic schedule. In establishing such schedule, the member organization would be required to consider the nature and complexity of the securities activities for which the location is responsible and the nature and extent of contact with customers. The member organization's written supervisory and inspection procedures would have to set forth the schedule and an explanation regarding how the member organization determined the frequency of the examination.
Proposed Rule 3110(c)(2)—Equities would require that the inspection and review by a member organization pursuant to proposed Rule 3110(c)(1)—Equities be reduced to a written report and kept on file by the member organization for a minimum of three years, unless the inspection is being conducted pursuant to proposed Rule 3110(c)(1)(C)—Equities and the regular periodic schedule is longer than a three-year cycle, in which case the report would have to be kept on file at least until the next inspection report has been written. If applicable to the location being inspected, proposed Rule 3110(c)(2)(A)—Equities would require that location's written inspection report to include, without limitation, the testing and verification of the member organization's policies and procedures, including supervisory policies and procedures in the following areas:
• Safeguarding of customer funds and securities;
• Maintaining books and records;
• Supervision of supervisory personnel;
• Transmittals of funds (
• Changes of customer account information, including address and investment objectives changes and validation of such changes.
Under proposed Rule 3110(c)(2)(B)—Equities, the policies and procedures regarding transmittals of funds must include a means or method of customer confirmation, notification, or follow-up that can be documented. Member organizations could use reasonable risk-based criteria to determine the authenticity of the transmittal instructions. Under proposed Rule 3110(c)(2)(C)—Equities, the policies and procedures regarding changes in customer account information would have to include, for each change processed, a means or method of customer confirmation, notification, or follow-up that can be documented and that complies with Rules 17a–3(a)(17)(i)(B)(2) and 17a–3(a)(17)(i)(B)(3) under the Act.
Pursuant to proposed Rule 3110(c)(2)(D)—Equities, if a member organization does not engage in all of the activities enumerated in the bullets immediately above at the location being inspected, the member organization would be required to identify those activities in the member organization's written supervisory procedures or the location's written inspection report and document in the member organization's written supervisory procedures or the
Under proposed Rule 3110(c)(3)—Equities, for each inspection conducted pursuant to the proposed rule, a member organization would be required to:
• Have procedures reasonably designed to prevent the effectiveness of inspections from being compromised due to conflicts of interest that may be present with respect to the location being inspected, including but not limited to, economic, commercial, or financial interests in the associated persons and businesses being inspected; and
• Ensure that the person conducting an inspection is not an associated person assigned to the location or is not directly or indirectly supervised by, or otherwise reporting to, an associated person assigned to the location.
By way of comparison, under current Rules 342.24—Equities and 342.25—Equities, each branch office must be inspected annually, unless the member organization obtained an exemption by submitting to the Exchange written policies and procedures for systematic risk-based surveillance of its branch offices, in which case each branch office must be inspected at least every three years. The proposed subject matter requirements for inspection reports are substantially the same as the current subject matter requirements.
Section 15(g) of the Act, adopted as part of the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of 1988,
Proposed Rule 3110(d)—Equities incorporates provisions of current Rule 342.21—Equities, with some modifications, and extends the requirement beyond Exchange-listed and Exchange-traded securities and related financial instruments to cover all securities.
Proposed Rule 3110(d)—Equities would cover transaction reviews and investigations. Proposed Rule 3110(d)(1)—Equities would require each member organization to include in its supervisory procedures a process for the review of securities transactions reasonably designed to identify trades that may violate the provisions of the Act, the rules thereunder, or Exchange rules prohibiting insider trading and manipulative and deceptive devices that are effected for the:
• Accounts of the member organization;
• Accounts introduced or carried by the member organization in which a person associated with the member organization has a beneficial interest or the authority to make investment decisions;
• Accounts of a person associated with the member organization that are disclosed to the member organization pursuant to Rule 407—Equities or NASD Rule 3050, as applicable; and
• Covered accounts.
Under proposed Rule 3110(d)(2)—Equities, each member organization would be required to promptly conduct an internal investigation into any such trade to determine whether a violation of those laws or rules has occurred.
In addition, under proposed Rule 3110(d)(3)—Equities, a member organization engaging in investment banking services would be required to file written reports with the Exchange, signed by a senior officer of the member organization, at such times and, without limitation, including such content, as follows:
• Within ten business days of the end of each calendar quarter, a written report describing each internal investigation initiated in the previous calendar quarter pursuant to proposed Rule 3110(d)(2)—Equities, including the identity of the member organization, the date each internal investigation commenced, the status of each open internal investigation, the resolution of any internal investigation reached during the previous calendar quarter, and, with respect to each internal investigation, the identity of the security, trades, accounts, associated persons of the member organization, or associated person of the member organization's family members holding a covered account, under review, and that includes a copy of the member organization's policies and procedures required by proposed Rule 3110(d)(1)—Equities.
• Within five business days of completion of an internal investigation pursuant to proposed Rule 3110(d)(2)—Equities in which it was determined that a violation of the provisions of the Act, the rules thereunder, or Exchange rules prohibiting insider trading and manipulative and deceptive devices had occurred, a written report detailing the completion of the investigation, including the results of the investigation, any internal disciplinary action taken, and any referral of the matter to the Exchange, another SRO, the SEC, or any other federal, state, or international regulatory authority.
For purposes of proposed Rule 3110(d)(4)—Equities, the following definitions would apply:
• The term “covered account” would include any account introduced or carried by the member organization that is held by:
• The spouse of a person associated with the member organization;
• A child of the person associated with the member organization or such person's spouse, provided that the child resides in the same household as or is financially dependent upon the person associated with the member organization;
• Any other related individual over whose account the person associated with the member organization has control; or
• Any other individual over whose account the associated person of the member organization has control and to whose financial support such person materially contributes.
• The term “investment banking services” would include, without limitation, acting as an underwriter, participating in a selling group in an offering for the issuer, or otherwise acting in furtherance of a public offering of the issuer; acting as a financial adviser in a merger or acquisition; providing venture capital or equity lines of credit or serving as placement agent for the issuer or otherwise acting in furtherance of a private offering of the issuer.
Proposed Rule 3110(e)—Equities would define “OSJ” and “branch office.” As noted above, “OSJ” would be a new designation for the Exchange and the definition of the term would substantially mirror FINRA's definition. The term “OSJ” would mean any office of a member organization at which any one or more of the following functions take place:
• Order execution or market making;
• Structuring of public offerings or private placements;
• Maintaining custody of customers' funds or securities;
• Final acceptance (approval) of new accounts on behalf of the member organization;
• Review and endorsement of customer orders;
• Final approval of retail communications for use by persons associated with the member organization, pursuant to Rule 2210(b)(1)—Equities, except for an office that solely conducts final approval of research reports; or
• Responsibility for supervising the activities of persons associated with the member organization at one or more other branch offices of the member organization.
The definition of “branch office” would be substantially the same as current Rule 342.10—Equities. It would mean any location where one or more associated persons of a member organization regularly conducts the business of effecting any transactions in, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of, any security, or is held out as such, excluding:
• Any location that is established solely for customer service or back office type functions where no sales activities are conducted and that is not held out to the public as a branch office;
• Any location that is the associated person's primary residence, provided that:
• Only one associated person, or multiple associated persons who reside at that location and are members of the same immediate family, conduct business at the location;
• The location is not held out to the public as an office and the associated person does not meet with customers at the location;
• Neither customer funds nor securities are handled at that location;
• The associated person is assigned to a designated branch office, and such designated branch office is reflected on all business cards, stationery, retail communications and other communications to the public by such associated person;
• The associated person's correspondence and communications with the public are subject to the firm's supervision in accordance with proposed Rule 3110—Equities;
• Electronic communications (
• All orders are entered through the designated branch office or an electronic system established by the member organization that is reviewable at the branch office;
• Written supervisory procedures pertaining to supervision of sales activities conducted at the residence are maintained by the member organization; and
• A list of the residence locations is maintained by the member organization.
• Any location, other than a primary residence, that is used for securities business for less than 30 business days
• Any office of convenience, where associated persons occasionally and exclusively by appointment meet with customers, which is not held out to the public as an office;
• Any location that is used primarily to engage in non-securities activities and from which the associated person(s) effects no more than 25 securities transactions in any one calendar year; provided that any retail communication identifying such location also sets forth the address and telephone number of the location from which the associated person(s) conducting business at the non-branch locations are directly supervised;
• The floor of a registered national securities exchange where a member organization conducts a direct access business with public customers; or
• A temporary location established in response to the implementation of a business continuity plan.
Notwithstanding the exclusions for branch offices described above, any location that is responsible for supervising the activities of persons associated with the member organization at one or more non-branch locations of the member organization would be considered a branch office.
Proposed Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 3110—Equities would require a member organization's main office location to be registered and designated as a branch office or OSJ if it meets the definitions of a “branch office” or “office of supervisory jurisdiction” as set forth in proposed Rule 3110(e)—Equities. In general, the nature of activities conducted at a main office will satisfy the requirements of such terms.
Proposed Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide that, in addition to the locations that meet the definition of OSJ in proposed Rule 3110(e)—Equities, each member organization must also register and designate other offices as OSJs as is necessary to supervise its associated persons in accordance with the standards set forth in proposed Rule 3110—Equities. In making a determination as to whether to designate a location as an OSJ, the member organization should consider the following factors:
• Whether registered persons at the location engage in retail sales or other activities involving regular contact with public customers;
• Whether a substantial number of registered persons conduct securities activities at, or are otherwise supervised from, such location;
• Whether the location is geographically distant from another OSJ of the firm;
• Whether the member organization's registered persons are geographically dispersed; and
• Whether the securities activities at such location are diverse or complex.
Proposed Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide additional guidance relating to proposed Rule 3110(a)(4)—Equities, which would require a member organization to designate one or more appropriately registered principals in each OSJ with the authority to carry out the supervisory responsibilities assigned to that office (“on-site principal”). The proposed Supplementary Material would provide that the designated on-site principal for each OSJ must have a physical presence, on a regular and routine basis, at each OSJ for which the principal has supervisory responsibilities. Consequently, there would be a general presumption that a principal will not be designated and assigned to be the on-site principal pursuant to proposed Rule 3110(a)(4)—
• Whether the on-site principal is qualified by virtue of experience and training to supervise the activities and associated persons in each location;
• Whether the on-site principal has the capacity and time to supervise the activities and associated persons in each location;
• Whether the on-site principal is a producing registered representative;
• Whether the OSJ locations are in sufficiently close proximity to ensure that the on-site principal is physically present at each location on a regular and routine basis; and
• The nature of activities at each location, including size and number of associated persons, scope of business activities, the nature and complexity of products and services offered, volume of business done, the disciplinary history of persons assigned to such locations, and any other indicators of irregularities or misconduct.
The proposed Supplementary Material would provide that a member organization must establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures regarding the supervision of all OSJs. In all cases where a member organization designates and assigns one on-site principal to supervise more than one OSJ, the member organization would be required to document in the member organization's written supervisory and inspection procedures the factors used to determine why the member organization considers such supervisory structure to be reasonable, and the determination by the member organization will be subject to scrutiny.
Proposed Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide that a member organization is not required to conduct in-person meetings with each registered person or group of registered persons to comply with the annual compliance meeting (or interview) required by proposed Rule 3110(a)(7)—Equities. A member organization that chooses to conduct compliance meetings using other methods (
Proposed Supplementary Material .05 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide that a member organization could use a risk-based review system to comply with proposed Rule 3110(b)(2)—Equities' requirement that a registered principal review all transactions relating to the investment banking or securities business of the member organization. A member organization would not be required to conduct detailed reviews of each transaction if it is using a reasonably designed risk-based review system that provides the member organization with sufficient information that permits it to focus on the areas that pose the greatest numbers and risks of violation.
Proposed Supplementary Material .06 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide that, by employing risk-based principles, a member organization must decide the extent to which additional policies and procedures for the review of:
• Incoming and outgoing written (including electronic) correspondence that fall outside of the subject matters listed in proposed Rule 3110(b)(4)—Equities are necessary for its business and structure. If a member organization's procedures do not require that all correspondence be reviewed before use or distribution, the procedures must provide for:
• The education and training of associated persons regarding the firm's procedures governing correspondence;
• The documentation of such education and training; and
• Surveillance and follow-up to ensure that such procedures are implemented and followed.
• Internal communications that are not of a subject matter that require review under Exchange rules and federal securities laws are necessary for its business and structure.
Proposed Supplementary Material .07 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide that the evidence of review required in proposed Rule 3110(b)(4)—Equities must be chronicled either electronically or on paper and must clearly identify the reviewer, the internal communication or correspondence that was reviewed, the date of review, and the actions taken by the member organization as a result of any significant regulatory issues identified during the review. Merely opening a communication would not be sufficient review.
Proposed Supplementary Material .08 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide that, in the course of the supervision and review of correspondence and internal communications required by proposed Rule 3110(b)(4)—Equities, a supervisor/principal may delegate certain functions to persons who need not be registered. However, the supervisor/principal would remain ultimately responsible for the performance of all necessary supervisory reviews, irrespective of whether he or she delegates functions related to the review. Accordingly, supervisors/principals would have to take reasonable and appropriate action to ensure delegated functions are properly executed and would be required to evidence performance of their procedures sufficiently to demonstrate overall supervisory control.
Proposed Supplementary Material .09 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide that each member organization must retain the internal communications and correspondence of associated persons relating to the member organization's investment banking or securities business for the period of time and accessibility specified in Rule 17a–4(b) under the Act. The names of the persons who prepared outgoing correspondence and who reviewed the correspondence would have to be ascertainable from the retained records, and the retained records would have to be readily available to the Exchange, upon request.
Proposed Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide that a member organization's determination that it is not possible to comply with proposed Rules 3110(b)(6)(C)(i)—Equities or (b)(6)(C)(ii)—Equities prohibiting supervisory personnel from supervising their own activities and from reporting to, or otherwise having compensation or continued employment determined by, a person or persons they are supervising generally will arise in instances where:
• The member organization is a sole proprietor in a single-person firm;
• A registered person is the member organization's most senior executive officer (or similar position); or
• A registered person is one of several of the member organization's most
Proposed Supplementary Material .11 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide that a member organization may use electronic media to satisfy its obligation to communicate its written supervisory procedures, and any amendment thereto, pursuant to proposed Rule 3110(b)(7)—Equities, provided that:
• The written supervisory procedures have been promptly communicated to, and are readily accessible by, all associated persons to whom such supervisory procedures apply based on their activities and responsibilities through, for example, the member organization's intranet system;
• All amendments to the written supervisory procedures are promptly posted to the member organization's electronic media;
• Associated persons are notified when amendments relevant to their activities and responsibilities have been made to the written supervisory procedures;
• The member organization has reasonable procedures to monitor and maintain the security of the material posted to ensure that it cannot be altered by unauthorized persons; and
• The member organization retains current and prior versions of its written supervisory procedures in compliance with the applicable record retention requirements of Rule 17a–4(e)(7) under the Act.
Proposed Supplementary Material .12 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide that, in fulfilling its obligations under proposed Rule 3110(c)—Equities, each member organization must conduct a review, at least annually, of the businesses in which it engages. The review would have to be reasonably designed to assist in detecting and preventing violations of and achieving compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and with Exchange rules. Each member organization would be required to establish and maintain supervisory procedures that must take into consideration, among other things, the firm's size, organizational structure, scope of business activities, number and location of the firm's offices, the nature and complexity of the products and services offered by the firm, the volume of business done, the number of associated persons assigned to a location, the disciplinary history of registered representatives or associated persons, and any indicators of irregularities or misconduct (
Proposed Supplementary Material .13 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide additional guidance to proposed Rule 3110(c)(1)(C)—Equities, which would require a member organization to inspect on a regular periodic schedule every non-branch location. In establishing a non-branch location inspection schedule, there would be a general presumption that a non-branch location will be inspected at least every three years, even in the absence of any indicators of irregularities or misconduct (
Proposed Supplementary Material .14 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide that a member organization's determination that it is not possible to comply with proposed Rule 3110(c)(3)(B)—Equities with respect to who is not allowed to conduct a location's inspection will generally arise in instances where:
• The member organization has only one office; or
• The member organization has a business model where small or single-person offices report directly to an OSJ manager who is also considered the offices' branch office manager.
Proposed Supplementary Material .15 to Rule 3110—Equities would provide a definition for “associated person” for the purposes of proposed Rule 3110—Equities.
Proposed Rule 3120(a)—Equities, which is based on FINRA Rule 3120(a), would provide that each member organization must designate and specifically identify to the Exchange one or more principals who must establish, maintain, and enforce a system of supervisory control policies and procedures that:
• Test and verify that the member organization's supervisory procedures are reasonably designed with respect to the activities of the member organization and its associated persons, to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules; and
• Create additional or amend supervisory procedures where the need is identified by such testing and verification.
Similar to the requirements of current Rule 342.30—Equities, the designated principal or principals would be required to submit to the member organization's senior management no less than annually, a report detailing each member organization's system of supervisory controls, the summary of the test results and significant identified exceptions, and any additional or amended supervisory procedures created in response to the test results.
Proposed Rule 3120(b)—Equities would provide that each report provided to senior management pursuant to proposed Rule 3120(a)—Equities in the calendar year following a calendar year in which a member organization reported $200 million or more in gross revenue must include, to the extent applicable to the member organization's business:
• A tabulation of the reports pertaining to customer complaints and internal investigations made to the Exchange during the preceding year; and
• Discussion of the preceding year's compliance efforts, including procedures and educational programs, in each of the following areas:
• Trading and market activities;
• Investment banking activities;
• Antifraud and sales practices;
• Finance and operations;
• Supervision; and
• Anti-money laundering.
The categories listed above are incorporated from the annual report content requirements of current Rule 342.30—Equities, which apply to all member organizations regardless of revenue. The proposed rule change seeks to mitigate compliance costs and burdens with respect to proposed Rule 3120—Equities' annual reporting requirements by requiring that only member organizations reporting $200 million or more in gross revenues in the preceding year include in their annual reports supplemental information from current Rule 342.30—Equities' annual report content requirements. The Exchange also believes that the proposed threshold strikes the appropriate balance as it encompasses larger member organizations, member
Proposed Rule 3120(c)—Equities would provide that, for purposes of proposed Rule 3120(b)—Equities, “gross revenue” is defined as:
• Total revenue as reported on FOCUS Form Part II or IIA (line item 4030) less commodities revenue (line item 3990), if applicable; or
• Total revenue as reported on FOCUS Form Part II CSE (line item 4030) less, if applicable:
• Commissions on commodity transactions (line item 3991); and
• Commodities gains or losses (line items 3924 and 3904).
Proposed Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 3120—Equities would provide a definition for “associated person” for the purposes of proposed Rule 3120—Equities.
Proposed Rule 3150(a)—Equities would provide that a member organization may hold mail for a customer who will not be receiving mail at his or her usual address, provided that:
• The member organization receives written instructions from the customer that include the time period during which the member organization is requested to hold the customer's mail. If the requested time period included in the instructions is longer than three consecutive months (including any aggregation of time periods from prior requests), the customer's instructions must include an acceptable reason for the request (
• The member organization:
• Informs the customer in writing of any alternate methods, such as email or access through the member organization's Web site, that the customer may use to receive or monitor account activity and information; and
• Obtains the customer's confirmation of the receipt of such information; and
• The member organization verifies at reasonable intervals that the customer's instructions still apply.
Proposed Rule 3150(b)—Equities would provide that, during the time that a member organization is holding mail for a customer, the member organization must be able to communicate with the customer in a timely manner to provide important account information (
Proposed Rule 3150(c)—Equities would provide that a member organization holding a customer's mail pursuant to proposed Rule 3150—Equities must take actions reasonably designed to ensure that the customer's mail is not tampered with, held without the customer's consent, or used by an associated person of the member organization in any manner that would violate Exchange rules or the federal securities laws.
The Exchange currently does not have a rule comparable to proposed Rule 3150—Equities. The Exchange believes that adding proposed Rule 3150—Equities would help protect customers.
Proposed Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 3150—Equities would provide a definition for “associated person” for the purposes of proposed Rule 3150—Equities.
Proposed Rule 3170(a)—Equities would provide the following definitions for purposes of proposed Rule 3170—Equities:
• The term “registered person” would mean any person registered with the Exchange.
• The term “disciplined firm” would mean:
• A member organization that, in connection with sales practices involving the offer, purchase, or sale of any security, has been expelled from membership or participation in any securities industry SRO or is subject to an order of the SEC revoking its registration as a broker-dealer;
• A futures commission merchant or introducing broker that has been formally charged by either the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or a registered futures association with deceptive telemarketing practices or promotional material relating to security futures, those charges have been resolved, and the futures commission merchant or introducing broker has been closed down and permanently barred from the futures industry as a result of those charges; or
• A futures commission merchant or introducing broker that, in connection with sales practices involving the offer, purchase, or sale of security futures is subject to an order of the SEC revoking its registration as a broker or dealer.
• The term “disciplinary history” would mean a finding of a violation by a registered person in the past five years by the SEC, an SRO, or a foreign financial regulatory authority of one or more of the following provisions (or comparable foreign provision) or rules or regulations thereunder:
• Violations of the types enumerated in Section 15(b)(4)(E) of the Act;
• Section 15(c) of the Act;
• Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933;
• Rules 10b–5 and 15g–1 through 15g–9 under the Act;
• NASD Rule 2110 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) or FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) or Rule 2010—Equities (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) or NYSE MKT Rule 476(a)(6) (Failure to Observe High Standards of Commercial Honor and Just and Equitable Principles of Trade) (only if the finding of a violation of NASD Rule 2110, FINRA Rule 2010, Rule 2010—Equities or NYSE MKT Rule 476(a)(6) is for unauthorized trading, churning, conversion, material misrepresentations or omissions to a customer, front-running, trading ahead of research reports or excessive markups), FINRA Rule 5280 (Trading Ahead of Research Reports), NASD Rule 2120 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices) or FINRA Rule 2020 (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices) or Rule 2020—Equities (Use of Manipulative, Deceptive or Other Fraudulent Devices) or NYSE MKT Rule 476(a)(5) (effecting any transaction in, or inducing the purchase or sale of, any security by means of any manipulative, deceptive or other fraudulent device or contrivance), NASD Rule 2310 (Recommendations to Customers (Suitability)) or FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) or Rule 405—Equities (Diligence as to Accounts), NASD Rule 2330 (Customers' Securities or Funds) or FINRA Rule 2150 (Improper Use of Customers' Securities or Funds; Prohibition Against Guarantees and Sharing in Accounts) or Rule 2150—Equities (Improper Use of Customers' Securities or Funds; Prohibition Against Guarantees and Sharing in Accounts), NASD Rule 2440 (Fair Prices and Commissions), NASD Rule 3010 (Supervision) or FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision) or Rule 3110—Equities (Supervision) or NYSE MKT Rule 342 (Offices—Approval, Supervision and Control) (failure to supervise only for both NASD Rule 3010, FINRA Rule 3110, Rule 3110—Equities or NYSE
• The term “tape recording” would include without limitation, any electronic or digital recording that meets the requirements of proposed Rule 3170—Equities.
• The term “taping firm” would mean:
• A member organization with at least five but fewer than ten registered persons, where 40% or more of its registered persons have been associated with one or more disciplined firms in a registered capacity within the last three years;
• A member organization with at least ten but fewer than twenty registered persons, where four or more of its registered persons have been associated with one or more disciplined firms in a registered capacity within the last three years;
• A member organization with at least twenty registered persons where 20% or more of its registered persons have been associated with one or more disciplined firms in a registered capacity within the last three years.
• For purposes of calculating the number of registered persons who have been associated with one or more disciplined firms in a registered capacity within the last three years pursuant to proposed Rule 3170(a)(5)—Equities, member organizations should not include registered persons who:
• Have been registered for an aggregate total of 90 days or less with one or more disciplined firms within the past three years; and
• Do not have a disciplinary history.
Proposed Rule 3170(b)—Equities would provide that each member organization that either is notified by the Exchange or otherwise has actual knowledge that it is a taping firm must establish, maintain, and enforce special written procedures for supervising the telemarketing activities of all of its registered persons. A taping firm required to establish, maintain, and enforce special written procedures pursuant to proposed Rule 3170(b)—Equities would have to establish and implement the procedures within 60 days of receiving notice from the Exchange or obtaining actual knowledge that it is a taping firm.
The procedures required by proposed Rule 3170(b)—Equities would include procedures for tape recording all telephone conversations between the taping firm's registered persons and both existing and potential customers and for reviewing the tape recordings to ensure compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and applicable Exchange rules. The procedures would have to be appropriate for the taping firm's business, size, structure, and customers, and must be maintained for a period of three years from the date that the taping firm establishes and implements the procedures. All tape recordings made pursuant to the requirements of proposed Rule 3170(b)—Equities would have to be retained for a period of not less than three years from the date the tape was created, the first two years in an easily accessible place. Each taping firm would be required to catalog the retained tapes by registered person and date. By the 30th day of the month following the end of each calendar quarter, each taping firm subject to the requirements of proposed Rule 3170(b)—Equities would have to submit to the Exchange a report on the taping firm's supervision of the telemarketing activities of its registered persons.
Proposed Rule 3170(c)—Equities would provide that a member organization that becomes a taping firm for the first time may reduce its staffing levels to fall below the threshold levels within 30 days after receiving notice from the Exchange pursuant to the provisions of proposed Rule 3170(b)(1)—Equities or obtaining actual knowledge that it is a taping firm, provided the member organization promptly notifies the Exchange's Department of Member Regulation in writing of its becoming subject to the rule. Once the member organization has reduced its staffing levels to fall below the threshold levels, it could not rehire a person terminated to accomplish the staff reduction for a period of 180 days. On or prior to reducing staffing levels pursuant to proposed Rule 3170(c)—Equities, a member organization would be required to provide the Exchange's Department of Member Regulation with written notice identifying the terminated person(s).
Proposed Rule 3170(d)—Equities would provide that the Exchange may, in exceptional circumstances, taking into consideration all relevant factors, exempt any taping firm unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions from the requirements of proposed Rule 3170—Equities. A taping firm seeking an exemption would be required to file a written application with the Exchange
The Exchange does not currently have a rule comparable to proposed Rule 3170–Equities. The Exchange believes that adopting proposed Rule 3170–Equities would provide for more effective supervision of member organizations that have a significant number of registered persons with disciplinary history, thereby resulting is enhanced customer protection.
The Exchange also proposes to make certain conforming changes to Rules 476A, 36–Equities, 70–Equities, 86–Equities, 345–Equities, 405–Equities, 407–Equities, 408–Equities, 410–Equities, 416A–Equities, 472–Equities, and 2210–Equities to delete or update cross-references to the proposed rules as applicable. The Exchange also proposes certain technical changes within Rule 86–Equities, which are unrelated to this proposal.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather to achieve greater consistency between the Exchange's rules and FINRA's rules concerning supervision.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, because it allows the Exchange to immediately conform its supervision rules to corresponding FINRA rules. This will ensure that dual members of the Exchange and FINRA generally will be subject to a single set of rules governing supervision. As noted by the Exchange, the proposal will harmonize NYSE MKT and FINRA rules, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance. In addition, the proposal will update and add specificity to the Exchange's requirements governing supervision, which will promote just and equitable principles of trade and help to protect investors. For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
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) of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 proposed rule change consists of amendments to Rule 64 Rules & Procedures (“Rules”) of NSCC in order to clarify that Federal Reserve Banks, central counterparties, and central securities depositories shall not be considered either “Mandatory Purchaser Participants” or “Voluntary Purchaser Participants” as such terms are defined therein, as more fully described below.
In its filing with the Commission, NSCC 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. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Pursuant to the Third Amended and Restated Shareholders Agreement, dated as of December 7, 2005 (“Shareholders Agreement”), by and among The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”), The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), NSCC, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) and the other parties thereto, and NSCC Rule 64: (1) Members (as such term is defined in the Rules
NSCC is proposing to amend Rule 64, as marked on Exhibit 5 hereto, in order to make clear Federal Reserve Banks, central counterparties, and central securities depositories shall not be considered either Mandatory Purchaser Participants or Voluntary Purchaser Participants (as such terms are defined in Rule 64). NSCC has interpreted Rule 64 to exclude from its provisions: (1) Federal Reserve Banks, because it was never intended that such governmental authorities should be required to own shares in DTCC notwithstanding that they may use certain services of NSCC; and (2) central counterparties and central securities depositories, because link arrangements between NSCC and these entities are for the purpose of extending clearing agency services across borders or among closely related activities and products, but not for ownership purposes.
The proposed rule change is consistent with the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(C) which requires that the rules of NSCC “assure a fair representation of its shareholders (or members) and participants in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs . . . [and the Commission] may determine that the representation of participants is fair if they are afforded a reasonable opportunity to acquire voting stock of the clearing agency, directly or indirectly, in reasonable proportion to their use of such clearing agency.”
The proposed rule change will not have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. NSCC will notify
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC, 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The principal purpose of the proposed changes is to establish a risk committee (the “Board Risk Committee”) which would advise the ICE Clear Europe Board (the “Board”) on certain clearing house-wide risk management matters.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the amendments is for ICE Clear Europe to establish the Board Risk Committee. Establishment of the Board Risk Committee is required under Article 28 of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (“EMIR”),
Pursuant to its terms of reference, the Board Risk Committee will report directly to the Board and receive and review all recommendations from each of the product-specific risk committees. The Board Risk Committee will undertake at least annual reviews of business risk mitigation procedures and controls and will have oversight of all risks facing ICE Clear Europe, including counterparty credit risk (across all clearing services) and non-counterparty credit risk matters, such as operational and liquidity risk. The Board Risk Committee will also advise the Board
The Board Risk Committee will be provided (in addition to other relevant information) with results and analysis of back-testing, sensitivity testing, stress testing and reverse stress testing in respect of any review of margin models, methodologies and/or the liquidity risk management framework. The Board Risk Committee will also consider any other issues that may be referred to it by the Board and/or executive, including the exercise of discretion in relation to recovery arrangements under the Rules.
In the course of its work the Board Risk Committee may obtain external legal or other independent advice and secure the attendance of third parties with relevant experience and expertise if it considers this necessary.
The Board Risk Committee will consist of at least two and up to four Clearing Member representatives and at least two and up to four customer representatives, in each case appointed by the Chairman of the Board Risk Committee following consideration by the ICE Clear Europe Nominations Committee. The Chairman of the Board Risk Committee will be an independent non-executive director of ICE Clear Europe appointed by the Board and will be a full voting member of the committee. Any member of the Board Risk Committee may be removed by the Board without cause. The composition of the Board Risk Committee will be reviewed on an annual basis to determine whether the committee has appropriate representation of Clearing Members, customers and independent non-executive directors, and appropriate representation of expertise and experience in relevant risk disciplines, including market, credit and operational risk. Based on this review, the Chairman may determine to request the resignation of one or more committee members and/or appoint one or more additional committee members to achieve such appropriate representation.
The ICE Clear Europe Chief Risk Officer, President and other appropriate ICE Clear Europe staff members will attend Board Risk Committee meetings in a non-voting capacity. In addition, the chairs of any groups or committees involved in the development of risk policies and a representative from each of the markets cleared by ICE Clear Europe will have a right to attend, but not vote, at Board Risk Committee meetings. The Board Risk Committee may also invite external independent experts to attend meetings in a non-voting capacity. A quorum will be a minimum of four members, one of whom must be a customer representative and one of whom must be a Clearing Member representative. (The Chairman of the committee will count toward the quorum for this purpose.) Each Board Risk Committee member will have one vote and decisions of the Board Risk Committee will be made by a simple majority, provided that if the committee is evenly divided, the Chairman may cast a deciding vote (in addition to the Chairman's normal vote as a member of the committee). Meetings will be held as needed and at least quarterly.
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed amendments would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The change will not affect the terms or conditions of any cleared contract or the standards or requirements for participation in or use of the Clearing House, and accordingly should not, in the Clearing House's view, affect the availability of clearing, access to clearing services or the costs of clearing for clearing members or other market participants. ICE Clear Europe further believes that the establishment of the Board Risk Committee will strengthen its risk management capabilities and governance, as required in order to comply with EMIR. As a result, ICE Clear Europe believes that any impact on competition is appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed changes to the rules have not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change; or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–ICEEU–2014–22 and should be submitted on or before December 16,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ is proposing to modify NASDAQ Rule 7018 fees assessed for execution and routing securities listed on NASDAQ, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and on exchanges other than NASDAQ and NYSE.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ 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.
NASDAQ is proposing to amend NASDAQ Rule 7018(1), (2) and (3) to modify fees assessed for execution and routing securities listed on NASDAQ (“Tape C”), NYSE (“Tape A”) and on exchanges other than NASDAQ and the NYSE (“Tape B”), respectively, (together, the “Tapes”) as well as the opening and closing crosses (“Opening and Closing Crosses”) in NASDAQ Rule 7018(d) and (e).
The Exchange is proposing across all of the tapes (the “Tapes”) an increase to the fee for a firm that executes against resting midpoint liquidity from $0.0027 per share executed to $0.0030 per share executed. NASDAQ is seeking to harmonize the remove rate for orders whether or not they execute against the midpoint so that the remove rate for orders is certain before the order is entered. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to increase the charge from $0.0027 to $0.0030 per share executed across all the tapes.
NASDAQ is also proposing to eliminate across all of the tapes the current $0.00293 per share executed rebate for a member with shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent more than 0.10% of Consolidated Volume during the month, with shares executed in the Opening and Closing Cross that represent more than 0.20% of Consolidated Volume and orders entered through a single Nasdaq Market Center MPID that represent more than 0.50% of Consolidated Volume during the month. NASDAQ believes that the elimination of this rebate is warranted since it has failed to increase liquidity in Tape A, B or C securities or to provide members with additional incentive to improve market quality.
The Exchange is also proposing to modify and add new rebates across all of the tapes. Specifically, NASDAQ is proposing to expand and modify the credit for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide liquidity. The rebate will now include a $0.0025 per share executed for midpoint orders. It will be offered provided that
NASDAQ also proposes to also modify this rebate for Tape C securities only. Specifically, the credit of $0.0014 per share executed tier for midpoint orders if the member provides an average daily volume of less than 5 million shares through midpoint orders during the month is proposed to be modified by decreasing it to $0.0010 per share executed. The Exchange believes that is no longer necessary to pay a higher rebate for adding liquidity in Tape C.
The Exchange is also proposing to modify across all of the tapes the existing credit for displayed Designated Retail Orders. The existing rebate of $0.0033 per share will remain, but the rebate will increase slightly to $0.0034 per share executed if the member adds Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non- Penny Pilot Options of 1.40% or more of national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a month as pursuant to Chapter XV, Section 2 of the NOM rules. The Exchange believes that increasing the rebate will attract additional retail order flow.
NASDAQ also is proposing to modify an existing fee for Tape A and Tape B securities. The proposed fee cap of $5,000 per month pertains to both a DOT or LIST Order that executes in the NYSE opening or re-opening process combined with a LIST Order that executes in the NYSEArca and NYSEAmex opening or re-opening process if a member adds Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.40% or more of national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a month as pursuant to Chapter XV, Section 2 of the NOM Rules. The Exchange believes that this will encourage firms that route options customer order flow and equity order flow that would qualify as retail to send more order flow to both NOM and NASDAQ. Additionally, NASDAQ is proposing to combine for Tape B securities the LIST order that executes in an exchange's re-opening process with the language noted above regarding the LIST order that executes in an exchange's opening process. Aside from simplifying the rule language by combining it for a LIST order that executes in the opening or re-opening process, this also serves to reduce and harmonize the fee for a LIST order that executes in an exchange's re-opening process from $0.001 to $0.0005 per share executed in the NYSEArca re-opening process.
NASDAQ Rules 7018(d) and (e) set forth fees assessed for executions received in the Opening and Closing Crosses. The rule provides a fee of $0.0003 per share executed assessed for all other quotes and orders not otherwise noted under the rules. The Exchange is proposing to increase the fee from $0.0003 to $0.0004 per share executed in the Opening and Closing Crosses. The proposed increases to the fees assessed for executions in the Closing and Opening Crosses will help the Exchange recapture some of the costs it incurs operating the cross system, while maintaining very low fees for the execution of orders in these crosses.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
NASDAQ believes that the increase across all of the tapes to the fee for a member that executes against resting midpoint liquidity from $0.0027 per share executed to $0.0030 per share executed is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory and will harmonize the remove rate for orders whether or not they execute against the midpoint so that the remove rate for orders is certain before the order is entered. The Exchange believes the increase is reasonable because the rate is consistent with the standard remove rate and members receive significant price improvement when accessing midpoint liquidity. The fee increase is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the increase is being uniformly assessed across all of the tapes on all members that execute against resting midpoint liquidity. Further, the Exchange believes that the reduced remove rate for receiving a midpoint execution is no longer necessary because the reduction did not result in a meaningful change in midpoint activity.
The Exchange believes that the elimination across all of the tapes of the current $0.00293 per share executed rebate for a member with shares of liquidity provided in all securities through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent more than 0.10% of Consolidated Volume during the month, with shares executed in the Opening and Closing Cross that represent more than 0.20% of Consolidated Volume and orders entered through a single Nasdaq Market Center MPID that represent more than 0.50% of Consolidated Volume during the month is consistent with an equitable allocation of a reasonable fee and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this tier is being eliminated for all members and across all tapes so no members are being disadvantaged. Additionally, only one member qualified for the rebate in October and removing the rebate will impact their total rebates received by less than 1%.
NASDAQ believes that the change across all tapes to the credit for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) that provide liquidity is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory. The new tier for the rebate of $0.0025 per share executed for midpoint orders when the member adds an average daily volume of 5 million or more shares through midpoint orders during the month and either adds Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non- Penny Pilot Options of 1.40% or more of national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a month as pursuant to Chapter XV, Section 2 of the NOM rules or adds 8 million shares of non-displayed liquidity (excluding retail price improvement orders) is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it treats all members uniformly since it is available to all members and across all tapes. The
NASDAQ also proposes to modify the credit for non-displayed orders (other than Supplemental Orders) in one additional way for Tape C securities only. Specifically, the credit of $0.0014 per share executed tier for midpoint orders if the member provides an average daily volume of less than 5 million shares through midpoint orders during the month is proposed to be modified by decreasing it to $0.0010 per share executed. The Exchange believes that this rebate modification applicable to Tape C securities only is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory. NASDAQ believes that the proposed decrease to the rebate is reasonable because it remains a higher rebate than the rebates provided to other non-displayed liquidity in Tape C securities and, thus, still incentivizes members to add midpoint liquidity over other forms of non-displayed liquidity in Tape C and represents only a modest decrease from the current rebate level. NASDAQ believes that the proposed credit is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the rebate for this tier is available and applies uniformly to members that are eligible that provide such liquidity with regard to Tape C securities. Additionally, all members have incentives available and equal opportunity to earn higher rebates for adding more liquidity.
NASDAQ believes that the modification of the existing rebate for Designated Retail Orders is consistent with an equitable allocation of a reasonable fee and not unfairly discriminatory. The existing rebate of $0.0033 per share will remain, but the rebate will increase slightly to $0.0034 per share executed if the member adds Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non- Penny Pilot Options of 1.40% or more of national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a month as pursuant to Chapter XV, Section 2 of the NOM rules. The Exchange believes that the increase to the rebate under certain circumstances is reasonable because it is intended to incentivize liquidity for Designated Retail Orders and thereby improve overall liquidity in the marketplace. The modified rebate is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it is available to all members that satisfy the criteria, regardless of the exchange upon which it is executed. The Exchange notes that rebates linked to options volume is not novel and that the Exchange has other tiers available for members based on options volume.
The Exchange also believes that the modification to another existing fee that is for Tape A and Tape B securities is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the fee is [sic] and relates to both a DOT or LIST Order that executes in the NYSE opening or re-opening process, and is combined with a LIST Order that executes in the NYSEArca and NYSEAmex opening or re-opening process for purposes of a cap of $0.0005 per share executed not to exceed $5,000 per month. This applies if a member adds Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.40% or more of national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a month as pursuant to Chapter XV, Section 2 of the NOM Rules. The Exchange believes that the cap on total charges is reasonable because it provides additional incentives for members to utilize the Exchange router to access liquidity at away markets, as well as provide additional incentives to add options liquidity to receive this routing benefit. This cap is also equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because all members have an equal opportunity to receive this incentive should they choose to avail themselves of this benefit. As noted above, incentives and benefits that combine options and equities volume is [sic] not novel.
NASDAQ also believes that, in connection with the rebate above, combining for Tape B securities the LIST order that executes in an exchange's re-opening process with the LIST order that executes in an exchange's opening process, as well as reducing the fee from $0.001 to $0.0005 per share executed in the NYSEArca re-opening process is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange believes that reducing the fee for the NYSEArca re-opening process is reasonable because it incentivizes members to utilize the Exchange router to access liquidity at away markets. Additionally, this fee reduction is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the reduced fee harmonizes the fee for a LIST order that executes in an exchange's re-opening process and applies to all members.
Lastly, NASDAQ believes that the changes to the fees assessed for participation the Opening and Closing Crosses are consistent with an equitable allocation of a reasonable fee and not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to increase the fee from $0.0003 to $0.0004 per share executed in the Opening and Closing Crosses. The Exchange believes that the fees are reasonable because supporting the crosses requires capital investment to maintain a system that facilitates an orderly auction process, and the proposed increases are designed to offset the costs the Exchange incurs in operating the crosses. Moreover, the proposed fees are equitably allocated because they apply a fee on all members that benefit from participation in the Opening and Closing Crosses, and are based on the type of order entered and contribution to market quality. Similarly, the proposed fees are not unfairly discriminatory because they are based on the type of order executed in the crosses and the benefit to market quality that such orders provide. NASDAQ believes that the proposal to increase the charges assessed for executions in the crosses is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the increased fees are identical in amount and apply to all members that elect to participate in the crosses and receive an execution. Moreover, NASDAQ does not believe that the increased fees will negatively impact participation in the crosses as current rates assessed for the open and closing cross continue to be materially less than the standard fee for accessing liquidity.
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule changes will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Accordingly, NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–NASDAQ–2014–108. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to make minor clarifying changes to Rule 7018(a) with respect to execution and routing of orders in securities priced at $1 or more per share.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make minor clarifying changes concerning the use and definition of the term “Consolidated Volume” provided in Rule 7018(a). Consolidated Volume is currently defined as the total consolidated volume reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month, excluding executed orders with a size of less than one round lot.
The Exchange is also proposing to clarify the definition of Consolidated Volume. The current definition of Consolidated Volume does not expressly state that it encompasses transactions in equity securities only. As noted above, Consolidated Volume is used to determine how impactful a member firm's order activity in BX is in relation to overall equity market volume, thus allowing the Exchange to consider the member firm's contribution to BX as compared to what market participants provide to the larger equity markets. The Exchange believes that adding language to make clear that the Consolidated Volume includes only equities volume will serve to avoid possible misinterpretation that the rule may include volume outside of the equities markets. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to add language to the definition of Consolidated Volume under Rule 7018(a) to clarify that it applies only to equity securities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Specifically, the proposed changes do not alter the meaning or application of the fees and credits provided under Rule 7018(a), and therefore do not affect competition in any respect.
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)(ii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if
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 proposed rule change consists of amendments to Rule 49 of the Rulebook of the Government Securities Division (“GSD” and its Rulebook, “GSD Rules”) of FICC, and Rule 39 of the Clearing Rules of the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD” and its Clearing Rules, “MBSD Rules”) of FICC in order to clarify that Federal Reserve Banks, central counterparties, and central securities depositories shall not be considered either “Mandatory Purchaser Participants” or “Voluntary Purchaser Participants,” and further to clarify that Registered Investment Companies shall be considered “Voluntary Purchaser Participants,” as more fully described below.
In its filing with the Commission, FICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Pursuant to the Third Amended and Restated Shareholders Agreement, dated as of December 7, 2005 (“Shareholders Agreement”), by and among The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”), The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), FICC, and the other parties thereto, and MBSD Rule 39, Clearing Members (as such term is defined in the MBSD Rules
FICC is proposing to amend MBSD Rule 39 and GSD Rule 49, as marked on Exhibit 5 hereto, in order to make clear Federal Reserve Banks, central counterparties, and central securities depositories shall not be considered either Mandatory Purchaser Participants or Voluntary Purchaser Participants. FICC has interpreted MBSD Rule 39 and GSD Rule 49 to exclude from their provisions: (1) Federal Reserve Banks, because it was never intended that such governmental authorities should be required to own shares in DTCC, notwithstanding that they may use certain services of FICC; and (2) central counterparties and central securities depositories, because link arrangements between FICC and these entities are for the purpose of extending clearing agency services across borders or among closely related activities and products, but not for ownership purposes.
FICC is also proposing to amend MBSD Rule 39 and GSD Rule 49 in order to make clear Registered Investment Companies (as such term is defined in the MBSD Rules and the GSD Rules) (“RICs”) in any membership category shall be considered Voluntary Purchaser Participants. As Voluntary Purchaser Participants, RICs would be permitted, but not required, to purchase and own Common Shares and be parties to the Shareholders Agreement. Regulatory requirements applicable to RICs, including limitations on the amount of illiquid securities these entities are permitted to hold on an on-going basis and requirements that stock purchases receive shareholder approval, significantly restrict the ability of RICs to participate in a mandatory stock purchase. These restrictions are unique to RICs. FICC would consider the applicability of the requirements in MBSD Rule 39 and GSD Rule 49 to any new members, as necessary.
The proposed rule change is consistent with the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(C) which requires that the rules of FICC “assure a fair representation of its shareholders (or members) and participants in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs . . . [and the Commission] may determine that the representation of participants is fair if they are afforded a reasonable opportunity to acquire voting stock of the clearing agency, directly or indirectly, in reasonable proportion to their use of such clearing agency.”
The proposed rule change will not have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by FICC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–FICC–2014–08. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change consists of amendments to Rule 31 of the Rules and Procedures (“Rules”) of DTC in order to clarify that Federal Reserve Banks, central counterparties, and central securities depositories shall not be considered either “Mandatory Purchaser Participants” or “Voluntary Purchaser Participants,” as such terms are defined therein, as more fully described below.
In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Pursuant to the Third Amended and Restated Shareholders Agreement, dated as of December 7, 2005 (“Shareholders Agreement”), by and among The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”), DTC, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) and the other parties thereto, and DTC Rule 31, Participants (as such term is defined in the Rules
DTC is proposing to amend Rule 31, as marked on Exhibit 5 hereto, in order to make clear Federal Reserve Banks, central counterparties, and central securities depositories shall not be considered either Mandatory Purchaser Participants or Voluntary Purchaser Participants (as such term is defined in Rule 31). DTC has interpreted Rule 31 to exclude from its provisions: (1) Federal Reserve Banks, because it was never intended that such governmental authorities should be required to own shares in DTCC, notwithstanding that they may use certain services of DTC; and (2) central counterparties and central securities depositories, because link arrangements between DTC and these entities are for the purpose of extending clearing agency services across borders or among closely related activities and products, but not for ownership purposes.
The proposed rule change is consistent with the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(C) which requires that the rules of DTC “assure a fair representation of its shareholders (or members) and participants in the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs . . . [and the Commission] may determine that the representation of participants is fair if they are afforded a reasonable opportunity to acquire voting stock of the clearing agency, directly or indirectly, in reasonable proportion to their use of such clearing agency.”
The proposed rule change will not have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by DTC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 19, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) conditionally exempted, with respect to certain credit ratings and until December 2, 2010, nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (“NRSROs”) from certain requirements in Rule 17g–5(a)(3)
Rule 17g–5 identifies, in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the rule, a series of conflicts of interest arising from the business of determining credit ratings.
In December 2009, the Commission adopted subparagraph (a)(3) to Rule 17g–5. This provision requires an NRSRO that is hired by an arranger to determine an initial credit rating for a structured finance product to take certain steps designed to allow an NRSRO that is not hired by the arranger to nonetheless determine an initial credit rating—and subsequently monitor that credit rating—for the structured finance product.
• Maintain on a password-protected Internet Web site a list of each structured finance product for which it currently is in the process of determining an initial credit rating in chronological order and identifying the type of structured finance product, the name of the issuer, the date the rating process was initiated, and the Internet Web site address where the arranger represents the information provided to the hired NRSRO can be accessed by other NRSROs;
• Provide free and unlimited access to such password-protected Internet Web site during the applicable calendar year to any NRSRO that provides it with a copy of the certification described in paragraph (e) of Rule 17g–5 that covers that calendar year;
The undersigned hereby certifies that it will access the Internet Web sites described in 17 CFR 240.17g–5(a)(3) solely for the purpose of determining or monitoring credit ratings. Further, the undersigned certifies that it will keep the information it accesses pursuant to 17 CFR 240.17g–5(a)(3) confidential and treat it as material nonpublic information subject to its written policies and procedures established, maintained, and enforced pursuant to section 15E(g)(1) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o–7(g)(1)) and 17 CFR 240.17g–4. Further, the undersigned certifies that it will determine and maintain credit ratings for at least 10% of the issued securities and money market instruments for which it accesses information pursuant to 17 CFR 240.17g–5(a)(3)(iii), if it accesses such information for 10 or more issued securities or money market instruments in the calendar year covered by the certification. Further, the undersigned certifies one of the following as applicable: (1) In the most recent calendar year during which it accessed information pursuant to § 17 CFR 240.17g–5(a)(3), the undersigned accessed information for [Insert Number] issued securities and money market instruments through Internet Web sites described in 17 CFR 240.17g–5(a)(3) and determined and maintained credit ratings for [Insert Number] of such securities and money market instruments; or (2) The undersigned previously has not accessed information pursuant to 17 CFR 240.17g–5(a)(3) 10 or more times during the most recently ended calendar year.
• Obtain from the arranger a written representation that can reasonably be relied upon that the arranger will, among other things, disclose on a password-protected Internet Web site the information it provides to the hired NRSRO to determine the initial credit rating (and monitor that credit rating) and provide access to the Web site to an NRSRO that provides it with a copy of the certification described in paragraph (e) of Rule 17g–5.
The Commission stated in the Adopting Release that subparagraph Rule 17g–5(a)(3) is designed to address conflicts of interest and improve the quality of credit ratings for structured finance products by making it possible for more NRSROs to rate structured finance products.
Rule 17g–5(a)(3) became effective on February 2, 2010, and the compliance date for Rule 17g–5(a)(3) was June 2, 2010.
In the Order, the Commission requested comment generally, but also on a number of specific issues.
Given the continued concerns about potential disruptions of local securitization markets, and because the Commission's consideration of the issues raised will benefit from additional time to engage in further dialogue with interested parties and to monitor market and regulatory developments, the Commission believes extending the conditional temporary exemption until December 2, 2015 is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.
The Commission believes that it would be useful to continue to provide interested parties opportunity to comment. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number S7–04–09. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us 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 foregoing reasons, the Commission believes it would be necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to extend the conditional temporary exemption exempting NRSROs from complying with Rule 17g–5(a)(3) with respect to rating covered transactions until December 2, 2015.
Accordingly,
(1) The issuer of the security or money market instrument is not a U.S. person (as defined under Securities Act Rule 902(k)); and
(2) The nationally recognized statistical rating organization has a reasonable basis to conclude that the structured finance product will be offered and sold upon issuance, and that any arranger linked to the structured finance product will effect transactions of the structured finance product after issuance, only in transactions that occur outside the U.S.
By the Commission.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of the issuers listed below.
1. Bravo Enterprises Ltd. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Patchogue, New York. Questions have arisen concerning the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information, including information about the relationship between the company's business prospects and the current Ebola crisis. The company is quoted on OTC Link (previously “Pink Sheets”) operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. (“OTC Link”), under the stock symbol OGNG.
2. Immunotech Laboratories, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Monrovia, California. Questions have arisen concerning the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information, including information about the relationship between the company's business prospects and the current Ebola crisis. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the stock symbol IMMB.
3. Myriad Interactive Media, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Toronto, Canada. Questions have arisen concerning the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information, including information about the relationship between the company's business prospects and the current Ebola crisis.
4. Wholehealth Products, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Anaheim, California. Questions have arisen concerning the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information, including information about the relationship between the company's business prospects and the current Ebola crisis. The company is quoted on OTC Link under the stock symbol GWPC.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require the suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies.
By the Commission.
Selective Service System.
Notice.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100–503), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Conduct of Matching Programs (54 FR 25818 (June 19, 1989)), and OMB Bulletin 89–22, the following information is provided:
1. Name of participating agencies.
The Selective Service System (SSS) and the Department of Education (ED).
2. Purpose of the match.
The purpose of this matching program is to ensure that the requirements of Section 12(f) of the Military Selective Service Act [50 U.S.C. App. 462 (f)] are met. This program has been in effect since December 6, 1985.
3. Authority for conducting the matching.
Computerized access to the Selective Service Registrant Registration Records (SSS–9) enables ED to confirm the registration status of applicants for assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended (20 U.S.C. 1070 et. seq.). Section 12(f) of the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA), as amended [50 U.S.C. App. 462(f)], denies eligibility for any form of assistance or benefit under Title IV of the HEA to any person required to present himself for and submit to registration under Section 3 of the MSSA [50 U.S.C. App. 453] who fails to do so in accordance with that section and any rules and regulations issued under that section. In addition, Section 12(f)(2) of the MSSA specifies that any person required to present himself for and submit to registration under Section 3 of the MSSA must file a statement with the institution of higher education where the person intends to attend or is attending that he is in compliance with the MSSA. Furthermore, Section 12(f)(3) of the MSSA authorizes the Secretary of Education, in agreement with the Director of the Selective Service, to prescribe methods for verifying the statements of compliance filed by students.
Section 484(n) of the HEA [20 U.S.C. 1091(n)], requires the Secretary to conduct data base matches with SSS, using common demographic data elements, to enforce the Selective Service registration provisions of the MSSA [50 U.S.C. App. 462(f)], and further states that appropriate confirmation of a person shall fulfill the requirement to file a separate statement of compliance.
4. Categories of records and individuals covered.
1. Federal Student Aid Application File (18–11–01).
Individuals covered are men born after December 31, 1959, but at least 18 years old by January 1 of the applicable award year.
2. Selective Service Registration Records (SSS–9).
5. Inclusive dates of the matching program.
Commence on January 2, 2015 or 40 days after copies of the matching agreement are transmitted simultaneously to the Committee on Government Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives, and the Office of Management and Budget, whichever is later, and remain in effect for eighteen months unless earlier terminated or modified by agreement of the parties.
6. Address for receipt of public comments or inquires.
Mr. Darren Lloyd, Selective Service System, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209–2425.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. 4301
Notice.
On October 24, 2014, the Deputy Secretary of State took the following action: “Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Deputy Secretary of State, including by section 7008 of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014 (Div. K, Pub. L. 113–76), as carried forward by the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (Pub. L. 113–64), and similar provisions in prior year Acts, Executive Order 12163, as amended, and State Department Delegation of Authority No. 245–1, I hereby determine and certify that, subsequent to the termination of assistance to the Government of Fiji after that country's December 2006 military coup, a democratically elected government has taken office in Fiji.
“This Determination and Certification shall be reported to Congress and published in the
This Determination and Certification has been reported to Congress.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full the Mazda Motor Corporation's (Mazda) petition for an exemption of the (confidential) vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543,
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2016 model year (MY).
Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43–443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number is (202) 366–4139. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
In a petition dated August 1, 2014, Mazda requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard for the Mazda (confidential) vehicle line beginning with MY 2016. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Mazda provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the (confidential) vehicle line. Mazda stated that its MY 2016 (confidential) vehicle line will be equipped with a passive, transponder based, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment. Key components of its antitheft device will include a powertrain control module (PCM), immobilizer control module, security indicator light, coil antenna, transmitter with transponder key (transponder key), low frequency (LF) antenna, radio frequency (RF) antenna and low frequency unit (LFU). The device will not provide any visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (
The integration of the set/unset device (transponder key) into the immobilizer system prevents any inadvertent actuation of the system. Mazda stated that the antitheft device is deactivated when the ignition is initially engaged by pressing the “Engine Start” pushbutton while simultaneously depressing the brake pedal. Activation of the device occurs when the operator disengages the ignition by pressing the “Engine Start” pushbutton when the vehicle is parked.
Mazda further stated that there are two methods of initiating the antitheft device operation process. The first process is used when the transponder key can be detected. Specifically, the immobilizer control unit sends a signal to the transponder key using its LF antenna to request a transponder code. The transponder code is then sent through the RF receiver back to the immobilizer control unit to authenticate the code and determine its validity. The second process is used when the transponder key cannot be detected by the immobilizer control unit (
Mazda also stated that the immobilizer device incorporates a light-emitting diode (LED) indicator which provides information on the status of the antitheft device. Specifically, when the ignition is initially engaged, the LED illuminates continuously for 3 seconds to indicate the “unset” state of the system. When the ignition is disengaged, a flashing LED indicates the “set” state of the device, providing a visual confirmation that the vehicle is protected by the immobilizer device.
In addressing the specific content requirements of § 543.6, Mazda provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Mazda conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Mazda provided a detailed list of the tests conducted (
In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as effective as compliance with the parts-marking requirements in reducing and deterring vehicle theft, Mazda also compared its device to other similar devices previously granted exemptions by the agency. Mazda stated that its antitheft device has features similar to the Ford Motor Company's (Ford) Passive Anti-Theft System (PATS). The PATS antitheft device was previously approved for exemption from the requirements of Part 541 and installed on the Mazda Tribute, (manufactured by Ford), the Ford Focus, the Ford Five Hundred and the Ford Taurus X vehicle lines. The agency granted in full the petition for the Mazda Tribute vehicle line beginning with model year 2010, (see 73 FR 40447, July 14, 2008), the Ford Focus vehicle line beginning with model year 2006, (see 71 FR 7824, February 14, 2006), the Ford Five Hundred beginning with model year 2007 (see 71 FR 52206, September 1, 2006), and the Ford Taurus X vehicle line beginning with model year 2008, (see 72 FR 20400, April 24, 2007). The agency notes the average theft rate for the Mazda Tribute and Ford Focus vehicle lines using three MYs' data (2010-preliminary 2012) are 1.560 and 0.14216 respectively. Current theft rate data is not available for the Ford Five Hundred and the Taurus X vehicle lines because they are no longer being produced.
Mazda also provided data on the effectiveness of other similar antitheft devices installed on vehicle lines in support of its belief that its device will be at least as effective as those comparable devices. Specifically, Mazda stated that its device was installed on certain MY 1996
Ford vehicles as standard equipment, (
Mazda stated that it believes that since its device is functionally equivalent to other comparable manufacturer's devices that have already been granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency, along with the evidence of reduced theft rates for vehicle lines equipped with similar devices and advanced technology of transponder electronic security, the Mazda immobilizer device will have the potential to achieve the level of effectiveness equivalent to those vehicle already exempted by the agency. The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted exemptions.
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Mazda on its device, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the (confidential) vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part 541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency finds that Mazda has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the Mazda (confidential) vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Mazda provided about its device.
The agency concludes that the device will provide the four of the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Mazda's petition for exemption for the Mazda (confidential) vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A–1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If Mazda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Mazda wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.”
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the submission of a
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
The FAA has completed its review of the application for an airport noise and access restriction submitted by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) for the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The FAA determined that the application does not provide substantial evidence that the proposed restriction meets three of the six statutory conditions for approval under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). The FAA's decision was signed on November 7, 2014, and transmitted to LAWA on November 8, 2014.
James Byers, Airport Planning and Environmental Division, APP–400, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Email address:
This Notice also announces the availability of the FAA's final agency order disapproving the proposed access restriction at
The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” or “ANCA”) provides notice, review, and approval requirements for airports seeking to impose noise or access restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft operations that become effective after October 1, 1990. 49 U.S.C. 47521
ANCA established a 180-day review period for the application. Under 14 CFR 161.313(c)(4)(ii), the review period starts on the date of receipt of the complete application, which was May 22, 2014.
On January 30, 2013, the FAA received an application from LAWA under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, 14 CFR part 161, seeking the FAA's review of a proposed Stage 3 aircraft noise and access restriction at LAX. The FAA reviewed the application in accordance with 14 CFR 161.313(a), and determined it to be incomplete in the areas of Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs); Noise Study Area; Technical Data Supporting Noise Impact Analysis; and Cost Benefit Analysis. The FAA sent notice of this decision to LAWA on March 1, 2013. On March 15, 2013, the FAA provided LAWA with additional information regarding the types of information and analysis required to complete the application.
On March 28, 2013, LAWA stated its intent to revise the Part 161 application and resubmit it for further review. On July 5, 2013, FAA received a “Supplemental Analysis” from LAWA. The FAA reviewed the Supplemental Analysis and determined that the application continued to be incomplete in the areas of Airport Noise Study Area and Noise Contours; Technical Data Supporting Noise Impact Analysis; and Cost Benefit Analysis. The FAA sent notice of this decision to LAWA on August 2, 2013. On August 20, 2013, LAWA stated its intent to supplement the Part 161 application and resubmit it to the FAA. On May 12, 2014, FAA received LAWA's supplemented application, followed by an errata sheet on May 22, 2014. On June 10, 2014, FAA determined LAWA's application to be complete. On June 27, 2014, the FAA published a notice in the
By law, the FAA may only approve a noise or access restriction affecting the operations of Stage 3 aircraft if the applicant demonstrates, by substantial evidence, that each of six statutory conditions have been met. These six statutory conditions of approval are:
• Condition 1: The restriction is reasonable, nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory;
• Condition 2: The restriction does not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce;
• Condition 3: The proposed restriction maintains safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace;
• Condition 4: The proposed restriction does not conflict with any existing Federal statute or regulation;
• Condition 5: The applicant has provided adequate opportunity for public comment on the proposed restriction; and
• Condition 6: The proposed restriction does not create an undue burden on the national aviation system.
The FAA evaluated LAWA's application under the provisions of ANCA and 14 CFR 161.317 and determined that the application satisfies the requirements under Condition 3, Condition 5, and Condition 6. However, the application does not satisfy the requirements under Condition 1, Condition 2, or Condition 4. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements set forth in ANCA, the FAA disapproved the application on November 7, 2014.
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA has determined that the minimum random drug and alcohol testing percentage rates for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, will remain at 25 percent of safety-sensitive employees for random drug testing and 10 percent of safety-sensitive employees for random alcohol testing.
Ms. Vicky Dunne, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Division, Program Policy Branch (AAM–820), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 806,
Similarly, 14 CFR 120.217(c), requires the decision on the minimum annual random alcohol testing rate to be based on the random alcohol test violation rate. If the violation rate remains less than 0.50%, the Administrator may continue the minimum random alcohol testing rate at 10%. In 2013, the random alcohol test violation rate was 0.091%. Therefore, the minimum random alcohol testing rate will remain at 10% for calendar year 2015.
If you have questions about how the annual random testing percentage rates are determined please refer to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, section 120.109(b) (for drug testing), and 120.217(c) (for alcohol testing).
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Safety Advisory.
FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2014–02 to reemphasize the importance of clear communication and compliance with applicable rules and procedures regarding roadway worker authority limits on controlled track. FRA believes it is necessary to issue this advisory in light of the miscommunication or error involved in recent roadway worker incidents that occurred at locations that were either outside of authority limits or within authority limits that were no longer protected due to dispatcher error. This safety advisory recommends that railroads monitor their employees for compliance with existing applicable rules and procedures and that they also examine their train dispatching systems, rules, and procedures to ensure that appropriate safety redundancies are in place in the event of miscommunication or error. In addition, this safety advisory recommends that if a railroad determines that appropriate safety redundancies are not in place, the railroad should adopt electronic technology that would provide appropriate safety redundancies, and adopt certain interim safety measures and procedures at least until such technology is in place.
Kenneth Rusk, Staff Director, Track Division, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493–6236; or Anna Nassif Winkle, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493–6166.
FRA is concerned about the infrequent, but repetitive incidents involving roadway workers being struck or nearly struck by trains that appear to be due to miscommunication or error regarding the roadway workers' authority limits or location in relation to the authority limits. This safety advisory discusses six such incidents, three of which resulted in four employee fatalities. However, there have been other close-call incidents involving similar circumstances that did not result in fatalities but further highlight the need for this safety advisory. Information regarding some of the incidents discussed below is based on FRA's preliminary findings and the respective railroad's reporting to date. The probable causes and contributing factors, if any, have not yet been established for all of these incidents and nothing in this safety advisory is intended to attribute a cause to these incidents, or place responsibility for these incidents on the acts or omissions of any person or entity.
The following is a summary of the circumstances involved in each of the incidents:
In November 2013, a BNSF Railway Co. (BNSF) lead welder was killed when his welding truck collided with an eastbound freight train on a single main track at a location that was outside of his roadway work group's limits of authority. It appears from FRA's preliminary investigation that the two-man work group set on the track at a location outside of their authority limits after the workers disagreed regarding the extent of the authority limits and after not being able to quickly resolve the discrepancy because the screen displaying their authority was not visible at the time they set on the track. The foreman was apparently attempting to “wake up” the computer screen as the operator was setting their vehicle on and operating over the track, rather than remaining clear of the track until the discrepancy could be resolved, as required by the railroad's good faith challenge procedures.
In May 2013, a Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. (Metro-North) track foreman was struck and killed by a passenger train in Danbury, Connecticut, after a student dispatcher prematurely removed the control signal blocking devices that had been established for the track foreman's work group, and cleared the signal for the passenger train. Investigation by FRA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the student dispatcher assumed that the foreman no longer needed the main track after the dispatcher had lined the foreman-piloted locomotive crane into an out-of-service track. Several weeks prior to this incident, a very similar incident occurred on the same railroad. However, in that situation, the roadway worker detected the advancing train movement in sufficient time to move away from the track and avoid being struck by the train.
In May 2013, a CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) hi-rail vehicle collided with a CSX train while traveling southward on the CSX Florence Division, Charlotte Subdivision. The hi-rail was operating under an EC–1 authority (a form of exclusive track occupancy), but was struck when it encountered the northbound CSX train at milepost (MP) 340.52. This location was approximately one and one-quarter miles outside of the authority limits the track inspector operating the vehicle had requested and was granted (
In April 2013, a Metro-North roadway work group in a hi-rail truck mistakenly reported to the dispatcher that they were in the clear, south of an interlocking. However, FRA's investigation determined that the truck was in fact still inside the limits of the interlocking. Minutes later, a commuter train struck and destroyed the vehicle. The occupants vacated the vehicle seconds before it was struck, and there were no injuries to the employees or the passengers.
In March 2013, a Kansas City Southern Railway Co. (KCS) hi-rail vehicle operating northward on KCS' Shreveport Subdivision collided with the side of a BNSF freight train that was operating on Union Pacific Railroad Co. track through a KCS interlocking at Texarkana, Texas. FRA's investigation determined that the KCS section foreman that was operating the hi-rail vehicle had been looking for potential washouts after heavy rains, and indicated to FRA that he attempted to stop his hi-rail vehicle short of the interlocking after realizing his close proximity, but failed to do so due to wet rail conditions. The KCS hi-rail truck entered the limits of the interlocking (outside of his limits of authority) and collided with the 74th and 75th cars in the BNSF train that was operating on signal indication through the interlocking. The collision resulted in significant damage to the hi-rail vehicle, and minimal damage to the rolling stock. The section foreman was not injured.
In January 2007, a Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Co., LLC dispatcher prematurely lifted an exclusive track occupancy that was providing on-track safety for a roadway work group in Woburn, Massachusetts, and a commuter train struck and killed two roadway workers in the group and seriously injured two others. The track gang had a valid Form D, Line 4 (a form of exclusive track occupancy) with a main track out of service. Just prior to the incident, a hi-rail vehicle asked for and received permission from the roadway worker in charge (RWIC) of the authority limits to enter the out-of-service area. When the hi-rail vehicle cleared the authority limits, the operator of the hi-rail broadcast this information via a radio communication. Investigation by FRA and the NTSB determined that the dispatcher lifted the blocking devices after having accepted that communication as the track gang foreman having cleared the limits, rather than the operator of the hi-rail vehicle having cleared the limits. FRA notes this incident in particular, since it gave rise to NTSB safety recommendations, as discussed in footnote 1.
The above incidents represent the various types of errors that can occur by various employees in establishing, removing, or adhering to roadway worker authority limits, and highlight the importance of clear communication and the need for railroads to monitor their employees for compliance with existing applicable rules and procedures. In addition, the range of possible errors also highlights the need for railroads to examine their train dispatching systems, rules, and procedures to ensure that appropriate safety redundancies
FRA believes that the probability of the incidents described above occurring could be significantly reduced by installation of Positive Train Control (PTC). Until such time that PTC is implemented, and for locations where PTC is not required, FRA recommends that railroads adopt one or more electronic technologies that may serve to fill the technology gap. Examples of such technology already in use include the following systems:
• Enhanced Employee Protection System—With this system, when an RWIC secures a track authority, he or she is provided a code via a beeper-like device that is not provided to the dispatcher issuing the authority. The system is designed so that the dispatcher cannot remove the blocking devices that are preventing the clearing of the absolute signal until the RWIC provides him or her with the issued code. Thus, the dispatcher cannot remove the associated on-track safety provided by the authority without the knowledge and agreement of the RWIC. This system is currently in use on a northeastern commuter railroad.
• Hi-Rail Limits Compliance System—This system relies upon a global positioning system location transponder that is mounted in a hi-rail or roadway maintenance machine and linked to the dispatching office. When the vehicle or machine is operated within a mile of the authority limits, the operator will be alerted via a yellow warning light on the transponder. When the vehicle or machine is operated within one-half mile of the authority limits, the operator will be alerted via a yellow flashing light on the transponder. If the operator operates the vehicle or machine outside of his or her authority limits or sets on a main track for which he or she does not have authority, the operator will be alerted via a red warning light and the dispatcher is immediately notified as well, so that appropriate action can be taken. This system is currently in use on a number of subdivisions of a Class 1 railroad.
• Train Approach Warning System (TAWS)—For this system, an electronic alerter device is utilized at interlockings to detect an approaching train on any track and provide both visual and audible indicators to roadway workers via a personal beeper device on their person and at their bungalow, once the system is activated. This on-track safety system has been utilized under FRA waiver by a major Class 1 railroad at selected interlockings since 2001.
In light of the miscommunication or error involved in roadway worker incidents that have occurred at locations that were either outside of the respective roadway workers' authority limits or within authority limits that
1. Increase monitoring of their employees for compliance with existing applicable rules and procedures, particularly those involving the establishment, removal, or verification of track authority, and good faith challenges.
2. Examine their train dispatching systems, rules, and procedures to ensure that appropriate safety redundancies are in place.
3. If a railroad determines that appropriate safety redundancies are not in place, adopt electronic technology that would provide appropriate safety redundancies. At least until such technology is in place, and as an immediate first step to the adoption of such technology, railroads should—
a. Stress the importance of dispatchers being advised of the work plans by the RWIC when securing track occupancy authority;
b. Forbid student dispatchers by general order or bulletin from removing blocking devices until confirmation is received by the dispatcher providing supervision; and
c. Require student dispatchers to secure confirmation from the supervising dispatcher prior to the removal of blocking devices.
d. With regard to inadvertent and unauthorized hi-rail movement outside the limits of authority, instruct roadway workers that prior to passing any absolute signal, a roadway worker should verify the limits of his or her authority as follows:
i. For roadway workers traveling with other occupants in a vehicle, verify the limits with another occupant within the vehicle by verbally reviewing the authority;
ii. For roadway workers acting in the capacity of a lone worker (or otherwise traveling alone in a vehicle that is the first vehicle in the roadway work group to pass the absolute signal), announce over the radio the location and intent to pass the absolute signal; and
iii. In either case, if the roadway worker or roadway work group is relying upon an electronic authority, and the electronic device displaying that authority malfunctions, the roadway worker must either secure a hard copy of the authority or vacate the track until he or she can verify the authority.
FRA encourages railroads to take actions that are consistent with the preceding recommendations and to take other actions to help ensure the safety of the Nation's railroad employees and the general public. FRA may modify this Safety Advisory 2014–02, issue additional safety advisories, or take other appropriate actions it deems necessary to ensure the highest level of safety on the Nation's railroads, including pursuing other corrective measures under its rail safety authority.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 CFR 102–3.150, The U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (MARAD) announces that the following U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (“Academy”) Board of Visitors (BoV) meeting will take place:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The BoV's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact is Brian Blower; 202 366–2765;
Any member of the public is permitted to file a written statement with the Academy BoV. Written statements should be sent to the Designated Federal Officer at: Brian Blower; 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W28–313, Washington, DC 20590 or via email at
46 U.S.C. 51312; 5 U.S.C. app. 552b; 41 CFR parts 102–3.140 through 102–3.165.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Written comments must be received on or before December 26, 2014.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Lisa Gavin, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (NVS–121), U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, West Building, W43–432, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Email address:
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In compliance with these requirements, this notice announces that the following information collection request has been forwarded to OMB. A
The proposed studies will examine driver response to non-traditional gear selector configurations in routine and emergency simulated driving scenarios, noting driver confusion, distraction and unintended consequences due to the unconventional gear selector configuration. The research method consists of driving simulations to collect objective and subjective data about six different gear selector types. Approximately 500 drivers will respond to the request for participants. It is estimated that of the 500 respondents, 360 will ultimately be recruited and participate. The estimated burden hours were calculated for the pre- and post-experiment questionnaires and for performing the driving tasks for the 500 respondents accordingly.
Participants will be tested individually in a driving simulator located at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), which will conduct this research under an Intra-Agency Agreement (IAA) with NHTSA. The information being collected consists of that required for scheduling appointments and for balancing the subject sample across age groups, gender, and previous driving experience with various motor vehicle gear selector configurations. The experimental data will contain the demographic and past-experience descriptors for each participant, but no personally identifiable information. During or after the experimental sessions, participants may be queried regarding their perceptions and preferences about various aspects of gear-selection controls.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.95.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Request for public comment on extension of a currently approved collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This document describes an existing collection of information for 49 CFR part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, for which NHTSA intends to seek renewed OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2015.
Comments must refer to the docket number cited at the beginning of this notice, and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Dr. Abigail Morgan, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W43–467, NVS–122, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366–6005.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(4) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following collection of information:
Without this information, efforts to identify the first purchaser of tires that have been determined to be defective or nonconforming pursuant to Sections 30118 and 30119 of Title 49 U.S.C. would be impeded. Further, the ability of the purchasers to take appropriate action in the interest of motor vehicle safety may be compromised.
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Request for public comment on the extension of a currently approved collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2015.
Comments must refer to the docket notice numbers cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management, Room W12–140, Ground level, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590 by any of the following methods.
•
•
•
•
Complete copies of each request for collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Mr. Hisham Mohamed, NHTSA 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building, Room W43–437, NVS–131, Washington, DC 20590.
Mr. Mohamed's telephone number is (202) 366–0307. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB:
Based on prior years' manufacturer submissions, the agency estimates that 15 responses will be submitted annually. Currently 19 light truck manufacturers comply with 49 CFR part 575. These manufacturers file one response annually and submit an additional response when they introduce a new model. Changes are rarely filed with the agency, but we estimate that at least three manufacturers will alter their information because of model changes. The light truck manufacturers gather only pre-existing data for the purposes of this regulation. Based on previous years' manufacturer information, the agency estimates that light truck manufacturers use a total of 20 hours; to gather and arrange the data in its proper format (9 hours), to distribute the information to its dealerships and attach labels to light trucks that are capable of accommodating slide-in campers (4 hours), and to print the labels and utility vehicle information in the owner's manual or a separate document included with the owner's manual (7 hours). The estimated annual burden hour is 300 hours. This number reflects the total responses (15) times the total hours (20). Prior years' manufacturer information indicates that it takes an average of $37.00 per hour for professional and clerical staff to gather data, distribute and print material. Therefore, the agency estimates that the annual cost associated with the burden hours is $11,100 ($37.00 per hour × 300 burden hours).
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Request for public comment on extension of a currently approved collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This document describes an existing collection of information for motor vehicle tire and rim labeling requirements for which NHTSA intends to seek renewed OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2015.
Comments must refer to the docket number cited at the beginning of this notice, and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Dr. Abigail Morgan, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W43–467, NVS–122, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366–6005.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(4) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following collection of information:
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 109, 117, 119, 129, and 139 establish a fixed format for the labeling requirements to be placed into or onto both sidewalls of tires manufactured for use on motor vehicles. Each new tire manufacturer, brand name owner, and retreader must use these guidelines to label each tire manufactured by engraving tire and retreaded tire molds with the appropriate labeling information.
FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 specify a fixed format for the placard labeling requirements to be placed on each motor vehicle. In addition, FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 require that additional information be labeled onto the finished rim used on vehicles covered by this standard.
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Request for public comment on proposed collection of information.
Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.
Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202–366–9826.
Randy Reid, Office of Defects Investigation (NVS–210), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE., W48–311, Washington, DC 20590. Randy Reid's phone number is 202–366–4383 and his email address is
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the
(i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full the Ford Motor Company's (Ford) petition for an exemption of the MKX vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543,
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2016 model year (MY).
Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43–443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number is (202) 366–4139. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
In a petition dated August 18, 2014, Ford requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard for the Lincoln MKX vehicle line beginning with MY 2016. The petition requested exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Ford provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Lincoln MKX vehicle line. Ford stated that the Model Year (MY) 2016 Lincoln MKX will be installed with its Intelligent Access with Push button Start (IAwPB) passive, electronic immobilizer device using encrypted transponder technology as standard equipment on the entire vehicle line. Key components of the IAwPB device will include an electronic key fob, remote function actuator (RFA), body control module (BCM), powertrain control module (PCM) and a passive immobilizer. Ford further stated that its Lincoln MKX vehicle line will be offered with a perimeter alarm system as standard equipment. The perimeter alarm system activates a visible and audible alarm if unauthorized access is attempted. Ford's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6.
Ford stated that the device's integration of the transponder into the normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the system. Ford stated that the start sequence is initiated when the `StartStop' button is pressed. Specifically, the transceiver module sends a signal to the keyfob through the RF antenna. The keyfob responds with a High Frequency (UHF) over the air signal that includes the keycode, back to the transceiver module. Once the key is validated, starting of the engine is authorized by sending a separate encrypted message to the BCM/RFA and then the powertrain control module PCM. Ford stated that the powertrain will function only if the keycode matches the unique identification keycode previously programmed into the BCM/RFA. If the codes do not match, the vehicle will be inoperable. Ford stated that an electronic key will be programmed into the vehicle during system initialization performed at the manufacturing plant. Ford further stated that if the programmed key is not present in the vehicle, the engine will not start. Ford also pointed out that in addition to the programmed key, there are two modules that must be matched together in order to start the vehicle, adding an additional level of security to both systems. Ford stated that the BCM and the PCM share security data that, during vehicle assembly, form matched modules that must be together in order to start the vehicle. Ford further stated that no owner/operator actions are required to deactivate the device because it functions automatically each time an engine start sequence occurs.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Ford provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Ford conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Ford provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its own specified requirements for each test.
Ford stated that it's MY 2016 Lincoln MKX vehicle line will also be equipped with several other standard antitheft features common to Ford vehicles, (
Ford compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements. Ford stated that it believes that the standard installation of the IAwPB device would be an effective deterrent against vehicle theft.
Ford stated that its antitheft device was installed on all MY 1996 Ford Mustang GT and Cobra models and other selected models. Ford stated that in the 1997 model, its antitheft device was extended to the complete Ford Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment. Ford also stated that according to the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) theft statistics, MY 1997 Mustangs installed with the SecuriLock device showed a 70% reduction in theft rate compared to the MY 1995 Mustangs.
Ford stated that starting with MY 2013, the IAwPB was offered as standard equipment on the Lincoln MKZ. Ford also reported that beginning with MY 2010, the its antitheft device was installed as standard equipment on all of its North American Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles but was offered as optional equipment on its 2010 F-series Super Duty pickups, Econoline and Transit Connect vehicles. Ford further stated that beginning with MY 2010, the IAwPB was standard equipment on the Lincoln MKT vehicles; starting with MY 2011, the device was offered as standard equipment on the Lincoln MKX and optionally on the Lincoln MKS, Taurus, Edge, Explorer and the Focus vehicles and beginning with MY 2013, the device was offered as optional equipment on the Ford Fusion, C-Max and Escape vehicles.
Ford stated that the proposed antitheft device is a newer generation of the system that was offered in MY 2014 Ford Edge vehicle line. The Ford Edge vehicle line was granted a parts-marking exemption on January 18, 2013 by NHTSA (See 78 FR 4192) beginning with its MY 2014 vehicles. The agency notes that current theft rate data for MYs 2010 through preliminary 2012 are 0.8783, 0.7824 and 0.7371 respectively for the Ford Edge vehicle line.
The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted exemptions.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part 541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the Lincoln MKX vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Ford provided about its device.
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Ford on the device, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Lincoln MKX vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's petition for exemption for the Lincoln MKX vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A–1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Ford wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. § 543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.”
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full Toyota Motor North America, Inc.'s, (Toyota) petition for an exemption of the Sienna vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543,
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2016 model year (MY).
Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43–439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is (202) 366–5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
In a petition dated July 1, 2014, Toyota requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard for the Sienna vehicle line beginning with MY 2016. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Under 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Toyota provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Sienna vehicle line. Toyota stated that the MY 2016 Sienna vehicle line will be installed with an engine immobilizer device as standard equipment. Toyota also stated that it will offer two entry/start systems on its Sienna vehicle line. Specifically, Toyota stated that the Sienna vehicle line will be offered with a “smart entry and start system” or a “remote keyless entry (RKE) and start system”. Key components of the “smart entry and start system” are an engine immobilizer device, a certification electronic control unit (ECU), engine switch, steering lock ECU, security indicator, door control receiver, electrical key and an electronic control module (ECM). The “RKE and start system” components are an engine
Toyota stated that its “smart entry and start system” will allow the driver to start the engine by pressing the engine switch button located on the instrument panel. Once the driver pushes the engine switch button, the certification ECU verifies the electrical key. When the key is verified, the certification ECU and steering lock ECU receive confirmation of the valid key, and the certification ECU allows the ECM to start the engine. Toyota stated that its “smart entry and start system” immobilizer device is activated when the engine switch is pushed from the “ON” status to any other ignition status. The certification ECU performs a calculation for the immobilizer device then the certification ECU performs the calculation activating the immobilizer device and signaling the ECM. The device is deactivated when the doors are unlocked and the device recognizes the key code.
Toyota stated that once the key is inserted into the key cylinder for the “RKE and start system”, the transponder chip in the key sends the key ID codes to the transponder key ECU assembly to verify the code. Once the code has been verified, the immobilizer device will allow the ECM to start the engine. Activation of the immobilizer device in the “RKE and start system” occurs when the ignition key is turned from the “ON” status or any other position and/or the key is removed. Deactivation of the immobilizer device in the “RKE and start system” occurs when the door is unlocked and the key is turned to the “ON” position.
Toyota stated that the device will be installed with a security indicator feature which will provide the status of the immobilizer device for its Sienna vehicle line. When the immobilizer device is activated, the security indicator flashes continuously. When the immobilizer device is not activated, the security indicator is off. Additionally, Toyota stated that there will be position switches installed on the vehicle to protect its hood and doors. The position switch for the hood will sense the lock releasing when the hood is opened inappropriately from outside of the vehicle. The door position switches will sense the vehicle's key cylinder rotation and the door's locked/unlocked status. Toyota stated that attempting to open the doors without using the proper key will trigger activation of the antitheft device. Toyota further stated that all the doors of its Sienna vehicle line can be locked by using either a key, a wireless switch or a smart entry system.
Toyota's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7 in that it meets the general requirements contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6.
In addressing the specific content requirements of § 543.6, Toyota provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Toyota conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Toyota provided a detailed list of the tests conducted (
Toyota also compared its proposed device to other devices NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements (
Based on the evidence submitted by Toyota, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Sienna vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part 541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency finds that Toyota has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the Toyota Sienna vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Toyota provided about its device.
The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Toyota's petition for exemption for the Toyota Sienna vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A–1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts marking
If Toyota decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Toyota wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.”
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of reporting requirements.
By this Notice and in accordance with 31 CFR part 129, the Department of the Treasury is informing the public that it is conducting a mandatory survey of ownership of foreign securities by U.S. residents as of December 31, 2014. This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, this survey. The reporting form SHCA (2014) and instructions may be printed from the Internet at:
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of 10 individuals and 14 entities whose property and interests in property have been blocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) (21 U.S.C. 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. 1182).
The designation by the Director of OFAC of the 10 individuals and 14 entities identified in this notice pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act is effective on November 19, 2014.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 20220. Telephone Number: (202) 622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's Web site at
The Kingpin Act became law on December 3, 1999. The Kingpin Act establishes a program targeting the activities of significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis. It provides a statutory framework for the imposition of sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. companies and individuals.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate and block the property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons who are found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On November 19, 2014, the Director of OFAC designated the following 10 individuals and 14 entities whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 805(b) of the Kingpin Act.
1. ARREDONDO ORTIZ, Carlos Arturo (a.k.a. “MATEO”); DOB 22 Nov 1966; POB Itagui, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 98520515 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
2. BEDOYA LOPEZ, Gildardo de Jesus; DOB 18 Dec 1963; POB Abejorral, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 70560012 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: COLOMBIANA DE BIOCOMBUSTIBLES S.A.; Linked To: REPRESENTACIONES MIDAS; Linked To: GARCES Y BEDOYA CIA. LTDA).
3. ECHEVERRI PAREJA, Oscar Alonso (a.k.a. “MOSCO”); DOB 07 May 1971; POB Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 98564040 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ACUAMATERIALES Y CIA. LIMITADA).
4. GALLEGO ORREGO, Margarita Zulay; DOB 18 Oct 1953; POB Colombo, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 32334460 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ENVIGADO FUTBOL CLUB S.A.; Linked To: ENFARRADOS COMPANY S.A.S.; Linked To: CENTRO DE DIAGNOSTICO AUTOMOTOR DEL SUR LTDA.; Linked To: CAFETERIA ENVICENTRO; Linked To: TIENDAS MARGOS).
5. GARCIA ARBOLEDA, Edward (a.k.a. “ORION”); DOB 04 Jun 1975; POB Urrao, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 98624193 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: LA TIENDA DE MINGO; Linked To: INVERSIONES C.P.C.L. Y CIA. S. EN C.S.).
6. GUTIERREZ RESTREPO, Luis Fernando (a.k.a. “LUIFER”); DOB 13 Aug 1958; POB Belmira, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 70550107 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ROBIREPUESTOS; Linked To: IMPORTADORA MARENOL LIMITADA).
7. ISAZA SANCHEZ, Felix Alberto (a.k.a. “BETO”); DOB 24 Apr 1966; POB Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 98517169 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
8. ISAZA SANCHEZ, Nelson Dario (a.k.a. “NENE”); DOB 11 Aug 1967; POB Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 98521489 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
9. RUIZ MADRID, Adriana Maria; DOB 14 Dec 1968; POB Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 42897418 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: CARYTES ENCANTO Y BELLEZA).
10. UPEGUI GALLEGO, Juan Pablo; DOB 16 Oct 1980; POB Itagui, Antioquia, Colombia; citizen Colombia; Cedula No. 3391839 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: ENVIGADO FUTBOL CLUB S.A.; Linked To: ENFARRADOS COMPANY S.A.S.; Linked To: CENTRO DE DIAGNOSTICO AUTOMOTOR DEL SUR LTDA.).
1. ACUAMATERIALES Y CIA. LIMITADA, Carrera 51 B No. 12 Sur 21 Piso 2, Medellin, Colombia; NIT # 811022933–3 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
2. CAFETERIA ENVICENTRO, Carrera 48 No. 49 Sur 45, Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; Matricula Mercantil No 138589 (Aburra Sur) [SDNTK].
3. CARYTES ENCANTO Y BELLEZA, Calle 6AS 43 A LC 3188, Medellin, Colombia; Centro Comercial Oviedo, Local 3188, El Poblado, Medellin, Colombia; Matricula Mercantil No 40551702 (Medellin) [SDNTK].
4. CENTRO DE DIAGNOSTICO AUTOMOTOR DEL SUR LTDA. (a.k.a. ENVICENTRO), Carrera 48 No. 49 Sur 45, Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; NIT # 800233878–1 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
5. COLOMBIANA DE BIOCOMBUSTIBLES S.A. (a.k.a. COLBIO), Carrera 15 No. 90–66 Int. 103, Medellin, Colombia; Calle 36A Sur No. 46A–81, Centro Comercial Metro Sur, Local 240, Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; Km. 53 Via Santa Fe de Antioquia, Vereda Ahuyamal, Sopetran, Antioquia, Colombia; Km. 4 Via al Bagre, Caucasia, Antioquia, Colombia; Web site
6. ENFARRADOS COMPANY S.A.S., Carrera 48 No. 46 Sur 150, Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; NIT # 900347098–6 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
7. ENVIGADO FUTBOL CLUB S.A. (a.k.a. ENVIGADO F.C.), Carrera 48 No. 46 Sur 150, Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; Web site
8. GARCES Y BEDOYA CIA. LTDA, Carrera 50 No. 37–35, Medellin, Colombia; NIT # 800119082–9 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
9. IMPORTADORA MARENOL LIMITADA, Carrera 50 No. 39–71, Medellin, Colombia; NIT # 800104353–4 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
10. INVERSIONES C.P.C.L. Y CIA. S. EN C.S., Carrera 48 No. 25 B Sur 12, Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; NIT # 900315175–8 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
11. LA TIENDA DE MINGO, Calle 5 D No. 6 125, Medellin, Colombia; Matricula Mercantil No 16218702 (Medellin) [SDNTK].
12. REPRESENTACIONES MIDAS, Plaza Envigado, Local 89, Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; Calle 40 Sur No. 40 20, Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; Matricula Mercantil No 54512 (Aburra Sur) [SDNTK].
13. ROBIREPUESTOS, Carrera 50 No. 41–41 Local 112, Medellin, Colombia; Matricula Mercantil No 21–438991–02 (Medellin) [SDNTK].
14. TIENDAS MARGOS (a.k.a. “MARGO'S”), Calle 38A Sur No. 43A 41, Envigado, Antioquia, Colombia; Matricula Mercantil No 5352 (Aburra Sur) [SDNTK].
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of two individuals and two entities whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act) (21 U.S.C. Sections 1901–1908, 8 U.S.C. Section 1182).
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) of the two individuals and two entities identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act, is effective on November 12, 2014.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Telephone Number: (202) 622–2420.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site at
On December 3, 1999, the Kingpin Act was signed into law by the President of the United States. The Kingpin Act provides a statutory framework for the President to impose sanctions against significant foreign narcotics traffickers and their organizations on a worldwide basis, with the objective of denying their businesses and agents access to the U.S. financial system and to the benefits of trade and transactions involving U.S. persons and entities.
The Kingpin Act blocks all property and interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, owned or controlled by significant foreign narcotics traffickers as identified by the President. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury consults with the Attorney General, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security when designating and blocking the property or interests in property, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, of persons or entities found to be: (1) Materially assisting in, or providing financial or technological support for or to, or providing goods or services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; (2) owned, controlled, or directed by, or acting for or on behalf of, a person designated pursuant to the Kingpin Act; and/or (3) playing a significant role in international narcotics trafficking.
On November 12, 2014, the Director of OFAC removed from the SDN List the two individuals and two entities listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Kingpin Act:
1. GOMEZ RUA, Adolfo Leon, c/o COMERCIALIZADORA AUTOMOTORA MATECANA LTDA., Pereira, Colombia; c/o DIGITAL COMUNICATIONS SERVICE LTDA., Bello, Antioquia, Colombia; c/o DOLAUTOS VEHICULOS E INMUEBLES Y CIA. LTDA., Medellin, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES BUENOS AIRES LTDA., Pereira, Colombia; DOB 28 Apr 1964; POB Bello, Antioquia, Colombia; Cedula No. 98487118 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
2. GUBEREK REYES, David Felipe; DOB 01 Oct 1983; POB Bogota, Colombia; Cedula No. 80196313 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: INVERSIONES GILFE S.A.; Linked To: SBT S.A.; Linked To: G&G INTERNACIONAL S.A.S.; Linked To: PROMESAS DEL FUTBOL COLOMBIANO S.A.).
1. DOLAUTOS VEHICULOS E INMUEBLES Y CIA. LTDA. (a.k.a. TALLER RAMIAUTOS I.P.), Carrera 45 No. 31–208, Medellin, Colombia; NIT # 800245860–1 (Colombia); Matricula Mercantil No 21–164137–02 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
2. DIGITAL COMUNICATIONS SERVICE LTDA., Carrera 14 No. 19–3, Granada, Meta, Colombia; Diagonal 55 No. 34–52, Bello, Antioquia, Colombia; NIT # 900020090–3 (Colombia) [SDNTK].
In addition, the listings for the two individuals below have been updated to reflect these deletions, as follows.
1. ECHEVERRY CADAVID, Nebio De Jesus (a.k.a. ECHEVERRI, Nevio; a.k.a. ECHEVERRY, Nevio), c/o HACIENDA VENDAVAL, Paratebueno, Cundinamarca, Colombia; c/o PROVEEDORES Y DISTRIBUIDORES NACIONALES S.A., Bogota, Colombia; Carrera 10 No. 46–43, Pereira, Colombia; Carrera 38 No. 26B–11, Villavicencio, Colombia; La Pastora, Vereda La Union, Dosquebradas, Risaralda, Colombia; c/o COMERCIALIZADORA AUTOMOTORA MATECANA LTDA., Pereira, Colombia; c/o DIGITAL COMUNICATIONS SERVICE LTDA., Bello, Antioquia, Colombia; c/o INVERSIONES BUENOS AIRES LTDA., Pereira, Colombia; c/o LADRILLERA EL PORVENIR LTDA., San Jose del Guaviare, Colombia; DOB 28 Nov 1944; Cedula No. 10056431 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
2. LOPEZ CADAVID, Oscar De Jesus, c/o PROVEEDORES Y DISTRIBUIDORES NACIONALES S.A., Bogota, Colombia; Hacienda San Lorenzo, Paratebueno, Cundinamarca, Colombia; c/o COLOMBIAN GREEN STONE CORPORATION LTDA., Bogota, Colombia; c/o DIGITAL COMUNICATIONS SERVICE LTDA., Bello, Antioquia, Colombia; c/o LADRILLERA EL PORVENIR LTDA., San Jose del Guaviare, Colombia; DOB 21 Jun 1956; Cedula No. 15502188 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK].
1. ECHEVERRY CADAVID, Nebio De Jesus (a.k.a. ECHEVERRI, Nevio; a.k.a. ECHEVERRY, Nevio), Carrera 10 No. 46–43, Pereira, Colombia; Carrera 38 No. 26B–11, Villavicencio, Colombia; La Pastora, Vereda La Union, Dosquebradas, Risaralda, Colombia; DOB 28 Nov 1944; Cedula No. 10056431 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: HACIENDA VENDAVAL; Linked To: PROVEEDORES Y DISTRIBUIDORES NACIONALES S.A.; Linked To: COMERCIALIZADORA AUTOMOTORA MATECANA LTDA.; Linked To: INVERSIONES BUENOS AIRES LTDA.; Linked To: LADRILLERA EL PORVENIR LTDA.).
2. LOPEZ CADAVID, Oscar De Jesus, Hacienda San Lorenzo, Paratebueno, Cundinamarca, Colombia; DOB 21 Jun 1956; Cedula No. 15502188 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNTK] (Linked To: PROVEEDORES Y DISTRIBUIDORES NACIONALES S.A.; Linked To: COLOMBIAN GREEN STONE CORPORATION LTDA.; Linked To: LADRILLERA EL PORVENIR LTDA.)
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of two individuals whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, “Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers”.
The unblocking and removal from the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) of the two individuals identified in this notice whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, is effective on November 12, 2014.
Assistant Director, Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Washington, DC 20220, Telephone Number: (202) 622–2490.
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On October 21, 1995, the President, invoking the authority,
Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, or that hereafter come within the United States or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) The foreign persons listed in an Annex to the Order; (2) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State: (a) To play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia; or (b) to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the Order; and (3) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated pursuant to the Order.
On November 12, 2014, the Director of OFAC removed from the SDN List the two individuals listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to the Order:
1. FIORILLO BAPTISTE, Lester Raul, Calle 27 Norte No. 6AN–43, Cali, Colombia; c/o CONSTRUCCIONES PROGRESO DEL PUERTO S.A., Puerto Tejada, Colombia; Cedula No. 14987352 (Colombia); Passport 14987352 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
2. FLOREZ GRAJALES, Yudy Lorena (a.k.a. FLOREZ GRAJALES, Yudi Lorena), Carrera 78 No. 3–46, Cali, Colombia; Carrera 8N No. 17A–12, Cartago, Colombia; c/o AGROPECUARIA MIRALINDO S.A., Cartago, Colombia; c/o ARIZONA S.A., Cartago, Colombia; DOB 26 Jun 1978; Cedula No. 32180561 (Colombia); Passport 32180561 (Colombia) (individual) [SDNT].
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before January 26, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Audrey Revere at (202) 461–5694.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that OSDBU, Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 26, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), this notice announces that OSDBU, Department of Veterans Affairs, has submitted the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632–7492 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Office of Management, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice
The Office of Management (OM), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before December 26, 2014.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Waleska Pierantoni-Monge at (202) 632–5400, Fax (202) 343–1434.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OM invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OM's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OM's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues regulations to implement Steller sea lion protection measures to insure that groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) off Alaska are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the western distinct population segment (WDPS) of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. These management measures disperse fishing effort temporally and spatially to provide protection from potential competition for important Steller sea lion prey species. This action is intended to protect the endangered Steller sea lions, as required by the Endangered Species Act, and to minimize, to the extent practicable, the economic impact of fishery management measures, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Effective December 26, 2014.
Electronic copies of:
• The Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures for Groundfish Fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Record of Decision, and the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available from
• The 2001 Biological Opinion for the Authorization of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Fisheries (2001 BiOp), the 2010 Biological Opinion on the Authorization of Groundfish Fisheries under the Fishery Management Plans (FMP BiOp), and the 2014 Biological Opinion for the Authorization of Alaska Groundfish Fisheries under the Proposed Revised Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures (2014 BiOp) are available at
• The 2008 Revised Steller Sea Lion Recovery Plan (2008 Recovery Plan) is available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at
• The Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area FMP is available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Web site at
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by email to
Gretchen Harrington, 907–586–7228.
NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Steller sea lion protection measures on July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37486). The comment period on the proposed rule ended on August 15, 2014. NMFS received 17 letters of comments on the proposed rule. Additional background information and detail on this action is provided in the proposed rule and is briefly summarized in this final rule.
NMFS manages groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801,
NMFS has management responsibility for certain threatened and endangered species, including Steller sea lions, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531,
NMFS listed the WDPS of Steller sea lions as endangered under the ESA in 1997 (62 FR 24345, May 5, 1997). Throughout this preamble, the term “Steller sea lions” means the WDPS of Steller sea lions unless otherwise specified. Steller sea lions are distributed from Prince William Sound through the Aleutian Islands in Alaska and in Russia on the Kamchatka peninsula, Kuril Islands, and the Sea of Okhotsk. NMFS uses six sub-regions within Alaska for trend and status monitoring of Steller sea lions. These sub-regions include the eastern Gulf of Alaska (GOA), central GOA, and western GOA, the eastern Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea, central Aleutian Islands, and the western Aleutian Islands. A seventh sub-region is located outside of the United States and is commonly referred to as the Russian sub-region because most of the Steller sea lion population in that sub-region is concentrated in Russia.
NMFS designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions and identified haulouts, rookeries, and foraging locations throughout Alaska waters ranging throughout the GOA, the Bering Sea, and the Aleutian Islands (58 FR 45269, August 27, 1993). Since publication of critical habitat definitions in 1993 (see 50 CFR 226.202), NMFS has identified 19 additional haulouts in the BSAI and the GOA as important areas for Steller sea lions needing additional protection from the potential effects of groundfish fishing. More information and justification for including these haulouts are contained in the 2001 BiOp (see
Since listing Steller sea lions, NMFS has implemented a number of management measures, commonly known as Steller sea lion protection measures, to protect Steller sea lion prey
Section 3.5.3 of the FMP, approved by the Secretary of Commerce under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, authorizes regulations for fishery management measures to protect marine mammals, without requiring amendment of the FMP itself (see
NMFS has revised the Steller sea lion protection measures several times. NMFS has conducted several ESA consultations to assess the impact of the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions. Previous actions to implement Steller sea lion protection measures and their accompanying ESA consultations have been subject to litigation. A detailed history of previous Steller sea lion protection measures, ESA section 7 consultations (
The most recent Steller sea lion protection measures were implemented in 2011 with the 2010 Interim Final Rule (75 FR 77535, December 13, 2010; corrected 75 FR 81921, December 29, 2010). Steller sea lion protection measures implemented in the 2010 Interim Final Rule limit harvest of Atka mackerel and Pacific cod. NMFS implemented these management measures consistent with the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) recommended in the 2010 FMP BiOp that NMFS determined were necessary to insure that the Alaska groundfish fisheries were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitat. The 2010 Interim Final Rule established Steller sea lion protection measures primarily in the Aleutian Islands, based on the population trends of the Steller sea lions and the harvest of principal prey species by the groundfish fisheries in the Aleutian Islands. This action retains some and modifies some of the Steller sea lion protection measures implemented by the 2010 Interim Final Rule.
This final rule implements a suite of management measures for the Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries primarily in the Aleutian Islands. These management measures protect Steller sea lion prey to comply with the ESA requirement that NMFS insure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. To protect Steller sea lion prey availability, this final rule protects specific areas that are important to Steller sea lions and limits the amount of fishing within Steller sea lion critical habitat. This final rule maintains a precautionary approach to the management of Steller sea lion prey species by spatially and temporally dispersing catch, particularly in critical habitat, to prevent localized depletion of these important prey resources. While protecting Steller sea lion prey, this final rule also enhances fishing opportunities and minimizes potential adverse economic impacts on fishery participants and communities by removing restrictions on fishing implemented by the 2010 Interim Final Rule that have been determined to be unnecessary based on the 2014 BiOp.
NMFS analyzed the impacts of the action and its alternatives in an EIS (see
The decision analyzed in the EIS was whether to maintain the existing suite of Steller sea lion protection measures (Alternative 1, the 2010 Interim Final Rule) or to implement a new suite of Steller sea lion protection measures (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6). To provide a comprehensive analysis of the effects of the alternatives, the EIS compares the six alternatives relative to each other and relative to a baseline period used to assess the environmental conditions affecting Steller sea lions (generally from 2004 through 2010). NMFS developed these alternatives through a collaborative process with the Council and its Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee, and considered public comments received during the scoping process for the EIS and during the public review of the draft EIS.
NMFS developed all alternatives with the understanding that a preferred alternative could only be selected as the proposed action and implemented through rule making if NMFS could insure that the action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Steller sea lions or result in destruction or adverse modification of their designated critical habitat. The Council and NMFS understood that a preferred alternative and any resulting rule must meet the requirements of the ESA before factors that minimize the economic impacts on fishery participants could be considered. A detailed discussion of the purpose and need for the action is provided in the EIS (see
The alternatives ranged from Alternative 6, an alternative that would restrict fishing more than the status quo alternative (Alternative 1), to Alternative 4, the alternative that would allow the most fishing opportunities. Alternative 4 would reinstate the Steller sea lion protection measures that were in place prior to the 2010 Interim Final Rule, with a few exceptions. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 provided more fishing opportunities and fewer protection measures than Alternative 1, but included more protection measures than Alternative 4. Additional description of the alternatives is available in the EIS (see
In October 2013, the Council recommended Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative for the EIS. Alternative 5 is a suite of management measures for the Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries that includes fishery closures and limitations on catch in specific areas to mitigate the potential adverse effects of fishing on Steller sea lion prey resources. Alternative 5 retains important Steller sea lion protection measures in Alternative 1 and also allows more fishing by removing or modifying some of measures in Alternative 1. Alternative 5 includes authorization for specific fishery research in the BSAI. This final rule implements the Steller sea lion protection measures in Alternative 5.
The Council recommended Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative based on the analysis in the draft EIS, public comments, advice from its Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee, input from the Council's Advisory Panel and Scientific and Statistical Committee, and the best available scientific information. The Council considered the findings of the 2010 FMP BiOp, a review of the 2010 FMP BiOp sponsored by NMFS and conducted by the Center
NMFS conducted a consultation on the proposed action as required under section 7 of the ESA to determine whether fishing under Alternative 5 would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. NMFS issued a biological opinion on April 2, 2014 (2014 BiOp, see
The 2014 BiOp found that the implementation of the proposed action (Alternative 5) was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions and was not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated Steller sea lion critical habitat. The conclusions in the 2014 BiOp were reached after considering the best scientific and commercial information available, including Steller sea lion behavior and fisheries data. The 2014 BiOp concludes that the proposed action would establish Steller sea lion protection measures for the Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries in the Aleutian Islands subarea that spatially and temporally disperse fishing to mitigate potential competition for prey resources between Steller sea lions and these fisheries. Spatial and temporal fishery dispersion is accomplished through closure areas, harvest limits, seasonal apportionment of harvest limits, and limits on participation in a fishery. The proposed action would retain or modify existing closure areas, harvest limits, seasonal apportionment of harvest limits, and limits on participation in ways that are designed to limit competition for prey with Steller sea lions.
The best available scientific information suggests that the effects of the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions may be greatest around rookeries and haulouts due to the overlap of foraging Steller sea lions and harvest of their prey species in the fisheries. This action limits fishing to the greatest extent from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries and haulouts, which corresponds with the highest observed at-sea use by adult female, young-of-the-year, and juvenile Steller sea lions, as shown in the Steller sea lion telemetry data described in the 2014 BiOp (see Chapter 5 of the EIS and Section 5.4 of the 2014 BiOp).
The 2014 BiOp identified the importance of maintaining global, or broad scale, limits on the harvest of Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock. Global limits are currently in place for these three species. Regulations prohibit directed fishing in the BSAI or GOA if the projected spawning biomass of the fish stock falls below 20 percent of the unfished spawning biomass (see regulations at § 679.20(d)(4)). Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries have not experienced this type of directed fishing closure since global limits became effective in 2003 (68 FR 204, January 2, 2003).
This final rule implements a comprehensive suite of Steller sea lion protection measures. Steller sea lion protection measures regulate fishing by applying a combination of closed areas, harvest limits, and seasons that reduce fishery competition for Steller sea lion prey when and where Steller sea lions forage. To improve monitoring, this final rule also requires vessels named on a Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP), that use trawl gear to harvest groundfish that is deducted from the Federal total allowable catch (TAC), to set their vessel monitoring system (VMS) to transmit the vessel location at least 10 times per hour.
This section provides a summary of the Steller sea lion protection measures implemented in this final rule. For a more detailed explanation of the regulatory provisions and the purpose of each provision, please see the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 37486, July 1, 2014). The preamble to the proposed rule also provides a detailed comparison of this final rule with the 2010 Interim Final Rule.
This final rule applies primarily to the Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries in the Aleutian Islands reporting area, defined at § 679.2 and shown in Figure 1 to 50 CFR part 679. The Aleutian Islands reporting area consists of Statistical Areas 541, 542, and 543 in the EEZ and adjacent State of Alaska (State) waters. The EEZ includes Federal waters that generally occur from 3 nautical miles (nm) to 200 nm from shore. State waters generally occur from shore to 3 nm from shore. Area 541 and adjacent State waters correspond to the eastern Aleutian Islands; Area 542 and adjacent State waters correspond to the central Aleutian Islands; and Area 543 and adjacent State waters correspond to the western Aleutian Islands.
This final rule applies to vessels that catch groundfish that are required to be deducted from a TAC under § 679.20 and that are required to be named on a FFP issued under § 679.4(b) in the BSAI reporting area. This rule also applies to vessels that harvest groundfish in State waters that are managed under the State's parallel groundfish fisheries. Parallel groundfish fisheries are fisheries that occur in State waters and where the catch of groundfish is deducted from the Federal TAC. Parallel groundfish fisheries are opened and closed by the State concurrently with adjacent Federal fisheries. Parallel fisheries are managed by the State under regulations similar to those that apply in the Federal fisheries. The State parallel fisheries that would be affected by this action are the fisheries for groundfish that occur in State waters adjacent to the BSAI. Additional detail on State parallel fisheries is provided in Chapters 3 and 8 of the EIS (see
NMFS has designated 100,286 square kilometers as critical habitat for Steller sea lions in the Aleutian Islands. This subsection summarizes the critical habitat closed to fishing under this final rule. A detailed discussion of the amount of critical habitat closed under this final rule is in Section 5.3 of the 2014 BiOp (see
With the final rule, NMFS is closing 90 percent of critical habitat in the Aleutian Islands to Atka mackerel fishing, which results in 8 percent more area open for Atka mackerel fishing in the Aleutian Islands compared to the areas closed under the 2010 Interim Final Rule. This final rule prohibits directed fishing with trawl gear for Atka mackerel in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm
With the final rule, NMFS is closing 22 percent of critical habitat in the Aleutian Islands to Pacific cod fishing with non-trawl gear (hook-and-line, pot, and jig), which results in 23 percent more area open to Pacific cod fishing with non-trawl gear in the Aleutian Islands compared to the areas closed under the 2010 Interim Final Rule. In Area 543, this final rule prohibits directed fishing for Pacific cod in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries and from 0 nm to 10 nm from Buldir Island for hook-and-line and pot gear vessels. In Area 542, this final rule prohibits directed fishing for Pacific cod in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries for hook-and-line and pot gear vessels. In Area 541, this final rule prohibits directed fishing for Pacific cod in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from rookeries west of 172.59° W longitude and in critical habitat from 0 nm to 20 nm east of 172.59° W longitude for hook-and-line and pot gear vessels. Directed fishing for Pacific cod with hook-and-line, pot gear, and jig gear vessels is prohibited in the Seguam Foraging Area.
With the final rule, NMFS is closing 52 percent of critical habitat in the Aleutian Islands to Pacific cod fishing with trawl gear, which results in 23 percent more area open to Pacific cod fishing with trawl gear in the Aleutian Islands compared to the areas closed under the 2010 Interim Final Rule. In Area 543, this final rule prohibits directed fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear vessels in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts and from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries. In Area 542, this final rule prohibits directed fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear vessels in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts and from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries. In Area 541, this final rule prohibits directed fishing for Pacific cod with trawl gear vessels in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts and from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries, and from 0 nm to 20 nm around Agligadak Island.
With this final rule, NMFS is closing 65 percent of critical habitat in the Aleutian Islands to pollock fishing, which results in 35 percent more area open to pollock fishing in the Aleutian Islands compared to the previous closures. In Area 543, this final rule prohibits directed fishing for pollock in 95 percent of critical habitat, including 0 nm to 20 nm from rookeries and haulouts, except 3 nm to 20 nm from Shemya, Alaid and Chirikof haulouts that remain outside of 20 nm from rookeries. In Area 542, west of 178° W longitude, this final rule prohibits directed fishing for pollock in waters from 0 nm to 20 nm from haulouts and rookeries, except in the specified open area near the Rat Islands. East of 178° W longitude, this final rule prohibits directed fishing for pollock in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts and from 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries, except at Kanaga Island/Ship Rock where directed fishing for pollock is prohibited in waters from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts and rookeries in a portion of Kanaga Sound east of 178° W longitude. In Area 541, this final rule prohibits directed fishing for pollock in critical habitat from 0 nm to 3 nm from haulouts and 0 nm to 10 nm from rookeries.
This final rule, in conjunction with existing regulations, establishes harvest limits by sector, area, and season for the Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries in the Aleutian Islands. This subsection summarizes the harvest limits and seasons established under this final rule. The preamble to the proposed rule describes the harvest limits and seasons in greater detail (79 FR 37486, July 1, 2014).
Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide the 2015 estimates of biomass, the overfishing levels (OFLs), the acceptable biological catches (ABCs) from the 2015 harvest specifications (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014), and the harvest limit amounts for Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries established under this final rule. Tables 1, 2, and 3 also describe the allocations that are made to the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program as CDQ reserves, as well as allocations made to accommodate incidental catch amounts (ICAs), and allocations to other non-CDQ participants as applicable for the specific fishery from the 2015 harvest specifications. The 2015 biomasses, OFLs, ABCs, TACs, and harvest limit amounts are subject to change pending the completion of the final 2014 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report and the Council's recommendations for final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications during its December 2014 meeting. NMFS will publish the final harvest limits in the final 2015 and 2016 harvest specifications.
Table 1 provides the Atka mackerel harvest limits for 2015, based on the 2015 ABC (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014). In this final rule, § 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(C) sets two Atka mackerel harvest limitations for Areas 542 and 543. First, in Area 543, the annual TAC is limited to an amount no greater than 65 percent of the ABC apportioned for Area 543. The second limit would allow no more than 60 percent of the annual TAC, evenly apportioned between the A and B seasons, to be harvested in critical habitat west of 178° W longitude. This area includes all of Area 543 and the western portion of Area 542. Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(A) evenly divides the harvest of TAC between the A and B seasons and applies the seasonal apportionment of Atka mackerel harvests in Area 543, Area 542, and the combined Area 541/Bering Sea. Section 679.23(e)(3)(ii) maintains the directed fishing for Atka mackerel with trawl gear A season dates from January 20 through June 10, and extends the B season from June 10 through December 31. Prior to this final rule, the Atka mackerel B season occurred from June 10 through November 1. This additional season length provides greater opportunity for trawl gear harvesters to distribute catch throughout the year. Section 679.20(a)(8)(ii)(D) prohibits any unharvested Atka mackerel A season allowance that is added to the B season from being harvested within waters 0 nm to 20 nm of Steller sea lion sites located in Areas 543, 542, and 541. This provision ensures that harvest is not concentrated within critical habitat during the B season.
In this final rule, § 679.20(a)(7)(vii) sets a Pacific cod harvest limit based on abundance in Area 543 as determined by the annual stock assessment process. NMFS will first subtract the State Pacific cod Guideline Harvest Level (GHL) amount from the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod ABC, then NMFS will determine the harvest limit in Area 543 by multiplying the percentage of Pacific cod estimated in Area 543 by the remaining ABC for Aleutian Islands Pacific cod. The State sets the Pacific cod GHL at 3 percent of the sum of the Aleutian Islands and the Bering Sea Pacific cod ABCs. Table 2 provides the proposed 2015 Aleutian Islands Pacific cod biomass, OFL, ABC, TAC, GHL, the sector allocations under the 2015 harvest specifications, and the Area 543 harvest limit under this final rule. The Area 543 harvest limit is based on an estimate of Pacific cod abundance for Area 543 from the 2013 stock assessment for Aleutian Islands Pacific cod.
In this final rule, § 679.23(e)(5)(ii)(C)(
In this final rule, § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(
Table 3 provides estimates of the 2015 Aleutian Islands pollock biomass, OFL, ABC, TAC under the 2015 harvest specifications, and area specific harvest limits under this final rule. NMFS notes that the maximum TAC in the Aleutian Islands pollock fishery is constrained by statutory and regulatory provisions that limit the maximum Aleutian Islands pollock TAC to 19,000 metric tons (see regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)).
NMFS made three changes to the final rule. One change is in response to public comment, and one change is a technical correction. The third change revises 15 CFR 902.1(b) to reflect revisions to recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
First, NMFS added the term “C season” to § 679.20(a)(7)(v)(B) to correct an inadvertent omission. This regulatory correction has no impact on the Steller sea lion protection measures but provides an accurate description of existing Pacific cod seasons. Additional discussion of this change is in Comment 7 included under Response to Public Comments, below.
Second, NMFS revised § 679.20(a)(7)(vii) to more accurately describe the process for setting the Pacific cod harvest limit for Area 543. The proposed rule at § 679.20(a)(7)(vii) said that NMFS would adjust the ABC by deducting the State guideline harvest level (GHL). This is not the case, as NMFS does not adjust the ABC. NMFS modified this paragraph to explain that NMFS will first subtract the State GHL Pacific cod amount from the Aleutian
Third, this final rule revises and adds data elements within a collection-of-information for recordkeeping and reporting requirements; therefore 15 CFR 902.1(b) is revised to correctly reference the sections resulting from this final rule. 15 CFR 902.1(b) identifies the location of NOAA regulations for which Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval numbers have been issued. Section 3507(c)(B)(i) of the Paperwork Reduction Act requires that agencies inventory and display a current control number assigned by the Director of the OMB for each agency information collection.
The comment period on the proposed rule ended on August 15, 2014 (79 FR 37486). NMFS received 17 letters during the proposed rule comment period. NMFS released the final EIS on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29759). NMFS received two letters of public comment on the final EIS. The 19 letters received contained 59 unique comments. All of the comment letters received are posted on
Although NMFS is not required to respond to comments received as a result of issuance of the final EIS, NMFS decided to provide responses as part of the decision-making process. Due to the overlap of issues, NMFS summarizes and responds to the comments received on the final EIS and the comments on the proposed rule in this final rule preamble.
In many of the letters, members of the public also made comments on the 2014 BiOp. NMFS responds to comments on the 2014 BiOp that are related to the proposed rule and EIS. However, comments on the 2014 BiOp that are not related to the proposed rule or EIS are not addressed further in this preamble. NMFS notes that this final rule does not implement the 2014 BiOp, and the 2014 BiOp is not subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requiring a response in this final rule. All letters were provided to NMFS PRD for their review. NMFS PRD and NMFS SFD did not identify any new information provided in public comments that would require NMFS SFD to reinitiate ESA section 7 consultation. The triggers for reinitiating consultation are provided at 50 CFR 402.16.
The 2014 BiOp did not recommend reinitiation triggers for the Pacific cod fishery because the nature of the Pacific cod fishery and harvest limits have changed since the 2010 FMP BiOp. As of 2014, Pacific cod OFLs, ABCs, and TACs are specified separately for the eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. The amount of Pacific cod catch in the Aleutian Islands is expected to be substantially reduced relative to prior years when the OFL, ABC, and TAC were combined for the BSAI. Therefore, the potential for a shift of a substantial amount of fishing effort from one area of the Aleutian Islands to another does not exist under this action.
The reinitiation notice in Section 10.0 of the 2014 BiOp stated that formal consultation may be required if the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod harvest is concentrated in Areas 542 or 543, as this would reflect a pattern not seen in the historical fishery data. The EIS and the 2014 BiOp anticipated that a larger proportion of the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC is likely to be harvested by trawl gear rather than by non-trawl gear and the Council did not recommend harvest limits.
A separate Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC was established starting in 2014 that resulted in a substantial reduction in the Pacific cod available for harvest in the Aleutian Islands. The Council and NMFS were aware of the impact of the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC on the fixed gear fleet's harvest opportunities when the Council took action to split the Pacific cod TAC. With the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC, it is likely that trawl vessels will be able to fully harvest this limited TAC before the Pacific cod are available for harvest by fixed gear vessels.
The EIS analyzed the impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives with the understanding that a separate Pacific cod TAC would be implemented in 2014 (see Chapter 5 of the EIS). The 2014 BiOp acknowledged the impacts of the Pacific cod TAC split, including the fact that the trawl fishery would harvest the TAC, when it analyzed the proposed suite of Steller sea lion protection measures and found that the implementation of this final rule was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions and was
The statutory and regulatory provisions that limit the maximum amount of pollock TAC that may be harvested in the Aleutian Islands means that the pollock TAC in 2015 would be less than 50 percent of the Aleutian Islands pollock ABC. The commenter notes that Aleutian Islands pollock harvest is likely to be significantly less than the TAC because allocations provided to CDQ groups (
The 2010 FMP BiOp analyzed the impacts of the Bering Sea pollock fishery on Steller sea lions and concluded that the management measures currently in place, including the management measures for the Bering Sea pollock fishery, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. The 2014 BiOp concluded management measures in this action for the Aleutian Islands pollock fishery are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat.
A wide range of factors can affect the distribution of Steller sea lions (see Chapter 5 of the EIS for additional details on Steller sea lion distribution). The occurrence of Steller sea lions at a
In 2012, the estimated abundance of the entire WDPS of Steller sea lions (pups and non-pups, United States and Russia/Asia) was 79,300 sea lions (see Section 3.3.1 of the 2014 BiOp). Abundance of the United States portion of the population is estimated at 52,200 animals based on data from 2012. Steller sea lion abundance in the Russian portion of the population is estimated at 27,100 animals based on data collected through 2012.
There is evidence that Steller sea lion non-pup counts in Alaska increased at an average rate of 1.67 percent per year between 2000 and 2012. Because the United States portion of the range occurs exclusively within Alaska, reference to the United States portion of the Steller sea lion population is synonymous with the Alaska portion of the Steller sea lion population. However, there are strong differences in trends across the range of Steller sea lions in Alaska. There is strong evidence of a positive trend (2.89 percent per year) east of Samalga Pass and strong evidence of a continued decline (−1.53 percent per year) west of Samalga Pass.
NMFS uses six sub-regions within Alaska for trend and status monitoring of Steller sea lions. These sub-regions include the eastern GOA, central GOA, and western GOA, the eastern Aleutian Islands/Bering Sea, central Aleutian Islands, and the western Aleutian Islands. A seventh sub-region (
Non-pup counts increased at a significant rate from 2000 through 2012 in the eastern GOA, the western GOA, and the eastern Aleutian Islands. Non-pup counts increased at a non-significant rate from 2000 through 2012 in the central GOA. Counts of non-pups decreased at a significant rate in the western Aleutian Islands and at a non-significant rate in the central Aleutian Islands from 2000 through 2012.
The Russian sub-region of Steller sea lions is estimated to have increased from 13,000 sea lions in the 1990s to 16,000 by 2005. Data collected through 2012 indicate that overall Steller sea lion abundance in the Russian sub-region continues to increase and is now similar to the 1960s (27,100). Between 1995 and 2012, pup production increased overall in the Russian sub-region by 3.1 percent per year. However, just as in the United States portion of the range, there are significant regional differences in Steller sea lion population trends in the Russian sub-region (see the EIS Chapter 5 and 2014 BiOp for full details).
The 2014 BiOp considered the effects of two proposed actions: The modified Steller sea lion protection measures in the Aleutian Islands Federal groundfish fisheries and State of Alaska parallel groundfish fisheries for Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock (the action implemented through this final rule); and research to better understand the potential effects of these fisheries on Steller sea lions. As required by the regulations codified at 50 CFR 402.14, the 2014 BiOp includes a summary of the information on which the opinion is based, a detailed discussion of the effects of the action on the listed Steller sea lions and designated critical habitat, and NMFS' opinion that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the WDPS of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. NMFS based its opinion in the 2014 BiOp on the best scientific and commercial data available as required by 50 CFR 402.14. Please see the 2014 BiOp for additional detail (see
NMFS then conducted an ESA section 7 consultation on the Council's recommended proposed action and issued the 2014 BiOp. The 2014 BiOp concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the WDPS of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. The 2014 BiOp also explains that NMFS maintains that a cautionary approach to fishing for prey species in Steller sea lion critical habitat is warranted, especially in winter when NMFS has the least information about prey biomass, and that catch should be dispersed in time
In the 2014 BiOp, NMFS analyzed the effects of Alternative 5 after it was recommended by the Council. NMFS conducted the ESA section 7 consultation on Alternative 5 prior to releasing the final EIS and commencing rulemaking. The 2014 BiOp found that the implementation of Alternative 5 was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the WDPS of Steller sea lions and was not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated Steller sea lion critical habitat. The conclusions in the 2014 BiOp were reached after considering the best scientific and commercial information available, including Steller sea lion behavior and fisheries data.
NMFS did a project-level, focused consultation on the proposed action to modify Steller sea lion protection measures in the Aleutian Islands. The 2014 BiOp is the result of that consultation. The 2014 BiOp considered a different proposed action than the 2010 FMP BiOp, namely the proposed changes to the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod, Atka mackerel, and pollock fisheries; scientific research on these fisheries and other changes to the fishery management structure since 2010; and new information available subsequent to completion of the 2010 FMP BiOp. The proposed action to modify Steller sea lion protection measures replaces the RPA in the 2010 FMP BiOp, which was implemented as the 2010 Interim Final Rule. Based on an analysis of the proposed action and the new information, the 2014 BiOp concludes that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat.
The abundance of Steller sea lions in Alaska is increasing at a statistically significant rate; however, the increase is due to significant increases in population growth in three of the six sub-regions (the eastern Aleutian Islands, the western GOA, and the eastern GOA). Steller sea lions continue to decline in the central Aleutian Islands and western Aleutian Islands. The rate of decline is not statistically significant in the central Aleutian Islands, but is statistically significant in the western Aleutian Islands. The rate of increase is uncertain in the central GOA. See response to Comment 13 for additional information on the population status of Steller sea lions.
Section 3.6 of the 2014 BiOp and Section 5.1.1.2 of the EIS discuss the extinction risk of Steller sea lions in Alaska. The studies presented in those sections show no risk of extinction for Steller sea lion in the WDPS within 100 years. These studies also considered the probability of extinction in each of the six specific sub-regions within 100 years. The studies concluded that Steller sea lion populations in all six of the sub-regions, with one exception, have no risk of extinction within 100 years. The population in the western Aleutian Islands sub-region is predicted
As explained in Section 7.1 of the 2014 BiOp, NMFS considered the effects of the proposed action on the survival and recovery of sea lion populations in the individual sub-regions per the criteria in the 2008 Recovery Plan. NMFS' opinion in the 2014 BiOp is that the preponderance of available data does not support a conclusion that the groundfish fisheries as proposed and the current groundfish abundance are limiting Steller sea lion population growth rates. NMFS acknowledges that, due to significant data gaps, NMFS cannot rule out the effects of fishing as contributing to the continued decline in the western Aleutian Islands and the lack of recovery in the central Aleutian Islands (see Section 5.4.5 of the 2014 BiOp).
Given these data gaps, NMFS maintains that a precautionary approach to fishing for sea lion prey species in Steller sea lion critical habitat is warranted, especially in winter, and that catch of prey species should be dispersed in time and space to prevent localized depletion of prey at least until NMFS has better information about local biomass and exploitation rates (see Section 5.4.5 of the 2014 BiOp). The Steller sea lion protection measures implemented in this final rule maintain substantial groundfish fishery closures and catch limits in Steller sea lion critical habitat (see Section 5.3 in the 2014 BiOp and Sections 2.1.5 and 5.2.2.6 of the EIS) to reduce the potential for competition for prey between the fisheries and sea lions and to ensure that the fisheries are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the WDPS of Steller sea lions or destroy of adversely modify their designated critical habitat.
For example, directed fishing for Atka mackerel, pollock, and Pacific cod with trawl gear will be prohibited in 76 percent, 95 percent, and 76 percent, respectively, of the area designated as critical habitat in the western Aleutian Islands (Area 543). Limits will be imposed on the amount of the TAC of these Steller sea lion prey species that may be taken from Area 543, which corresponds with the western Aleutian Islands sub-region (see Section 2.1.5 of the EIS). Seasonal catch limits will also be imposed and the amount of Atka mackerel that can be caught in Steller sea lion critical habitat in the central and western Aleutian Islands (Areas 543 and 542) will be limited to 60 percent of the TAC. Refer to the preamble to the proposed rule for the full suite of Steller sea lion protection measures implemented by this final rule.
NMFS' opinion about the effects of the proposed fisheries on the Steller sea lion population in the western Aleutian Islands sub-region and their designated critical habitat is summarized in Section 7.3 of the 2014 BiOp. The measures implemented by this final rule to reduce potential competition between the groundfish fisheries and Steller sea lions overall, and in sea lion critical habitat in the western Aleutian Islands, are not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery of the western Aleutian Islands Steller sea lion sub-population. However, based on an assessment of the available data, NMFS concluded that a decline in numbers of the western Aleutian Islands Steller sea lion population is likely to continue for unknown reasons, even apart from any changes in the fisheries, and that the measures implemented by this rule are not likely to yield population level effects that would appreciably change the likelihood of survival or recovery of the Steller sea lion population within the western Aleutian Islands sub-region. NMFS also concluded that the effects of the proposed fisheries in the central Aleutian Islands (corresponding with NMFS management areas 542 and 541) are not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery in the central Aleutian Islands sub-region. Because the proposed fisheries are not likely to reduce the survival or recovery of Steller sea lion populations in the western and central Aleutian Islands sub-regions, NMFS concluded that the proposed fisheries are not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery of the WDPS of Steller sea lions (Section 7.3 of the 2014 BiOp).
Section 1.10.3 of the EIS describes the objective and performance standards to mitigate potential adverse impacts of the fisheries on Steller sea lions. The Council and NMFS considered these performance standards when selecting the preferred alternative in the EIS. The performance standards reflect concepts NMFS has applied for over a decade to mitigate potential impacts of the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions and their critical habitat. The specific set of performance standards for this action originated in the 2010 FMP BiOp and was subsequently modified in the EIS to reflect new information available since the since 2010 FMP BiOp was prepared. The action implemented in this final rule adheres to the performance standards by closing important Steller sea lion habitat and
A greater percentage of the critical habitat area will be open to directed fishing for Atka mackerel and Pacific cod in Area 543 relative to Areas 542 or 541 under this final rule. However, this final rule imposes stricter harvest limits for Atka mackerel and Pacific cod in Area 543 compared to the harvest limits that will apply in Areas 542 and 541 (see Section 2.1.5 of the EIS) in accordance with the performance standards in the 2010 FMP BiOp. Taken as a whole, these measures meet the performance standards by limiting catch overall in the areas where the rate of decline is most evident. The specification of a separate Aleutian Islands Pacific cod ABC and TAC beginning in 2014 (see Section 3.3.3 of the EIS) substantially reduced Pacific cod harvests in the Aleutian Islands relative to baseline harvests. The historical data indicate that higher Pacific cod catches are expected in Area 541 compared to Areas 542 and 543 (see EIS Sections 8.11 and 8.18.3). As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 37486), the measures to mitigate the potential effects of the pollock fishery on Steller sea lions and critical habitat conform to the performance standard and are more protective where the Steller sea lion decline is most evident. To meet the objective of the mitigation measures (see EIS Section 1.10.3), the Council and NMFS considered the performance standards, changes to the fisheries relative to the action analyzed in the 2010 FMP BiOp, and the effects of the alternatives when selecting the preferred alternative being implemented in this final rule.
While the depth analysis in the 2014 BiOp is more detailed than in the EIS, the conclusions of the respective analyses are in accord with each other. For example, the EIS concludes that competition may be less likely between Steller sea lions and fisheries that harvest species found deeper in the water column. In the 2014 BiOp, NMFS also inferred greater potential depth overlap with sea lions between the Pacific cod and Atka mackerel fisheries than for pollock fisheries, based on the available data. The pollock fishery occurs at deeper depths than the Pacific cod and Atka mackerel fisheries (see Section 5.3.5 in the 2014 BiOp). NMFS also noted in the 2014 BiOp that there were limitations in the available data for drawing inferences about the cause of apparent depth partitioning in some portion of sea lion dives and pollock trawl hauls. These conclusions are consistent with the conclusions in Section 5.2.2.1 of the EIS, which notes that diel or seasonal vertical migrations of fish complicates the description of depth overlap between the fisheries and Steller sea lions.
The EIS analysis focuses on the effects on Steller sea lions that occur in the Aleutian Islands. EIS Section 5.1.1.2 discusses the process Johnson (2013) developed for forecasting the population of Steller sea lions and summarized the probability of the population falling below a quasi-extinction threshold within 50 and 100 years. A quasi-extinction threshold is the population size, greater than zero, at which a population is ultimately doomed to extinction due to genetic or physical constraints of the small, remaining population. NMFS examined three methods: The Morris and Doak (MD) method (Morris and Doak 2002), and restricted and unrestricted agTrend methods (Johnson 2013). The results for each method were qualitatively the same: There is approximately a zero percent probability of quasi-extinction of the Steller sea lion population in Alaska as a whole within the next 100 years. Similarly, there is approximately a zero percent probability of quasi-extinction of the Steller sea lion population from each of the sub-regions within Alaska within the next 100 years, with one exception for the western Aleutian Islands sub-region. The probability of extirpation of the Steller sea lion population in the western Aleutian Islands sub-region is substantial even within 50 years.
The EIS states that competition with fisheries may affect prey availability to Steller sea lions. In the EIS, prey effects are considered adverse effects because, based on information available on prey interaction, it is assumed there are no beneficial effects from removal of prey. Removal of prey can have direct and indirect adverse effects on Steller sea lions. The EIS discusses the potential adverse effects to Steller sea lions from the harvest of prey resources in the Aleutian Islands under all of the alternatives. After conducting this analysis, and analysis of other factors detailed in the EIS, NMFS concluded in the 2014 BiOp that although there is a substantial risk of extinction of the Steller sea lion population in the western Aleutian Islands based on projected population trends, additional management measures beyond those implemented in this final rule were not required to insure that groundfish fisheries are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the WDPS of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat.
NMFS agrees that a wide range of species occurring in the action area prey on groundfish. NMFS conservatively manages the groundfish fisheries and limits catch for ecosystem considerations, including a conservative optimum yield cap and a global control rule. In the 2010 FMP BiOp, NMFS analyzed the effects of the authorization of groundfish fisheries, including the prosecution of parallel groundfish fisheries in Alaska state waters (see
The 2014 BiOp identified the importance of maintaining global, or broad scale, limits on the harvest of Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock. Global limits are currently in place for these three species. Regulations prohibit directed fishing in the BSAI or GOA if the projected spawning biomass of the fish stock falls below 20 percent of the unfished spawning biomass (see regulations at § 679.20(d)(4)). Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries have not experienced this type of directed fishing closure since global limits became effective in 2003 (68 FR 204, January 2, 2003).
Additionally, NMFS conducts ecosystem modeling and incorporates ecosystem considerations, including predation, into the stock assessment models. See response to comment 54.
Further, the EIS analyzes the impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives on a wide range of ecosystem elements, including local fish populations in Chapter 3, killer whales and seals in Chapter 5, seabirds in Chapter 6, and on the ecosystem as a whole in Chapter 7.
The proposed rule asserts that the Council and NMFS understood that a preferred alternative and any resulting rule must meet the requirements of the ESA before factors that minimize, to the extent practicable, the economic impacts on fishery participants could be considered. This assertion notwithstanding, the proposed rule repeatedly states that certain lesser protection measures have been selected because they “balance” conservation of Steller sea lions with economic opportunities for the commercial fisheries. The balancing approach undertaken by the Council and NMFS is unlawful because the ESA disallows balancing the benefit to the species against the economic and technical burden on the industry. NMFS proposes an unprecedented reversal of the ESA's mandated precaution and appears to premise its analysis and conclusions on an illegal shifting of the burden of proof and an impermissible elevation of economic considerations.
Under the ESA, economic considerations may not be considered in an agency's determination of whether an action is likely to cause jeopardy—a determination that must be based exclusively on the best available science. Because the legislation reveals a conscious decision by Congress to give endangered species priority over the primary missions of Federal agencies, NMFS may not give equal priority to economic concerns and its obligations under the ESA.
In compliance with the ESA, NMFS conducted a section 7 consultation on the action implemented in this final rule. During that consultation, NMFS used the best scientific and commercial data available. The results of the ESA section 7 consultation are documented in the 2014 BiOp. In the 2014 BiOp, NMFS concluded that the implementation of the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the WDPS of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify designated Steller sea lion critical habitat. Economic impacts were not a factor in making that conclusion.
NMFS agrees that ESA section 7 analyses should err on the side of the survival and recovery of the listed species when the effects of an action are uncertain. The analysis in the 2014 BiOp is a cautionary examination of the effects of the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lions and their designated critical habitat. NMFS assumes that groundfish fisheries may compete with Steller sea lions for prey. NMFS makes this assumption even though there is substantial scientific debate as to whether such competition exists, or if it does, whether the levels of removals in the fishery would be sufficient to cause competition in a way that would impede the survival and recovery of Steller sea lions. In Section 5.3.8 of the 2014 BiOp, NMFS presents a conceptual model illustrating the pathways through which Steller sea lions are exposed to the stressor of reduced prey resources due to the groundfish fisheries. NMFS' conceptual model for Steller sea lion behavioral and physiological responses to reduced prey resources is shown in Section 5.4 of the 2014 BiOp.
NMFS discusses where the available data allow inference of the effects and where the available data are equivocal as to the effects on prey availability and subsequent effects on Steller sea lion fitness. In cases where the data are equivocal, to avoid underestimating the potential risk to the survival and recovery of Steller sea lions, NMFS assumes the groundfish fisheries may compete with sea lions for prey and assumes that the most extreme physiological consequences would result. In those cases, NMFS concluded that local Steller sea lion populations may be affected by the proposed action but that the magnitude of the effect would not be sufficient to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery in either the central or western Aleutian Islands sub-regions. Because the action is not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery in the individual sub-regions, the proposed action is not likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery of the WDPS of Steller sea lions. In other cases, the best scientific data available support a conclusion that the proposed groundfish fisheries are not likely to cause localized
In developing the proposed action and its alternatives, the Council and NMFS did consider impacts on fishery participants. NMFS is required to consider the impacts of its fishery management actions on fishery participants under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Executive Order 12866, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS describes each regulatory provision and provides an explanation as to why the Council recommended and NMFS approved and implemented these regulatory provisions. These explanations address why a particular regulatory provision was included or why a particular provision from the 2010 Interim Final Rule was revised or removed. However, it is NMFS' conclusions in its 2014 BiOp that the regulatory provisions, individually and collectively, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify designated Steller sea lion critical habitat.
At the same time, NMFS is managing fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to implement protection measures in a manner that minimizes adverse economic impacts, to the extent practicable, on those affected by the restrictions under the Steller sea lion protection measures. Under the purpose and need for this action, NMFS must meet the requirements of the ESA and do so in a manner that also meets the requirements to manage fisheries to minimize adverse economic impacts to fishery participants and fishery dependent communities, where practicable, under the requirements of Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Despite the proposed rule's frequent and prominent invocation of the need to minimize economic impacts, nowhere does the proposed rule explain the legal or policy genesis of this objective. While National Standard 7 does encourage NMFS to minimize costs and to avoid unnecessary duplication where possible, NMFS may not select and elevate one Magnuson-Stevens Act obligation from among the several management obligations imposed by the statute. In addition to National Standard 7, the Magnuson-Stevens Act includes substantive obligations to conserve and manage fishery resources and to protect the marine ecosystem. NMFS cannot simply ignore these additional Magnuson-Stevens Act obligations or prioritize financial benefit for the fishing industry.
The statement of purpose and need specifies the underlying purpose and need to which NMFS is responding in proposing the alternatives, including the proposed action. As explained in the EIS, the need to comply with section 7 of the ESA is the primary driver for implementing Steller sea lion protection measures. As NMFS has stated previously in the preamble to the proposed rule and in this preamble, NMFS did not consider economic factors when determining if the proposed action would jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. See response to Comment 33 and the 2014 BiOp for additional detail.
However, after NMFS meets its requirements under the ESA, NMFS also needs to make sure that the measures that it implements minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse economic impacts to groundfish fishery participants under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This is not the same as giving equal priority to economic concerns and ESA obligations.
This final rule implements an extensive suite of Steller sea lion protection measures that impose economic costs on the fishing industry compared to no protection measures. This final rule also relaxes some Steller sea lion protection measures implemented under the 2010 Interim Final Rule. These changes to Steller sea lion protection measures were recommended by the Council based on the best scientific information available. NMFS conducted a section 7 consultation on the Council's recommendation under the requirements of the ESA (see 2014 BiOp) and determined that the Council's recommendation was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. Removing or modifying specific protection measures and allowing some increases in fishing is not the same as prioritizing financial benefit for the fishing industry. See the preamble to the proposed rule for a complete discussion of the specific Steller sea lion protection measures that are modified or removed with this final rule.
This final rule implements an extensive suite of Steller sea lion protection measures that impose economic costs on the fishing industry compared to no protection measures. This final rule also relaxes some restrictions on fishing implemented by the 2010 Interim Final Rule, thereby relieving some of the costs imposed by that action. NMFS has determined that these specific restrictions were not necessary to insure that groundfish fisheries in the BSAI are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat and therefore could be removed.
The proposed rule reduces the negative social and economic impacts to the City of Adak and introduces the
NMFS carefully designed Alternative 6 to be a Steller sea lion protection measure that is more conservative than Alternative 1 and provides for effects that can be analyzed and compared to the other alternatives. Further, Alternative 6 does not close the action area to all fishing. As explained in EIS Section 2.1.6, Alternative 6 would prohibit retention of Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock in the Aleutian Islands, species identified as important prey species for Steller sea lions. Vessels would be prohibited from directed fishing for these species and prohibited from retaining any incidental catch of these species while directed fishing for other groundfish targets (
NMFS notes that the process for modifying fishery stock assessment models for Atka mackerel or any other groundfish species does not require rulemaking to develop, analyze, or implement alternative model structures. NMFS continues to develop techniques to evaluate the effects of the groundfish fisheries and management system on the ecosystem. NMFS continues to develop state-of-the-art ecosystem models with a goal to better evaluate risks to ecosystem given current and alternative harvest strategies. This scientific work is ongoing and, while important to groundfish fishery management, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking process. This action implements regulations to restrict vessels from fishing in specific areas and at specific times to limit competition of prey resources with Steller sea lions.
In EIS Section 2.3, NMFS analyzed the ideas suggested in public comments to change the harvest strategy in the Aleutian Islands. NMFS explains that changes to the harvest strategy are outside the scope of this action and do not meet the purpose and need. The revisions to the harvest strategy proposed in public comment would not provide the necessary protections for Steller sea lions. Revisions to the harvest strategy recommended by the commenter do not meet the purpose and need for the action because they do not provide additional protections for Steller sea lions by reducing potential competition between Steller sea lions and fishery harvests when and where Steller sea lions forage. As explained throughout the EIS, the Steller sea lion protection measures are a suite of measures that regulates fishing activity by applying seasons, area closures, and harvest limits all with the goal of reducing potential fishery competition for Steller sea lion prey when and where Steller sea lions forage.
NMFS is continually striving to understand the prey requirements of Steller sea lions and minimize potential competition at the finest scale possible with the best available information. Further, NMFS does not change stock assessment methods or harvest strategy through regulations. The Council and NMFS are continually assessing the scientific methods used for stock assessment. NMFS uses the best available scientific information to improve stock assessment methods and evaluate ecosystem considerations. An example of this is the decision to establish separate ABCs and TACs for Pacific cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. Starting in January 2014, as recommended by the Council and based on genetic and other morphological evidence, NMFS separated Aleutian Islands Pacific cod from the Bering Sea Pacific cod stock. This results in lower maximum potential catches in the Aleutian Islands due to the establishment of separate OFLs, ABCs, and TACs in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. With this split, the TAC in the Aleutian Islands results in a maximum harvest of roughly half the previous average harvest rate in the Aleutian Islands prior to the split, and lower fishing mortality rates, than those proposed by the commenter. The impacts of the implementation of an Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC are discussed in EIS Section 3.3, however, that action was separate from the action implemented in this final rule.
NMFS scientists have compared using a constant, time-invariant natural mortality in stock assessment models to using models in which natural mortality
NMFS' ongoing scientific work to evaluate predator/prey relationships and develop multispecies models is separate from the rulemaking process NMFS conducted for this final rule to restrict vessels from fishing in specific areas and at specific times to limit potential competition with Steller sea lions.
NMFS disagrees with the comment's characterization of the previous biological opinions. As explained in the EIS and all previous BiOps, NMFS' concern has been the potential competition of fisheries with Steller sea lions for prey when and where Steller sea lions forage. NMFS has imposed Steller sea lion protection measures that include seasonal restrictions, area closures, and catch limits with the goal of reducing the potential of fisheries to affect Steller sea lion foraging opportunities. These are coupled with fine-scale fishery evaluations following the surgical approach outlined in the 2008 Recovery Plan, the 2010 FMP BiOp, the 2014 BiOp, and the latest information regarding sea lion behavior and prey resources as described in EIS Chapters 3 and 5. Implementing the Steller sea lion protection measures that regulate fishing activity, as is being done by this final rule, is a separate action from NMFS' ongoing scientific work to understand and model predator/prey relationships and evaluate the impacts of fish harvest on the ecosystem using the latest scientific techniques.
The fact that NMFS is implementing regulations that the commenter disagrees with is not a basis to conclude that they represent poor management or are illegal.
Pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
Formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA was completed for this action. On April 2, 2014, NMFS issued a biological opinion (2014 BiOp) on the action. The 2014 BiOp found that the implementation of the action and supporting research described in Chapter 11 of the EIS were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered Steller sea lions or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat.
NMFS prepared a final EIS for this action. The final EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on May 16, 2014. A notice of availability was published on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29759). In approving this action, NMFS issued a Record of Decision identifying the selected alternative. A copy of the Record of Decision is available from NMFS (see
Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, NMFS mailed letters to approximately 660 Alaska tribal governments, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations, and related organizations providing information about the EIS and soliciting consultation and coordination with interested tribal governments and ANCSA corporations. NMFS received no comments on the EIS from tribal governments or ANCSA corporation representatives. Section 1.7 of the EIS provides more detail on NMFS' outreach with Alaska tribal governments and ANCSA corporations (see
This final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action.
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that, when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a FRFA. Section 604 describes the required contents of a FRFA: (1) A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule; (2) a statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments; (3) the response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments; (4) a description of and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate is available; (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the 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 (6) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule is contained on pages 4 through 10 of the preamble to this final rule and is not repeated here.
NMFS published a proposed rule on July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37486). An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared and summarized in the “Classification” section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The comment period closed on August 15, 2014. NMFS received 17 letters of public comment on the proposed rule. No comments were received on the IRFA, or on the small entity impacts of this rule. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments on the proposed rule.
The small entity estimates reported in the IRFA for this action have been reviewed for compliance with subsequent inflation adjustments to SBA thresholds for identifying small entities (79 FR 33647, June 12, 2014). The change in thresholds did not lead to changes in the small entity estimates.
NMFS identified three groups of entities that would be directly regulated by this action: (1) Federally-permitted vessels that harvest Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock in the Aleutian Islands; (2) CDQ groups that receive an allocation of Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock in the Aleutian Islands; and (3) the Aleut Corporation, which receives an allocation of pollock in the Aleutian Islands. The following paragraphs provide estimates of the numbers of small entities in these three categories that are directly regulated by this action. NMFS estimates that 26 vessels, and the six CDQ groups, are directly regulated small entities.
NMFS identified 51 vessels active in directed fisheries for Atka mackerel or Pacific cod in 2010 that would have been directly regulated by this action. Twelve vessels—one catcher/processor and 11 catcher vessels—were believed to be small entities. One of these vessels was a pot catcher/processor, and the remaining vessels were trawl catcher vessels. The estimated average gross revenue from the identified small entities, in 2012 (the most recent year with complete revenue information), was about $1.4 million. Note that firm revenues may have been larger, if these firms had revenues from sources other than the identified vessels. If this was the case, average gross revenues for small entities may be underestimated or the number of small entities might be overestimated, and the direction of the impact on average revenue for the remaining vessels would be unknown. The remaining 39 vessels that directly targeted Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, or pollock in the Aleutian Islands in 2010 were classified as large entities since their gross revenues, or their gross revenues and those of their affiliated entities, exceeded the SBA threshold of $20.5 million. The IRFA details the process used to determine if a vessel was affiliated with other businesses and is not repeated here.
In addition to vessels in directed fisheries, NMFS identified 20 vessels with incidental catches of Atka mackerel or Pacific cod in Area 543 that are directly regulated by this action. Alternative 1, the status quo, prohibits retention of Atka mackerel or Pacific cod in Area 543. This comprehensive prohibition on retention is relaxed under this action, the preferred alternative. This prohibition directly regulates vessels that would otherwise have retained these species in Area 543. Thus, the preferred alternative directly regulates these vessels in this area. Only small numbers of vessels took incidental catches of these species in Area 543 during the baseline years. Over the entire baseline period, from 2004 through 2010, only six separate fixed gear catcher/processors or trawl catcher vessels were identified with incidental catches of Atka mackerel and/or Pacific cod from 2004 through 2010. None of these is believed to be a small entity based on a knowledge of vessel affiliations. Fourteen fixed gear catcher vessels had incidental catches during the same years. All of these are considered to be small entities based on a review of their gross revenues from all sources, and their affiliations. None of these vessels fished all years; the median number of years fishing in Area 543 for a vessel in this group during the baseline period was two years. The aggregate fixed gear catcher vessel revenues from Area 543 for these vessels are estimated to average about $11,300 a year in real 2012 dollars, during the baseline years (2004 through 2010). Average revenues per vessel-year from this source are estimated to be about $2,200.
Through the CDQ program, the Council and NMFS allocate a portion of the BSAI groundfish TACs, and apportion prohibited species catch limits for Pacific halibut, Pacific salmon, and several crab species, to 65 eligible Western Alaska communities. These communities work through six non-profit CDQ groups, and are required to use the net proceeds from the CDQ allocations to start or support activities that will result in ongoing, regionally based, commercial fishery or related businesses. The six CDQ groups receive allocations through the specifications
The Aleut Corporation receives all of the pollock directed fishing allocation in Areas 541, 542, and 543. The Aleut Corporation is an ANCSA corporation, and is a holding company evaluated according to the SBA criteria at 13 CFR 121.201, using a $7 million gross annual receipts threshold for “Offices of Other Holding Companies” (NAICS code 551112). As noted, in Table 8–39 of Chapter 8 of the EIS, Aleut Corporation revenues exceed this threshold (gross revenues were about $159 million in 2010), and the Aleut Corporation is considered to be a large entity for purposes of this analysis.
This action would implement new recordkeeping and reporting requirements by requiring an increase in VMS polling rates for all trawl vessels named on a Federal Fishing Permit under § 679.4(b) and fishing for groundfish that is deducted or required to be deducted from a Federal groundfish TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea. Some operations may have to upgrade existing VMS equipment, and all will have to increase transmission rates. The owner of the trawl vessel must ensure NMFS receives the transmission from the VMS unit at least 10 times per hour. This measure does not apply to fixed gear vessels, thus, from the discussion above, it may affect as many as 11 small trawl catcher vessel entities. The costs of this requirement are discussed in the Collection-of-Information section of this final rule, and are incorporated by reference here. In summary, all trawl catcher vessels will incur additional transmission costs estimated to be about $400 a year, and some may be required to upgrade their VMS equipment at a cost estimated to be about $3,500.
A FRFA must describe the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency that affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
At its October 2013 meeting, the Council adopted Alternative 5. This alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 of the EIS. Section 8.13.1 of the EIS and Section 1.13.1 of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) provide an analysis of Alternative 5, while Section 8.20 of the EIS, and Section 1.14 of the RIR compare Alternative 5 to the other alternatives for affected fleets. This FRFA describes the impacts of Alternative 5 relative to other alternatives for Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, and pollock fisheries.
The elements of Alternative 5 that regulate the Atka mackerel fishery are slightly more restrictive than those in Alternatives 3 and 4, and are less restrictive than those in Alternatives 1, 2, and 6.
For the Atka mackerel fishery, Alternative 5 is most comparable to Alternative 3. Alternatives 3 and 5 are the same in Areas 541 and 542. They differ in Area 543 in that Alternative 3 closes certain waters around Buldir Island explicitly, while Alternative 5 does not. However, Alternative 5 sets an Area 543 TAC limit equal to 65 percent of ABC and that limit is not included in Alternative 3. On balance, from information during the baseline years, Alternative 5 may be somewhat more restrictive in Area 543 than Alternative 3. However, the Alternative 5 TAC limit in Area 543 is included to prevent excessive harvest of Atka mackerel prey resources near Steller sea lion haulouts and rookeries.
For the Atka mackerel fishery, Alternative 4 is also less restrictive than Alternative 5. However, the Council did not recommend and NMFS did not select Alternative 4 as its preferred alternative. Alternative 4 measures were found to result in jeopardy and adverse modification of critical habitat for the Steller sea lions in the 2010 FMP BiOp. Alternative 5 provides more protection for Steller sea lions in Area 543, where population declines have been larger than in Areas 541 and 542. Alternative 5 was selected over other less restrictive alternatives to insure that Atka mackerel fisheries in the BSAI are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat.
The elements of Alternative 5 that regulate the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod fishery are slightly more restrictive than those in Alternative 4, and are less restrictive than those in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 6. For Pacific cod, Alternative 5 is most closely comparable to Alternative 4. However, Alternative 4 may be less restrictive to small entities, since Alternative 5 adds a catch limit for Pacific cod in Area 543 that limits area catch in proportion to the annual stock assessment. Alternative 5 was selected over the less restrictive Alternative 4 to insure that Pacific cod fisheries in the BSAI are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. NMFS notes that Alternative 5 was selected with the clear understanding that the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod will be managed as a separate stock from the Bering Sea Pacific cod, which limits the amount of catch from the Aleutian Islands relative to the baseline harvests analyzed.
The elements of Alternative 5 that regulate the Aleutian Islands pollock fishery are slightly more restrictive than those in Alternatives 3 and 4 (Alternatives 3 and 4 are identical in their management of the pollock fishery). Alternative 5 differs from Alternatives 3 and 4 only in that it includes management area specific A season catch limits, and increases critical habitat closures in Area 542. The A season catch limits are 5 percent of the ABC in Area 543, 15 percent of the ABC in Area 542, and 30 percent of the ABC in Area 543. Alternative 5 is less restrictive than Alternatives 1, 2, and 6.
The area constraints on pollock fishing contained in Alternative 5 are not present in Alternatives 3 and 4. Thus, those alternatives may be somewhat less restrictive than Alternative 5. Management area limits were introduced to provide control over potential harvests in a new pollock fishery of unknown potential and, thus, to provide more protection for Steller sea lions. These restrictions are more stringent in the western areas, where Steller sea lions are not doing as well as in the east (this is consistent with the performance standards in the 2010 FMP BiOp). The extension of the 542 closure areas, west of 178° W longitude, to 20 nm under Alternative 5, may also contribute to making this alternative more restrictive than Alternatives 3 and 4. The extension was also included in Alternative 5 to provide more protection to Steller sea lion prey species occurring near rookeries and haul-outs that have experienced relatively greater declines in populations. Alternative 5 was selected over other less restrictive alternatives to insure that pollock fisheries in the BSAI are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered Steller sea lions or destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat.
NMFS has posted a small entity compliance guide on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (
This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The collections of information are listed below by OMB control number.
The Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) is mentioned in the regulatory text of this rule, but no changes are made to the application form.
Public reporting burden is estimated to average 4 hours per response for the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) operation (includes installation, transmission, and maintenance). Estimates of burden include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at the
This rule increases the number of transmissions or VMS polling rate, from 2 per hour to 10 per hour when a vessel is using trawl gear to fish in the Aleutian Islands; however, VMS transmissions are not counted as burden, because they are automatic. Some vessels may incur additional operating costs due to the increase in the VMS polling rate, or they may have to replace existing VMS units to meet the polling rate and reliability requirements. NMFS estimates that the increase in the polling rate will increase VMS costs by about $400 per year for trawl catcher vessels and catcher/processors operating in the Aleutian Islands, except for trawl catcher/processors targeting Atka mackerel. Trawl catcher/processors targeting Atka mackerel are expected to incur costs of about $1,200 per year; however, these are all large entities. Although all vessels are required to have an FFP, and all vessels fishing in the Aleutian Islands are required to have and operate VMS, some of the impacted vessels may have to replace existing VMS units to meet the polling rate and reliability requirements. While NMFS is unable to estimate the number of entities that may be required to replace VMS units to provide the required unit reliability, the estimated cost for an additional unit is about $3,500 (including installation).
Estimates of burden include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS at the
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at:
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 679 as follows:
44 U.S.C. 3501
The addition and revision read as follows:
(b) * * *
16 U.S.C. 773
The revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(19)
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(
(
(
(7) * * *
(v)
(A)
(
(
(B)
(
(
(vi)
(vii)
(8) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C)
(
(
(
(D) Any unharvested Atka mackerel A season allowance that is added to the B season is prohibited from being harvested within waters 0 nm to 20 nm of Steller sea lion sites listed in Table 6 to this part and located in Areas 541, 542, and 543.
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(v) For all vessels not listed in subpart F of this section, the maximum retainable amount for Atka mackerel harvested in the Bering Sea subarea is calculated at the end of each offload and is based on the basis species harvested since the previous offload. For purposes of this paragraph, offload means the removal of any fish or fish product from the vessel that harvested the fish or fish product to any other vessel or to shore.
(a) * * *
(7)
(vi)
(8)
(iv)
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii)
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C)
(
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Obtain a NMFS-approved VMS transmitter with transmission capabilities required for the areas of vessel operation and have it installed onboard your vessel in accordance with the instructions provided by NMFS. You may get a copy of the VMS installation and operation instructions from the Regional Administrator upon request.
(7)
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Summary presentation of final rules.
This document summarizes the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rules agreed to by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) in this Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005–78. A companion document, the
For effective dates and comment dates see separate documents, which follow.
The analyst whose name appears in the table below in relation to the FAR case. Please cite FAC 2005–78 and the specific FAR case number. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755.
Summaries for each FAR rule follow. For the actual revisions and/or amendments made by these rules, refer to the specific item numbers and subjects set forth in the documents following these item summaries. FAC 2005–78 amends the FAR as specified below:
This final rule revises the language at FAR subpart 4.12, Representations and Certifications, and adds a new clause at FAR 52.204–19 to standardize the incorporation by reference of representations and certifications in contracts regardless of which contract award form is used. FAR clause 52.212–4 has a new paragraph (v) to cover this issue for commercial items.
Peer reviews and procurement management reviews have found that Section K-Representations and Certifications are inconsistently or not incorporated in contract awards.
This final rule does not change or impact the existing representations and certifications submitted by small entities; this final rule should have no impact on small entities.
This final rule implements the Streamlining Claims Processing for Federal Contractor Employees Act, Pub. L. 113–50, which transferred certain authority for construction wage under-payments from the Government Accountability Office to the Department of Labor. There is no effect on small businesses.
This final rule amends the FAR to delete obsolete regulations relating to the year 2000 compliance. There is no impact on small businesses.
This final rule amends FAR parts 44 and 46 to (1) provide that agencies should establish procedures for determining when higher-level quality standards are to be included in a contract, (2) provide that higher-level quality standards should be given special attention during Contractor Purchasing System Reviews, and (3) adds an example of higher-level quality standards as it relates to counterfeit electronic parts. The contracting officer, in accordance with agency procedures, will choose the higher-level quality standards that will apply. These standards will be used to help minimize and mitigate counterfeit items or suspect counterfeit items in Government contracting. This rule impacts large and small businesses who provide critical items directly to the Government or to Government prime contractors.
Editorial changes are made at FAR 1.106, 16.103, 22.1006, 31.109, 52.204–8, and 53.219.
Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005–78 is issued under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Unless otherwise specified, all Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other directive material contained in FAC 2005–78 is effective November 25, 2014 except for items I, II, III and IV, which are effective December 26, 2014.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to standardize the incorporation by reference of representations and certifications in contracts.
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501–1448, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite FAC 2005–78, FAR Case 2014–001.
DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (the Councils) reviewed the comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments are provided as follows:
One editorial change was made to the proposed rule as a result of the public comments.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD, GSA, and NASA have prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The objective of this final rule is to standardize the incorporation by reference of representations and certifications in contracts.
No issues were raised by the public in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. There are no reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements in the final rule. This final rule is an internal procedure requiring the contracting officer to acknowledge the small entity's representations and certifications by incorporating them by reference in the contract award document.
This final rule does not revise or impact the existing representations and certifications submitted by small entities; therefore, this final rule should have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Interested parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA from the Regulatory Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 4, 14, 15, and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(c) Incorporate by reference the contractor's representations and certifications in the awarded contract.
(d) The contracting officer shall incorporate the representations and certifications by reference in the contract (see 52.204–19, or for acquisitions of commercial items see 52.212–4(v)).
(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204–19, Incorporation by Reference of Representations and Certifications, in solicitations and contracts.
(c) * * * The representations and certifications shall be incorporated by reference in the contract by using 52.204–19 (see 4.1202(b)) or for acquisitions of commercial items see 52.212–4(v).
(b) * * * The representations and certifications are incorporated by reference in the contract by using 52.204–19 (see 4.1202(b)) or for acquisitions of commercial items see 52.212–4(v).
As prescribed in 4.1202(b), insert the following clause.
The Contractor's representations and certifications, including those completed electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM), are incorporated by reference into the contract.
(v)
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement the Streamlining Claims Processing for Federal Contractor Employees Act which amends the United States Code (U.S.C.) to transfer certain functions from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to the Department of Labor (DOL) relating to the processing of claims for the payment of workers who were not paid appropriate wages under certain provisions of the U.S.C.
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, at 202–501–0650 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite FAC 2005–78, FAR Case 2014–011.
The Streamlining Claims Processing for Federal Contractor Employees Act (the Act) (Pub. L. 113–50) was enacted on November 21, 2013. The Act transfers certain administrative authorities relating to the processing of claims for the payment of workers who were not paid appropriate wages under certain provisions of title 40 U.S.C. from the GAO to the DOL. One of the specific functions transferred to the DOL at 40 U.S.C. 3144 and 3703 is the authority to pay certain wages. FAR part 22, Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions, which addresses the withholding or suspending of contract payments and the disposition of such payments, requires revision to be consistent with the Act. Specifically, FAR 22.406–9, Withholding from or suspension of contract payments, at paragraph (c), includes instructions regarding the disposition of contract payments that have been withheld or suspended. Also, FAR 22.406–11, Contract terminations, includes instructions for submitting reports when terminations result from violation of labor standards clauses. This final rule revises these FAR sections to appropriately reflect the administrative authorities of the DOL, and to provide a link to the DOL Web site and guidance for disbursement of withheld funds. Reference to Standard Form (SF) 1093, Schedule of Withholdings Under the Construction Wage Rate Requirements Statute (40 U.S.C. Chapter 31, Subchapter IV, Section 3144) and/or the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Statute (40 U.S.C. Chapter 37, Section 3703), is deleted. The SF 1093 was previously used to disburse funds to the GAO and is now obsolete.
“Publication of proposed regulations”, 41 U.S.C. 1707, is the statute which applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure or form, or has a significant cost or
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant FAR revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501–1 and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.
The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 22 and 53 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(c)
(3)
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to delete obsolete regulations relating to the year 2000 compliance.
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, at 202–501–0650, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite FAC 2005–78, FAR Case 2014–006.
DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the
DoD, GSA, and NASA are amending the FAR to delete obsolete coverage relating to the year 2000 compliance at FAR 39.002, 39.101(a) and 39.106. Also, the rule makes conforming changes to FAR 39.107 and the introductory text to the clause at FAR 52.239–1. The year 2000 coverage is outdated, and no longer needed because all of the issues addressing the transition to year 2000 compliance language have been resolved. Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, on retrospective review of regulations, requires agencies to conduct a review and analysis of their regulations and prepare a plan listing regulations that should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives. The
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DoD, GSA, and NASA have prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
This rule amends the FAR to delete obsolete coverage relating to the year 2000 compliance at FAR 39.002, 39.101(a) and 39.106. Also, the rule makes conforming changes to FAR 39.107 and the introductory text to the clause at FAR 52.239–1. The year 2000 coverage is no longer needed because all of the issues addressing the transition to year 2000 compliance language have been resolved. Based upon FPDS data, there were 9021 IT contractors in FY 2013, of which 6284 were small businesses. The impact on small businesses is expected to be neutral since we are deleting an obsolete requirement.
The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA from the Regulatory Secretariat.
The rule does not contain any new information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 39 and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to clarify when to use higher-level quality standards in solicitations and contracts. The rule also updates the examples of higher-level quality standards by removing obsolete standards and adding new industry standards that pertain to quality assurance for avoidance of counterfeit items.
Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, at 202–501–0650, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202–501–4755. Please cite FAC 2005–78, FAR Case 2012–032.
DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (the Councils) reviewed the comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments are provided as follows:
1. Revised FAR 46.202–4, Higher-level contract quality requirements to—
a. Clarify that higher-level quality standards include both overarching quality management system standards and product or process specific quality standards;
b. Delete reference to SAE AS6174; and
c. Add the commodity specific quality management system standard for automotive production, ISO/TS 16949.
2. Clarified that the contracting officer will list the title, number, date, and tailoring (if any) of applicable higher-
3. Revised FAR 52.246–11, Higher-level Contract Quality Requirements, to clarify that the prime contractor is responsible for flowing down applicable requirements of the higher-level quality standard in subcontracts for critical and complex items at any tier.
This case removes outdated or obsolete standards and adds new examples of higher-level quality standards, including a standard related to counterfeiting. Contracting officers, along with technical personnel, are not restricted to the list of examples of higher-level quality standards, and may elect other standards that meet the Government's needs.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S. C. 804.
DoD, GSA, and NASA have prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S. C. 601,
The Government must identify items that are critical to accomplishment of the agency mission and apply higher-level quality requirements to those items. The contractor has an obligation to ensure that its deliverables meet the specified quality requirements, which also entails ensuring that its subcontractors adhere to the higher level quality standard where appropriate. This case proposes to (a) specify the higher-level quality requirement and (b) add this to the list of issues to be considered during contractor purchasing system reviews.
Two respondents expressed concern that this rule would have significant effects on small businesses, which would result in their withdrawal from participation in Government contracting. The FAR revisions made by the rule do not increase the burden on businesses, including small businesses, and the rule was not modified to allow for differing quality standards based on business size. No changes were made to the rule as a result of these comments. However, in response to another respondent, it was clarified that flowdown of the higher-level quality assurance standards will only apply to subcontracts involving critical or complex items, thus small business who do not comply with the higher level standards may still compete on other subcontracts.
Large and small businesses provide critical items directly to the Government or to Government prime contractors and these companies may be impacted by this rule. However, there is no easy way to identify the number of contracts that contain higher-level quality standards and how many of these are awarded to both large and small businesses.
Interested parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA from the Regulatory Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
The final rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S. C. chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 44, 46, and 52 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
The addition reads as follows:
(k) Implementation of higher-level quality standards.
(a) Agencies shall establish procedures for determining when higher-level contract quality requirements are necessary, for determining the risk (both the likelihood and the impact) of nonconformance, and for advising the contracting officer about which higher-level standards should be applied and included in the solicitation and contract. Requiring compliance with higher-level quality standards is necessary in solicitations and contracts for complex or critical items (see 46.203) or when the technical requirements of the contract require—
(1) Control of such things as design, work operations, in-process controls, testing, and inspection; or
(2) Attention to such factors as organization, planning, work instructions, documentation control, and advanced metrology.
(b) Examples of higher-level quality standards include overarching quality management system standards such as ISO 9001, ANSI/ASQC E4, ASME NQA–1, SAE AS9100, SAE AS9003, and ISO/TS 16949, and product or process specific quality standards such as SAE AS5553.
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.246–11, Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement, in solicitations and contracts when the inclusion of a higher-level contract quality requirement is necessary (see 46.202–4).
(b) For each higher-level quality standard, the contracting officer shall fill in the title, number, date, and tailoring (if any).
As prescribed in 46.311, insert the following clause:
(a) The Contractor shall comply with the higher-level quality standard(s) listed below.
(b) The Contractor shall include applicable requirements of the higher-level quality standard(s) listed in paragraph (a) of this clause and the requirement to flow down such standards, as applicable, to lower-tier subcontracts, in—
(1) Any subcontract for critical and complex items (see 46.203(b) and (c)); or
(2) When the technical requirements of a subcontract require—
(i) Control of such things as design, work operations, in-process control, testing, and inspection; or
(ii) Attention to such factors as organization, planning, work instructions, documentation control, and advanced metrology.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Final rule.
This document makes amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in order to make editorial changes.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405, 202–501–4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FAC 2005–78, Technical Amendments.
In order to update certain elements in 48 CFR parts 1, 16, 22, 31, 52, and 53 this document makes editorial changes to the FAR.
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 1, 16, 22, 31, 52, and 53 as set forth below:
40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
(c) * * *
(2) The following certifications are applicable as indicated by the Contracting Officer:
_ (i) 52.204–17, Ownership or Control of Offeror.
_ (ii) 52.222–18, Certification Regarding Knowledge of Child Labor for Listed End Products.
_ (iii) 52.222–48, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment—Certification.
_ (iv) 52.222–52, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Certain Services—Certification.
_ (v) 52.223–9, with its Alternate I, Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA-Designated Products (Alternate I only).
_ (vi) 52.227–6, Royalty Information.
_ (A) Basic.
_ (B) Alternate I.
_ (vii) 52.227–15, Representation of Limited Rights Data and Restricted Computer Software.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Small Entity Compliance Guide.
This document is issued under the joint authority of DOD, GSA, and NASA. This
November 25, 2014.
For clarification of content, contact the analyst whose name appears in the table below. Please cite FAC 2005–78 and the FAR case number. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755.
Summaries for each FAR rule follow. For the actual revisions and/or amendments made by these rules, refer to the specific item numbers and subjects set forth in the documents following these item summaries. FAC 2005–78 amends the FAR as specified below:
This final rule revises the language at FAR subpart 4.12, Representations and Certifications, and adds a new clause at FAR 52.204–19 to standardize the incorporation by reference of representations and certifications in contracts regardless of which contract award form is used. FAR clause 52.212–4 has a new paragraph (v) to cover this issue for commercial items.
Peer reviews and procurement management reviews have found that Section K—Representations and Certifications are inconsistently or not incorporated in contract awards.
This final rule does not change or impact the existing representations and certifications submitted by small entities; this final rule should have no impact on small entities.
This final rule implements the Streamlining Claims Processing for Federal Contractor Employees Act, Pub. L. 113–50, which transferred certain authority for construction wage under-payments from the Government Accountability Office to the Department of Labor. There is no effect on small businesses.
This final rule amends the FAR to delete obsolete regulations relating to the year 2000 compliance. There is no impact on small businesses.
This final rule amends FAR parts 44 and 46 to (1) provide that agencies should establish procedures for determining when higher-level quality standards are to be included in a contract, (2) provide that higher-level quality standards should be given special attention during Contractor Purchasing System Reviews, and (3) adds an example of higher-level quality standards as it relates to counterfeit electronic parts. The contracting officer, in accordance with agency procedures, will choose the higher-level quality standards that will apply. These standards will be used to help minimize and mitigate counterfeit items or suspect counterfeit items in Government contracting. This rule impacts large and small businesses who provide critical items directly to the Government or to Government prime contractors.
Editorial changes are made at FAR 1.106, 16.103, 22.1006, 31.109, 52.204–8, and 53.219.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing revisions and confidentiality determinations for the petroleum and natural gas systems source category and the general provisions of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. These revisions include changes to certain calculation methods, amendments to certain monitoring and data reporting requirements, clarification of certain terms and definitions, and corrections to certain technical and editorial errors that have been identified during the course of implementation. This action also finalizes confidentiality determinations for new or substantially revised data elements contained in these amendments and revises the confidentiality determination for one existing data element.
This final rule is effective on January 1, 2015.
All documents in the docket are listed in the
Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC–6207A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343–9263; fax number: (202) 343–2342; email address:
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. Types of facilities other than those listed in the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and 40 CFR part 98, subpart W. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the preceding
While this action is being signed prior to December 1, 2014, there is likely to be a significant delay in the publication of this rule as it contains complex equations and tables and is relatively long. As an example, the EPA Administrator signed the Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems proposed rule on February 7, 2014, but the proposed rule was not published in the
To employ the 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) “good cause” exemption, an agency must balance the necessity for immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for the effective date of its ruling.
Section I of this preamble provides background information regarding the origin of the final amendments. This section also discusses the EPA's legal authority under the CAA to promulgate and amend 40 CFR part 98 of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (hereinafter referred to as “Part 98”) as well as the legal authority for making confidentiality determinations for the data to be reported. Section II of this preamble contains information on the final revisions to Part 98, subpart W (Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems) (hereinafter referred to as “subpart W”), including a summary of the major comments that the EPA considered in
On October 30, 2009, the EPA published Part 98 for collecting information regarding GHGs from a broad range of industry sectors (74 FR 56260). The 2009 rule, which finalized reporting requirements for 29 source categories, did not include the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category. A subsequent rule was published on November 30, 2010, finalizing the requirements for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems source category at 40 CFR part 98, subpart W (75 FR 74458) (hereinafter referred to as “the subpart W 2010 final rule”). Following promulgation, the EPA finalized several actions revising subpart W (76 FR 22825, April 25, 2011; 76 FR 59533, September 27, 2011; 76 FR 80554, December 23, 2011; 77 FR 51477, August 24, 2012; 78 FR 25392, May 1, 2013; 78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013; 79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014).
On March 10, 2014, the EPA proposed the “Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems; Proposed Rule” (79 FR 13394) to make revisions to certain provisions of subpart W, including the clarification and correction of certain calculation methods, monitoring, and reporting requirements for which errors were identified during the course of implementation. At that time, the EPA also proposed confidentiality determinations for new and substantially revised (
In this action, the EPA is finalizing certain revisions to the subpart W calculation, monitoring, and reporting requirements with some changes made in response to public comments and one clarifying edit, as proposed, to a definition in the general provisions (Part 98, subpart A) that applies to subpart W reporters. Responses to comments submitted on the proposed amendments can be found in Sections II, III, and IV of this preamble as well as in the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512.
The EPA is finalizing these rule amendments under its existing CAA authority provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the 2009 final GHG reporting rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) provides the EPA broad authority to require the information to be gathered by this rule because such data would inform and are relevant to the EPA's carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. See the preambles to the proposed (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009) and final GHG reporting rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009) for further information.
In addition, pursuant to sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA, the EPA is publishing final confidentiality determinations for the new or substantially revised data elements and a revised confidentiality determination for one existing data element, required by these amendments. Section 114(c) requires that the EPA make information obtained under section 114 available to the public, except for information that qualifies for confidential treatment. The Administrator has determined that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA.
These amendments are effective on January 1, 2015. Thus, beginning on January 1, 2015, facilities must follow the revised methods in subpart W, as amended, to calculate emissions occurring during the 2015 calendar year. The first annual reports of emissions calculated using the amended requirements will be those submitted by March 31, 2016, covering the 2015 calendar year. For the 2014 calendar year, reporters will continue to calculate emissions and other relevant data for the reports that are submitted according to the requirements in Part 98 that are applicable to the 2014 calendar year (
As noted in Section II.D of this preamble, we are providing short-term transitional best available monitoring methods (BAMM) for reporters for emission sources that are subject to new monitoring or measurement requirements as part of these final revisions. These reporters have the option of using BAMM from January 1, 2015, to March 31, 2015, without seeking prior EPA approval for certain parameters that cannot reasonably be measured according to the monitoring and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements of 40 CFR 98.234. Reporters also have the opportunity to request an extension for the use of BAMM from April 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015; those owners or operators must submit a request to the EPA by January 31, 2015.
The EPA is finalizing technical corrections, clarifying revisions, and other amendments to subpart W. These final amendments improve the quality and consistency of the collected data, and many of the changes are in response to feedback received from stakeholders during program implementation. These final amendments include changes to clarify or simplify calculation methods for certain sources at a facility; revisions to units of measure, terms, and definitions in certain equations to provide consistency throughout the rule, provide clarity, or better reflect facility operations; revisions to reporting requirements to clarify and align more closely with the calculation methods and to clearly identify the data that must be reported; and other revisions identified as a result of working with the affected sources.
Sections II.A through II.E of this preamble describe the corrections and other amendments that we are finalizing in this rulemaking. Section II.A describes revisions which provide consistency throughout subpart W, including revisions to definitions. Section II.B describes the final revisions to calculation methods and reporting requirements for the emission source types identified in subpart W. Section II.C describes the final revisions to the
In addition to the specific revisions or amendments discussed in this section of the preamble, the EPA is finalizing minor technical revisions to subpart W. These revisions improve readability, create consistency in terminology, and/or correct typographical or other errors in subpart W to improve the final rule. These final revisions are further explained in the memorandum, “Minor Technical Corrections to Subpart W, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 2014 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems; Final Rule” and the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512.
This section includes minor cascading revisions that affect multiple requirements of subpart W. Sections II.A.1 through II.A.3 describe the amendments we are finalizing in this rulemaking and, if major comments were received, provide a summary of the major comments and the EPA's responses.
The EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.236 to revise the reporting of GHG emissions from units of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
We are finalizing, with minor changes from proposal, amendments to the source category definition of “onshore petroleum and natural gas production” at 40 CFR 98.230(a)(2) to clarify the emission sources covered for purposes of GHG reporting. As proposed, we are adding references to engines, boilers, heaters, flares, and separation and processing equipment, and we are removing references to gravity separation equipment and auxiliary non-transportation-related equipment for being redundant with other sources specified in the definition. In this final rule, we are not including the reference to “maintenance and repair equipment” that was included in the proposed rule after considering public comments indicating confusion regarding that proposed text. Thus, the first sentence of 40 CFR 98.230(a)(2) reads, “Onshore petroleum and natural gas production means all equipment on a single well-pad or associated with a single well-pad (including but not limited to compressors, generators, dehydrators, storage vessels, engines, boilers, heaters, flares, separation and processing equipment, and portable non-self-propelled equipment, which includes well drilling and completion equipment, workover equipment, and leased, rented or contracted equipment) used in the production, extraction, recovery, lifting, stabilization, separation or treating of petroleum and/or natural gas (including condensate).”
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to the proposed amendments to the source category definition of “onshore petroleum and natural gas production.” See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and the EPA's responses.
With respect to the need to determine combustion emissions from maintenance and repair equipment, 40 CFR 98.232(c)(22) requires emissions “. . . from stationary or portable fuel combustion equipment that cannot move under its own power or drive train, and that is located at an onshore petroleum and natural gas production facility . . .” to be reported. 40 CFR 98.232(c)(22) further specifies that “[s]tationary or portable equipment are the following equipment, which are integral to the extraction, processing, or movement of oil or natural gas: Well drilling and completion equipment, workover equipment, natural gas dehydrators, natural gas compressors, electrical generators, steam boilers and process heaters.” The list provided in 40 CFR 98.232(c)(7)(22) is not open-ended and few pieces of “maintenance and repair equipment” would qualify as “stationary or portable equipment” for which combustion emissions must be calculated and reported. If the maintenance and repair equipment have applicable combustion emissions, reporters must report the emissions from this equipment provided that it includes external combustion sources with rated heat capacity greater than 5 million British thermal units (mmBtu) per hour or internal fuel combustion sources with rated heat capacity greater than 1 mmBtu per hour (or 130 horsepower (hp)), as specified in 40 CFR 98.233(z).
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, revisions to the definition of sub-basin category at 40 CFR 98.238. Specifically, we have defined sub-basin category as “a subdivision of a basin into the unique combination of wells with the surface coordinates within the boundaries of an individual county and subsurface completion in one or more of each of the following five formation types: Oil, high permeability gas, shale gas, coal seam, or other tight gas reservoir rock. The distinction between high permeability gas and tight gas reservoirs shall be designated as follows: High permeability gas reservoirs with greater than 0.1 millidarcy permeability and tight gas reservoirs with less than or equal to 0.1 millidarcy permeability. Permeability for a reservoir type shall be determined by engineering estimate. Wells that produce only from high permeability gas, shale gas, coal seam, or other tight gas reservoir rock are considered gas wells; gas wells producing from more than one of these formation types shall be classified into only one type based on the formation with the most contribution to production as determined by engineering knowledge. All wells that produce hydrocarbon liquids (with or without gas) and do not meet the definition of a gas well in this sub-basin category definition are considered to be in the oil formation. All emission sources that handle condensate from gas wells in high permeability gas, shale gas, or tight gas reservoir rock formations are considered to be in the formation that the gas well belongs to and not in the oil formation.”
The EPA received only supportive comments regarding these revisions, therefore, there are no changes from proposal to the final rule based on these comments.
The final amendments described in this section include technical revisions and corrections to the calculation and reporting requirements of subpart W. In general, these revisions provide greater flexibility and potentially reduce burden to facilities, and they increase the clarity and congruency of the calculation and reporting requirements.
These final amendments also include organizational revisions to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.236. These revisions restructure 40 CFR 98.236 to more closely align the reporting requirements with the calculation methods, clarify the data elements to be reported, and improve data utility. As proposed, we are reorganizing the reporting section by source type and, for each industry segment, listing which source types must be reported. We are also finalizing the addition of new data elements which would improve the quality of the data reported. These additional data elements are discussed in Section II.E of this preamble.
The final amendments to the calculation and reporting requirements in subpart W are described in this section by emission source type (
We are finalizing revisions to Equation W–1 in 40 CFR 98.233(a) to sum the natural gas pneumatic device venting emissions across all types of pneumatic devices with minor revisions. We are revising the summation symbol to remove the “i” at the bottom of the summation symbol, which was inadvertently included with the summation symbol. This revision is needed to clarify that the summation is across different types of pneumatic devices (designated by “t”) and not across different GHGs (designated by “i”). We are finalizing revisions to 40 CFR 98.233(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) as proposed to simplify how “Count
For acid gas removal (AGR) vents, we are finalizing several technical revisions as proposed and adding minor clarifying revisions to address public comments received. We are finalizing minor clarifying edits to 40 CFR 98.233(d) as proposed to clearly label each calculation method and to clarify provisions by providing references to equations where appropriate. We are also finalizing the proposed revisions to the parameters “Vol
In response to public comments, we are making four minor corrections and clarifying revisions to the calculation and reporting requirements for AGR units. First, we are removing an errant proposed requirement in 40 CFR 98.236(d)(10) to calculate annual mass emissions “at standard conditions.” Second, in response to a comment that the sub-basin identification (ID) reporting requirement in 40 CFR 98.236(d)(1)(vi) is unclear when an AGR unit treats gas from wells in more than one sub-basin, we are revising the data element to require reporting of the sub-basin ID “that best represents the wells supplying gas to the unit.” Third, in response to comments on the proposed missing data procedures for AGR units (proposed 40 CFR 98.235(a), we are adding the clause “. . . for each quarter that the AGR unit is operating . . .” in paragraphs 40 CFR 98.233(d)(6), (7), and (8)(ii) to clarify that quarterly samples are only required to be collected for quarters when the unit is operated. Fourth, in response to a comment on the proposed confidentiality determinations for AGR units, we are correcting the reporting requirements for the amount of CO
The EPA did not receive any major comments on the proposed revisions to the calculation and reporting requirements for AGR units. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
The EPA is clarifying that Calculation Method 1 in 40 CFR 98.236(e)(1) is not applicable to desiccant dehydrators. We proposed this clarification by including the word “absorbent” to describe the types of dehydrators for which Calculation Method 1 applies. We received comment that the term “absorbent dehydrators” was not a common term used by industry and was not defined in the rule. We are finalizing amendments to both 40 CFR 98.236(e)(1) and (e)(3) to clarify our original intent that Calculation Method 1 is applicable to glycol (liquid absorbent) dehydrators and that emissions from desiccant dehydrators of any size should be determined using Calculation Method 3 in 40 CFR 98.236(e)(3). We are finalizing revisions as proposed to clarify that the 0.4 million standard cubic feet (MMscf) per day throughput relates to the natural gas throughput of the dehydrator for determining the applicability of Calculation Method 1. We are finalizing revisions to clarify the calculation methods for dehydrators to provide for the adjustment of emissions vented to a vapor recovery system as proposed. We are finalizing clarifications to the calculation of emissions when vented to a flare with minor revisions to those proposed. Specifically, we are including reference to 40 CFR 98.233(e)(5) in paragraph (e)(6)(i) in the event a portion of the dehydrator vent emissions are recovered and a portion are vented to a flare. Finally, we are finalizing, as proposed, clarification to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.236(e)(2) for glycol dehydrators with an annual average daily natural gas throughput less than 0.4 MMscf per day to account for scenarios in which a dehydrator may be vented to more than one emission point (
As proposed, the EPA is revising the calculation and reporting requirements for well venting from liquids unloading. These revisions include allowances for annualizing venting data for facilities that calculate emissions using a recording flow meter (Calculation Method 1 at 40 CFR 98.233(f)(1)); revisions to Calculation Method 1 at 40 CFR 98.233(f)(1) and reporting requirements at 40 CFR 98.236 to separate the calculation and reporting of emissions from wells that have plunger lifts and wells that do not have plunger lifts; and clarification of the term “SP
The EPA received supportive comments for the proposed revisions and did not receive major comments opposing the proposed revisions to the calculation and reporting requirements for well venting from liquids unloading. The EPA is not making any changes to the proposed amendments in the final rule as a result of public comments. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
The EPA is finalizing several definitions pertinent to gas well completions and workovers. The EPA is finalizing amendments to 40 CFR 98.238 to add definitions for “reduced emissions completion” and “reduced emissions workover” with minor revisions from the proposed definitions. The proposed definitions of these terms implied that there would be no direct releases to the atmosphere. Public comments indicated that this phrase was too restrictive and we have revised the definition to clarify that a “reduced emissions completion” or a “reduced emissions workover” will have de minimis venting to the atmosphere and may have short periods of flaring. The EPA is finalizing as proposed the definition of “well completions” in 40 CFR 98.6 of subpart A to delete the term “re-fracture” as this term applies to an already producing well and is considered a well workover, not a well completion, for the purposes of part 98.
We are also revising the reporting requirements for gas well completions and workovers to differentiate between different well type combinations in each sub-basin category, as proposed. A well type combination is a unique combination of the following factors: Vertical or horizontal, with flaring or without flaring, and reduced emissions completion (REC)/workover or no REC/workover.
As proposed, we are revising Equation W–10A, the time variable “T
The final rule also corrects two errors in the proposed reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.236(g)(5)(i) so that the final reporting requirements are consistent with the variables used in the revised Equation W–10A. First, the final rule uses the term “flowback” instead of “backflow.” Second, instead of requiring reporting of the “cumulative backflow time,” which is an artifact of requirements in the subpart W 2010 final rule, the final 40 CFR 98.236(g)(5)(i) requires reporting of the cumulative gas flowback time from when gas is first detected until sufficient quantities are present to enable separation (“T
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to the proposed amendments to gas well completions and workovers. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
The EPA is finalizing, with some modifications, the proposed revisions to include a compressibility term in Equations W–14A and W–14B for calculating emissions from blowdown vents and also in Equations W–33 and W–34 to convert volumetric emissions at actual conditions to standard conditions. The EPA proposed to allow reporters to use a compressibility factor of 1 under certain temperature and pressure conditions, otherwise a site-specific compressibility factor must be calculated and used for each blowdown event or conversion to standard conditions. Commenters indicated that these requirements posed a significant burden on reporters without significantly improving the calculated emissions. After considering the public comments, we are finalizing the inclusion of the compressibility term in Equations W–14A, W–14B, W–33 and W–34, but we are optionally allowing reporters to use a default value of 1 or a site-specific compressibility factor regardless of the temperature and pressure conditions.
The EPA is finalizing the equipment type categories and the reporting requirements for blowdown vents with minor modifications to those proposed. In the final rule, we have incorporated the term “equipment or event type” rather than simply “equipment type” where appropriate to include reference to emergency shutdown blowdown activities. We clarified the “emergency shutdown” category to include all emergency shutdown blowdown emissions regardless of equipment type. We also revised the category proposed as “station piping” to be “facility piping” to be more applicable to the onshore natural gas processing and liquefied natural gas (LNG) import and export equipment industry segments; we also clarified the distinction between “facility piping” and “pipeline venting.” We also revised the category proposed as “all the other blowdowns greater than or equal to 50 cubic feet” category to “all other equipment with a physical volume greater than or equal to 50 cubic feet” to clarify it is the physical volume of the equipment, not the blowdown volume (converted to standard conditions), to which the 50 cubic feet threshold applies.
The EPA is also adding an optional calculation method (40 CFR 98.233(i)(3)) for blowdown emissions for situations where a flow meter is in place and including associated reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.236. If a flow meter is in place to measure emissions, the emissions are reported on a facility basis and would not be aggregated by emission type per 40 CFR 98.236(i)(2). These revisions are finalized with minor revisions to clarify that reporters may use flow meters for some blowdown stacks and use equipment or event type calculations for other blowdown vent stacks at the same facility.
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to blowdown vent emissions. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
One commenter noted that the proposed conditions for using the compressibility term would require the calculation of Z for nearly all equipment blowdown calculations at transmission and storage facilities. The commenter stated that transmission pipelines
We are finalizing revisions to the introductory text at 40 CFR 98.233(j) with minor modifications to those proposed to clarify the calculation methods that must be used for onshore production storage tanks. We are also finalizing amendments to 40 CFR 98.233(j)(6), with minor modifications to those proposed. We received comment that the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 98.233(j)(6) appeared to expand the applicability of this requirement to all tanks rather than tanks with an annual average daily throughput of 10 barrels per day or more. This was an inadvertent error. Therefore, we are clarifying in this final rule, both in the 40 CFR 98.233(j) introductory text and 40 CFR 98.233(j)(4), that you must calculate emissions from dump valve leakage only if you use Calculation Method 1 or Calculation Method 2. We are also revising the parameter “E
In reviewing the comments received on the proposed rule, we noted inconsistencies in Calculation Method 2 between the calculation method described in 40 CFR 98.233(j)(2) and the implementation of that method as described in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii). In the proposed rule, we attempted to consolidate within Calculation Method 2 the calculation methods for storage tanks receiving oil directly from the production well without passing through a wellhead separator and storage tanks receiving oil from a wellhead separator. The introductory text in the proposed paragraph (j)(2) references composition at the separator temperature and pressure, which is appropriate if there is a separator, but it also requires use of either paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(ii), both of which describe composition at the wellhead, which is only appropriate if there is not a separator. Therefore, we are revising Calculation Method 2 to more clearly designate that the composition at separator temperature and pressure should be used if the storage tank receives oil after passing through a separator and to use the wellhead composition if the tank receives oil directly from the well.
We are finalizing the amendments to the reporting requirements for onshore production storage tanks as proposed (except as described in Section III.A. of this preamble).
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to onshore production storage tanks. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
We are finalizing revisions to the provisions for transmission storage tanks in 40 CFR 98.233(k) with minor modification to those proposed to reorder the calculations in response to comments received. We are finalizing the amendments to the reporting requirements for transmission storage tanks with minor revisions to correct section number references to the reordered paragraphs in 40 CFR 98.233(k) and other editorial revisions in response to comments received.
In order to improve data quality and avoid over-estimating emissions, the EPA is finalizing revisions to Equation W–18 (40 CFR 98.233(m)(3)) to add the term “SG
The EPA also proposed to add a definition for the term “Associated gas venting or flaring” to clarify what is included in this source. We are finalizing these amendments as proposed.
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to associated gas venting and flaring. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
The EPA is finalizing revisions as proposed to simplify and clarify the calculation requirements for flare stack emissions in order to improve the accuracy of the collected data. As proposed, we are amending the calculation method for emissions from a flare stack to revise the calculations to standard conditions and to account for the fraction of emissions that are not combusted when sent to an unlit flare. The fraction of feed gas sent to an unlit flare is determined by using engineering estimates and process knowledge.
The EPA is finalizing amendments, as proposed, to include flare stack emissions to the list of sources for which emissions must be calculated for the onshore natural gas transmission compression, underground natural gas storage, LNG storage, and the LNG import and export equipment industry segments. The EPA did not receive major comments on these provisions and is not making any changes to the final rule as a result of public comments. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
The EPA is finalizing amendments to the monitoring requirements for compressors with revisions to the proposed requirements. First, we are finalizing changes to the centrifugal and reciprocating compressor calculation sections (40 CFR 98.233(o) and (p)) to allow for the measurement of combined volumetric emissions from a manifolded group of compressor sources. In the proposed rule, reporters that had manifolded compressors were required to take at least three measurements per year and report the average of the measurements. In this final rule, we are requiring reporters to take a single measurement per year from manifolded compressors, which is commensurate with the measurement frequency for compressors that are not part of a manifold group of compressors. In the proposed rule, measurements from manifolded compressors were required to be taken before emissions are comingled with other non-compressor emission sources. We received comments that this requirement would often require new sampling ports in unsafe locations. In this final rule, we are changing this requirement to read as follows: “Measure at a single point in the manifold downstream of all compressor inputs and, if practical, prior to comingling with other non-compressor emission sources”.
The proposed rule inadvertently removed the use of acoustic device measurement for blowdown valve leakage for centrifugal and reciprocating compressors. It was not the EPA's intent to remove these provisions. As noted in the subpart W 2010 final rule and reiterated by commenters, the EPA has allowed the use of acoustic device measurement to address concerns regarding safety or inaccessibility issues for some vent measurements. As a result, we are allowing for quantification of emissions due to leaks from compressor blowdown valve leakage using an acoustic leak detection device. In this final rule, we are allowing the use of screening methods in 40 CFR 98.234(a) to determine whether quantitative emissions measurements are needed. We are finalizing the proposed reporting requirements for individual compressors and for manifolded compressors with minor changes intended to improve clarity.
We are also finalizing four definitions in 40 CFR 98.238 to support the addition of the calculation method for manifolded vents. We are finalizing the
For compressors that are routed to an operational flare, we are finalizing revisions as proposed to allow operators to calculate and report emissions with other flare emissions. As we proposed, reporters must still report certain compressor-related activity data for each compressor that is routed to an operational flare (as provided for in 40 CFR 98.236(o)(1) and (o)(2) and (p)(1) and (p)(2)).
The EPA is also finalizing several changes with regard to mode-specific measurements as proposed. We are finalizing as proposed the revisions to the requirements to measure each compressor in the not-operating-depressurized (NOD) mode at least once in any 3 consecutive calendar years provided that the measurement can be taken during a scheduled shutdown and, if there is no scheduled shutdown within three consecutive calendar years, the measurement must be made at the next scheduled depressurized compressor shutdown. We have included additional clarification in this final rule that a scheduled shutdown means a shutdown that requires a compressor to be taken off-line for planned or scheduled maintenance. A scheduled shutdown does not include instances when a compressor is taken offline due to a decrease in demand but must remain available. We are not finalizing the proposed requirement to perform a measure for each operating mode once every three years.
We are also finalizing provisions, as proposed, that clarify that for reporters that elect to conduct “as found” measurements for individual compressor sources, all measurements from a single owner or operator may be used when developing an emission factor (using Equation W–24 or W–28 of 40 CFR 98.233) for each compressor mode-source combination. If the reporter elects to use this option, the reporter emission factor must be applied to all reporting facilities for the owner or operator. Finally, we are restructuring and revising the centrifugal and reciprocating compressor sections (40 CFR 98.233(o) and 40 CFR 98.233(p)), as proposed, in order to improve clarity for reporters.
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to centrifugal and reciprocating compressors. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
As part of the development of the subpart W 2010 final rule, the EPA had previously considered using an emission factor approach for compressors. The EPA found that although a 1996 Gas Research Institute study on methane emissions from the natural gas industry provides much of the current knowledge on which emission factors from this sector are based, information on compressors was not necessarily reflective of current operational conditions for purposes of GHG reporting and therefore additional measurement data were needed in order to understand emissions related to specific modes of operation for compressors.
The EPA agrees that facilities have collected data under part 98 related to centrifugal and reciprocating compressors that can be used to inform an emission factor. However, the data which are inputs to emissions equations have not yet been reported to the EPA because they are deferred for reporting until 2015. The deferred reporting elements include the reporter-specific emission factors that are used to calculate emissions and the total time that a compressor is in a particular mode. The reporter-specific emission factors provide information on how measured data are applied to a reporter's other compressors that were not measured in a particular mode, and these factors are applied to all compressors for the total time each compressor is operated in each mode. Therefore the deferred data provide important information that could help inform the development of emission factors for each mode of operation. The EPA intends to analyze this deferred information after it is received in 2015. The EPA notes that the prevalence of BAMM in the reported data can affect cross-facility comparisons for developing emission factors, but the effect of BAMM cannot be fully analyzed until the inputs data are reported.
In addition, the data that will be reported under these final rule amendments will provide additional data that can inform the development of emission factors, such as information on the power output of the compressor driver. Furthermore, the compressor revisions that are being finalized in this rule will improve the quality of the reported data and address technical issues received from stakeholders during program implementation. The EPA also plans to review information that will be made available in the near future through outside studies.
The EPA is committed to working with stakeholders to review regulatory requirements, methods, and the quality of the information reported. The EPA looks forward to reviewing the deferred Part 98 data, data that will be reported under these revisions and data from
One commenter stated that the EPA has not addressed the burden associated with installing sampling ports on manifolded configurations. Another commenter objected to the proposed rule requirements specifying that manifolded compressor source emissions must be measured at a single point in the manifold downstream of all compressor inputs and where emissions cannot be comingled with other non-compressor emission sources; this commenter asserted that for compressor sources with emissions comingled with other sources, a sample port would need to be installed prior to the comingling of gases from the compressor sources and the non-compressor sources and could require the shutdown of all associated equipment.
Multiple commenters opposed the proposed requirements to conduct three measurements per year for manifolded compressors. One commenter claimed that the requirement to collect three measurements appears to be arbitrary and is not supported by 2011 or 2012 reported data. The commenter contended that the EPA has failed to explain how manifolded source-mode emissions data are expected to be different from other compressor source emissions data or why three measurements are expected to reduce measurement uncertainty associated with dissimilar measurements. Three commenters stated that the EPA did not address the cost and potential logistical problems associated with the mobilization of a test team two additional times per year (
The existing 2010 measurement requirements apply to the vent from the manifolded system without mention of co-mingled emission sources. We prefer and encourage measurements of manifolded compressors to be performed prior to co-mingling with other sources, as proposed. However, based on comments, we recognize that this may not be possible for certain installations. Therefore, we are not finalizing this provision as proposed. Instead, we are revising the requirement from the proposed rule so that the final rule reads as follows “Measure at a single point in the manifold downstream of all compressor inputs and, if practical, prior to comingling with other non-compressor emission sources”. We are also adding a reporting element for compressor measurements of manifolded systems to indicate whether the measurement location is prior to comingling with other non-compressor emission sources.
We proposed that reporters that had manifolded compressors be required to take at least three measurements per year and report the average of the measurements. In this final rule, we are requiring reporters to take a single measurement per year from manifolded compressors, which is commensurate with the measurement frequency for compressors that are not part of a manifolded group of compressors and consistent with the existing 2010 measurement requirements.
The EPA reviewed the 2011, 2012 and 2013 reported emissions data for compressors and determined that compressor emissions from the NOD mode can contribute to a significant amount of the measured emissions for centrifugal compressors and reciprocating compressors. For more information, see the memorandum, “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Technical Support for 2014 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems; Final Rule” in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512. Therefore, we are not removing the requirement to measure emissions from compressors in the NOD mode in this final rule.
One commenter supported the proposed revision to allow the measurement to be taken during the next scheduled depressurized shutdown, however, the commenter asked that the scheduled shutdown not include instances when a scheduled compressor shutdown is only for a short duration, such that it is not possible to complete the measurement, or when a “scheduled shutdown” may occur without sufficient lead time to arrange for or mobilize a measurement team. Four commenters stressed that the proposed rule did not clearly define what constitutes a shutdown or “scheduled shutdown.” Another commenter noted that transmission compressors often start up and “shutdown” to meet demands; the commenter stated that it is not clear if this type of “shutdown” would be included under the proposed rule text. One commenter requested that the EPA provide a definition for the term “scheduled shutdown” that includes a shutdown of longer duration and likely associated with major maintenance and unit unavailability. Another commenter requested that the definition refer to a major maintenance outage that is scheduled months in advance, as opposed to a shutdown scheduled in direct response to a particular event (
One commenter responded to the EPA's request for comment on the option of requiring measurements in the NOD mode every five years rather than every three years. The commenter requested that the EPA extend the monitoring frequency to once every five years but noted that this change may not result in a unit being available at a specific time. The commenter suggested that emission factors be developed for the NOD mode as soon as feasible.
Multiple commenters requested that compressor measurements be completed
Three commenters recommended that the EPA consider allowing the use of an infrared (IR) camera for screening vents that require measurement. These commenters requested that the rule include additional viable measurement methods and contended that an IR camera option would provide flexibility for reporters. One commenter noted that the IR camera could be used to screen for leaks from compressor isolation valves, blowdown valves, or rod packing released through a vent and identify whether vent measurement is needed. The commenter asserted that this method would be invaluable for screening vents that are unsafe or impractical to access. The commenter stated that several companies have received approval of BAMM requests to use the IR camera to screen these compressor sources for emissions.
The EPA also agrees with the commenters' suggestion to allow for the use of optical gas imaging equipment or an infrared (IR) camera for compressor vent screening. The EPA has reviewed the methods in 40 CFR 98.234(a) and determined that these methods are appropriate for pre-screening for leakage from compressor vents. The use of an IR camera is currently allowed under subpart W to screen for dump valve leakage through tank vents in 40 CFR 98.233(k) and is a proven tool for identifying leakage from these emissions sources. Therefore, we have determined that it would be appropriate to allow the use of the methods in 40 CFR 98.234(a) for pre-screening of emissions from isolation valves, blowdown valves, or rod packing released through a vent, provided that sources conduct follow-up measurements if leaks are detected. The EPA agrees with commenters that this method would provide flexibility for reporters. We are finalizing provisions in 40 CFR 98.233(o)(2)(i)(D) and 40 CFR 98.233(p)(2)(i)(D) to allow the use of the methods in 40 CFR 98.234(a) to allow for pre-screening for leaks from compressor isolation valves, blowdown valves, or rod packing released through a vent. Reporters may use this method to identify whether further vent measurement is needed. If any emissions are detected, then reporters are required to use one of the methods currently specified in subpart W (acoustic leak detection device, calibrated bagging or high volume sampler, or temporary meter such as a vane anemometer) to quantify emissions. If no emissions are detected, the reporter would not be required to follow-up with a measurement to quantify emissions. We do not anticipate that these final revisions will negatively impact the quality of the data collected, as reporters will continue to use the existing measurement methods under subpart W to quantify emissions that are detected using the IR camera.
The EPA is finalizing, with minor revisions from the proposed rule, amendments to revise Equations W–30A, W–30B, W–31, W–32A and W–32B to place the natural gas distribution facility meter/regulator run emission factors calculation in 40 CFR 98.233(q) instead of 40 CFR 98.233(r) while also clarifying that the emission factor is calculated separately for CO
As proposed, emissions from below-grade metering-regulating stations, below-grade transmission-distribution transfer stations, distribution mains, and distribution services are calculated using Equation W–32A of 40 CFR 98.233(r) using population emission factors listed in Table W–7.
The EPA is also finalizing the definition of “meter/regulator run” with minor revisions from the proposed rule. The revisions clarify that the term “meter/regulator run” refers only to components in the natural gas distribution industry segment. The final definition of “meter/regulator run” reads as follows: “Meter/regulator run means a series of components used in regulating pressure or metering natural gas flow, or both, in the natural gas distribution industry segment. At least one meter, at least one regulator, or any combination of both on a single run of piping is considered one meter/regulator run.”
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to leak detection equipment and emissions from components for the natural gas distribution segment. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
We are finalizing revisions as proposed to clarify onshore natural gas transmission compression, LNG storage, LNG import and export, and natural gas distribution facilities may use either site-specific composition or a default gas composition (95 percent CH
We are also finalizing several clarifications regarding the need to calculate emissions for certain equations in actual conditions based on public comments received. The EPA intended that the existing provision in 40 CFR 98.233(t) allowed for measurements to be made at standard conditions even when the equations specified actual conditions. However, we concluded that additional revisions could clarify this intent for reporters. First, we are finalizing revisions to the introductory text at 40 CFR 98.233 to read: “You must calculate and report the annual GHG emissions as prescribed in this section. For calculations that specify measurements in actual conditions, reporters may use a flow or volume measurement system that corrects to standard conditions and determine the flow or volume at standard conditions; otherwise, reporters must use average atmospheric conditions or typical operating conditions as applicable to the respective monitoring methods in this section.” Second, the introductory text at 40 CFR 98.236 is revised to read: “In
In this final rule, the EPA is clarifying that emissions and volume of fuel combusted must be reported for all internal combustion units that drive
The EPA is finalizing amendments to 40 CFR 98.235, with revisions from the proposed rule, to clarify the procedures for addressing missing data. We proposed various missing data procedures for different types or frequencies of measurement data. For AGR vents, we proposed that missing quarterly samples must use the average of the value of the last four quarterly samples. We received comments on how to implement this requirement when less than four quarters of data are available (
As proposed, the EPA is finalizing amendments to allow the use of best engineering estimates for any parameter that cannot be reasonably measured or obtained according to the requirements in subpart W for up to 6 months from the facility's first date of subpart W applicability. We are also finalizing, with minor revisions from proposal, amendments to allow the use of best engineering estimates for any parameter that cannot be reasonably measured or obtained according to the requirements in subpart W for up to 6 months for facilities that are subject to subpart W and that acquire new sources from another facility that is not subject to reporting under subpart W. We originally proposed this amendment for new wells, but after reviewing the public comments received, we determined this allowance should be more broadly applied to any new emissions source acquired by the existing facility from another facility that is not subject to reporting under subpart W. Only data and calculations associated with those newly acquired sources fall under these provisions.
We are finalizing missing data provisions for annual and biannual (once every two year) measurements that are similar to the previous missing data requirements in 40 CFR 98.235 as provided in the subpart W 2010 final rule. These provisions require repeat of the estimation or measurement as soon as possible, with allowance to use measurements made after December 31 (in the subsequent year) as substitute values for the missing data in the reporting year.
We are not finalizing the reporting requirements for use of missing data procedures as proposed. In the proposed rule, we required missing data elements to be reported with significant specificity, including dates in which substitution values were used, equations in which the substitute value is used, a description of the circumstances that led to missing data, a description of the procedure used to develop the substitute value, the missing data procedure citation claimed, and a description of how missing data procedures will be avoided in the future. After reviewing public comments, we determined that reporting for missing data should more closely align with the requirements in other Part 98 source categories as guided by the requirements in 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8). We are finalizing reporting requirements to identify the data element for which missing data procedures were used and the number of hours (or required measurements) for which missing data procedures were used. We are also finalizing recordkeeping requirements regarding the use of missing data procedures to include some of the detail of the proposed reporting requirements. Specifically, reporters that use missing data procedures are required to keep a record listing the emission source type, a description of the circumstance that resulted in the need to use missing data procedures, the missing data provisions in 40 CFR 98.235 that apply, the calculation or analysis used to develop the substitute value, and the substitute value.
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to missing data provisions. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
The EPA agrees that the proposed provisions in 40 CFR 98.235(e) and (f) should be extended to all subpart W emission sources, because issues that make it unreasonable to perform measurements for new wells may also exist for other subpart W emission sources. Therefore, we are finalizing these provisions to more broadly apply to “sources” rather than “wells.”
The EPA disagrees that the proposed provisions in 40 CFR 98.235(f) should be extended to sources acquired from other companies that were previously subject to subpart W. The reporting rule general provisions in 40 CFR 98.4(h) provide for changes in owners and operators and provide that such owner or operator shall be responsible for the representations, actions, inactions, and submissions of the designated representative and any alternate designated representative of the facility or supplier. Therefore, reporters are responsible for gathering data in a timely manner for acquired sources. Also, for sources acquired from companies that were previously subject to subpart W, any necessary sampling ports or other modifications would have previously been made to the equipment to accommodate measurement. Because facilities typically spend several months planning the acquisition and installation of new equipment, we anticipate that any issues can be addressed during this time, before the equipment begins to operate.
While we are not extending the missing data provisions proposed in 40 CFR 98.235(e) and (f) to facilities already subject to subpart W, we acknowledge that there are special cases where new compressors can be added to an existing facility and it may not be possible to perform an “as found” measurement of that new compressor source during the calendar year, for example, if the compressor is installed in late December. To address this issue, we have revised the proposed amendments for compressors at 40 CFR 98.233(o)(1)(i) and (p)(1)(i) to not require annual measurements of compressors installed after annual compressor measurements have already been conducted for all existing compressors at the facility. If not all of the existing compressors at the facility have been measured, then there is no additional burden associated with identifying and scheduling a testing crew for measuring the newly installed compressor. However, if a facility has already conducted their annual compressor measurements, requiring measurement of emissions for the newly installed compressor would impose a significant additional burden and may not be logistically possible within the calendar year. Therefore, in today's final rule, an annual measurement of a newly installed compressor would not be required if annual compressor measurements have already been conducted for all existing compressors at the facility. In this case, no missing data provisions are needed or are applicable for these newly installed compressors.
The provisions proposed at 40 CFR 98.235(d) include specific provisions that can be used to determine the missing value in the absence of a “before” or “after” measurement. We find that the proposed procedures are reasonable for any data element that is
In this final rule, the EPA is removing all prior provisions in 40 CFR 98.234(f) for BAMM as proposed, but we are also adding transitional BAMM provisions for the 2015 calendar year after considering public comments. Specifically, we are revising 40 CFR 98.234(f) to provide short-term transitional BAMM for reporters who are subject to new monitoring or measurement requirements as part of these final amendments. Reporters have the option of using BAMM from January 1, 2015, to March 31, 2015, for certain parameters that cannot reasonably be measured according to the monitoring and QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR 98.234. Specifically, the transitional 2015 BAMM provisions cover the following data:
• Well-related measurement data that cannot reasonably be measured for well venting for liquids unloading and gas well venting during well completions and workovers with hydraulic fracturing, from wells not previously measured.
• Reciprocating compressor blowdown valve, isolation valve, and rod packing venting from manifolded vents, when conducting “as found” measurements according to revised 40 CFR 98.233(p)(4) or (p)(5).
• Centrifugal compressor blowdown valve, isolation valve, and wet seal oil degassing venting from manifolded vents, when conducting “as found” measurements according to revised 40 CFR 98.233(o)(4) or (o)(5).
For these parameters, reporters have the option to use BAMM from January 1, 2015, to March 31, 2015, without seeking prior EPA approval. Reporters will also have the opportunity to request an extension for the use of BAMM beyond March 31, 2015; those owners or operators must submit a request to the Administrator by January 31, 2015. The EPA is not providing transitional BAMM for these revised requirements beyond December 31, 2015. The provision of 3 months of automatic transitional BAMM will allow reporters to prepare for data collection while automatically being able to use BAMM, which is consistent with BAMM schedules in prior Part 98 rulemakings. This additional time for reporters to comply with the revised monitoring methods in subpart W will allow facilities to install the necessary monitoring equipment during other planned (or unplanned) process unit downtime, thus avoiding process interruptions.
We are also removing and reserving 40 CFR 98.234(g). As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, we intended to remove and reserve this section but the removal of this section was not included in the regulatory text. These removed provisions are specific to the 2011 and 2012 reporting years, and the removal of this provision does not impact the reporting requirements for subsequent reporting years.
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to best available monitoring methods. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
Eight commenters disagreed with the removal of BAMM beginning in the 2015 calendar year. Several commenters stated that eliminating BAMM would compromise compliance of impacted sources, especially in instances when it is not feasible to obtain a required measurement or where a direct measurement may be unsafe. These commenters requested the ongoing availability of BAMM or a revision of the missing data procedures for those instances where a reporter demonstrates a legitimate need.
Commenters pointed out that access to alternative methods is necessary for regulations. Some of the commenters pointed out that the EPA has allowed alternative compliance and monitoring methods in other regulatory programs (
Another commenter explained that future changes in operation or equipment may cause the facility to exceed the reporting threshold or create circumstances in which emission points meet the subpart W criteria, though that may not be known until the facility is surveyed. The commenter stated that
Three commenters requested at least a 6-month transitional BAMM following the final rule. The commenters requested adequate time to implement changes following the final rule. One commenter stated that a transitional BAMM of 6 months would allow flexibility to reporters, provide time for clarifications, allow for the development for the required systems, and accommodate issues regarding situations beyond the facility's control which require BAMM. Another commenter stated that developing processes for monitoring data or activities that have never before been subject to federal or state reporting may take significant time and effort. The commenter pointed out that until the final rule has been issued, reporters will not be able to determine what is required and will not know if BAMM is needed. Another commenter stated that if BAMM is not extended, small operators without the resources to quickly implement the rule would be unfairly disadvantaged.
The EPA is also addressing the most common scenarios for which BAMM was previously requested for other emission sources. For example, for blowdown vent emissions, the EPA previously approved BAMM requests for reporting data by unique physical volume. In this final rule, we are revising the reporting of blowdown emissions to aggregate emissions by equipment type, as discussed in Section II.B.6 of this preamble. Similarly, for well venting for liquids unloading, the final rule allows for annualizing of venting data to account for situations where it was not feasible to gather vent hours or the number of unloadings from all controllers on January 1 or December 31, and it provides alternatives to determining the shut-in pressure required in Equation W–8. We have incorporated revisions in this final rule to address BAMM concerns for onshore production tanks and well completions and workovers. Additionally, we are finalizing missing data procedures that add clarity and specificity in how to treat and report missing data, including continuous measurements, periodic measurements and activity data. These missing data procedures are not intended to replace BAMM, however, they provide clarity for reporters who may have unintentionally missed collecting required data. These missing data procedures would also apply to facilities for which changes in operation or equipment may cause the facility to exceed the reporting threshold or result in creating circumstances in which emission points meet the subpart W criteria, as well as for newly acquired sources that were not previously reported under subpart W. We also note that there have been previous BAMM requests in which facilities noted technical concerns including instances where equipment modifications or installations were necessary. By the 2015 reporting year, facilities will have had four years to implement any necessary changes in order to fully comply with subpart W, which we have determined to be sufficient time to make any equipment modifications or installations. Therefore, we are not including BAMM provisions for these scenarios in this final rule.
Regarding the comment that other regulatory programs allow alternative compliance and monitoring methods, the EPA acknowledges that the provisions of NSPS and NESHAP allow facilities to request alternative monitoring and testing methods. However, the NSPS and NESHAP provisions typically require that specific monitoring methods be used (
Although we are removing the current BAMM provisions of 40 CFR 98.234(f), the final rule introduces new short-term transitional BAMM provisions for certain parameters for the 2015 calendar year. The EPA agrees with commenters that some facilities may need to obtain the necessary equipment to conduct measurements as required under the revised calculation methods in this final rule. Thus, under the final rule, reporters have the option of using BAMM for certain parameters that cannot be reasonably measured according to the monitoring and QA/QC requirements of 40 CFR 98.234. For example, we are revising the emission estimation methods for well completions and workovers from wells with hydraulic fracturing to separate reporting by well completions and workovers and by the sub-basin and well-type combination. In some cases, we expect reporters will be required to measure existing wells of a well-type combination for which they have not previously reported separately. In this case, reporters have the option to use BAMM for well-related data (
In some cases, although we are revising emissions calculation methods in the final rule, we are not providing the BAMM option because the underlying measurement methods have not changed. For example, although we have separated the calculation of emissions from completions and workovers from wells without hydraulic fracturing in 40 CFR 98.233(h), reporters are still collecting the same well data and measurements. We are not providing BAMM in this case or in similar cases where reporters would not be required to change their data collection methods.
We are not providing the BAMM option for parameters in revised calculation methods where the rule already provides alternatives to direct measurements. For example, the final rule requires facilities in the onshore natural gas transmission compression, underground natural gas storage, LNG storage, and LNG import export industry segments to report emissions from flares based on using the calculation methods for flare stacks. BAMM is not needed in this case because 40 CFR 98.233(n)(1) specifies that flare gas flow may be estimated using engineering calculations based on process knowledge, company records, and best available data. Similarly, 40 CFR 98.233(n)(2) specifies that as an alternative to using a continuous gas composition analyzer on the flare gas, a reporter in the four industry segments now required to report flare emissions may use a representative composition determined by engineering calculation based on process knowledge and best available data. The BAMM option also is not being provided for activity data such as completion or workover counts and venting or operating time because the final rule does not specify monitoring equipment that must be used for measuring these parameters.
The final rule allows reporters to use BAMM for the specified parameters during the January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015 time period without seeking prior EPA approval. By automatically allowing BAMM until March 31, 2015, this schedule allows additional time following the publication of the final rule for reporters to prepare for data collection and install the necessary monitoring equipment. The final rule also provides for reporters the option to request an extension for the use of BAMM beyond March 31, 2015, but no further than December 31, 2015. Reporters who request an extension must submit a request to the Administrator by January 31, 2015, and demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, and operate a required piece of monitoring equipment by April 1, 2015, to receive approval to use BAMM beyond March 31, 2015. In these cases, the Administrator will only approve BAMM for the parameters specified in Section II.D.1 of this preamble. We anticipate that the number of BAMM requests approved for the 2015 calendar year will be limited and will not greatly impact the quality of the data collected in 2015.
We are finalizing the addition of several data elements to 40 CFR 98.236, with revisions from the proposed rule based on review of comments and other considerations. Although the EPA received comments objecting to the proposed addition of these data elements, these new data elements are based on data that are already collected by the reporter or are readily available to the reporter. The reporting of these data elements will improve the quality of the data reported, improve the verification of reported emissions, and reduce the amount of correspondence with reporters that is associated with follow-up and revision of annual reports.
After proposal, we determined that some proposed data elements could be removed to lessen reporter burden. For offshore production facilities, the final rule requires reporting of the total quantity of oil handled at the offshore platform, which includes the quantity from blended oil/condensate streams; this reporting element replaces the proposed requirements to report the amount of oil and the amount of condensate separately. Additionally, we are not finalizing the proposed requirements to report the model name, description, and installation year for each compressor.
As a result of comments received on the proposed rule, we are adding requirements to report two data elements for centrifugal and reciprocating compressors. Affected facilities with centrifugal or reciprocating compressors will be required to indicate whether the measured volume of flow from the compressor includes blowdown emissions, according to 40 CFR 98.236(o)(4)(iii) and 40 CFR 98.236 (p)(4)(iii), respectively.
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to the addition of new reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.236(aa). See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
Multiple commenters provided examples of data elements that they stated are not within the scope of Part 98 because they are not directly related to emissions quantification or are redundant: For transmission storage tank vent stack, whether scrubber dump leakage is occurring for the underground storage vent—§ 98.236(k)(l)(iii); year compressor was installed—§ 98.236(p)(1)(xiv); compressor model name and description— § 98.236(p)(1)(xv); date of last rod packing—§ 98.236(p)(1)(xvi); average time surveyed components were found leaking and operational—§ 98.236(q)(2)(iii); average upstream pipeline pressure, psig—§ 98.236(aa)(4)(iv); average downstream pipeline pressure, psig—§ 98.236(aa)(4)(v); quantity of gas injected into storage—§ 98.236(aa)(5)(i); quantity of gas withdrawn from storage—§ 98.236(aa)(5)(ii); number of compressors—§ 98.236(aa)(4)(ii); total compressor power rating for all compressors combined, hp—§ 98.236(aa)(4)(iii); and total storage capacity for underground natural gas storage facilities—§ 98.236(aa)(5)(iii).
One commenter stated that the EPA should explain or justify the need for addition of these data elements. Multiple commenters stated that the new reporting requirements are not relevant for quantifying emissions and developing this information in order to report represents a substantial burden.
The additional reporting requirements included in this final rule provide production, capacity, and operational information for sources subject to subpart W and are similar to the data collected under other subparts of Part 98. These data elements are useful for the verification of existing data. For example, production, capacity, or operational information may be used to normalize the data collected and adequately characterize emissions sources. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing these reporting requirements as proposed, with minor clarifications. Further information on the final changes to the reporting section may be found in the memorandum, “Final Revisions to the Subpart W Reporting Requirements in the “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 2014 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems; Final Rule” in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512.
In the proposed rule, we assigned new or revised data elements to the appropriate direct emitter data categories created in the 2011 Final CBI Rule based on the type and characteristics of each data element. For data elements the EPA assigned to a direct emitter category with a categorical determination, the EPA proposed that the categorical determination for the category be applied to the proposed new or revised data element. For data elements assigned to the “Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” and “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations,” we proposed confidentiality determinations on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the criteria in 40 CFR 2.208, consistent with the approach used for data elements previously assigned to these two data categories. We also proposed individual confidentiality determinations for 11 new or substantially revised data elements without making a data category assignment and we proposed to revise the confidentiality determination for one existing subpart W data element. Refer to the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 13394, March 10, 2014) for additional information regarding the proposed confidentiality determinations.
With consideration of the data provided by commenters, the EPA is finalizing the confidentiality determinations as proposed for all but 7 of the new and substantially revised data elements that were proposed. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing the proposed decision to require each of the new data elements and the one existing data element for which we revised the confidentiality determination be designated as “not CBI”, with the exception of seven new data elements for which we have subsequently identified potential confidentiality concerns, as discussed in this section. The seven data elements with revised confidentiality determinations apply to onshore natural gas plants and natural gas transmission facilities.
For onshore natural gas plants, the EPA has revised the determination for the following four data elements: The quantity of natural gas received at the gas processing plant in the calendar year (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(i)), the quantity of processed (residue) gas leaving the gas processing plant (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(ii)), the quantity of natural gas liquids (NGL) (bulk and fractionated) received (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(iii)), and the quantity of NGL (bulk and fractionated) leaving the plant (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(iv)). In the proposal, we indicated that we designated the annual quantity of natural gas received at a gas plant and the annual quantity of residue gas leaving a gas plant to be “not CBI” because the average annual flow and plant utilization rate are published on the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) Web site and are already in the public domain. However, upon reexamination we determined that reporting to EIA of the amount of natural gas received is less frequent than that required under subpart W and we have not identified any reliable public sources of the quantity of residue gas produced. Thus, we have decided to maintain the annual quantity of natural gas received at gas plants and the annual quantity of processed (residue) gas leaving gas plants as confidential.
We indicated in the proposal that the two NGL data elements were aggregated values for all NGL received and all NGL supplied by a natural gas processing plant. We also explained that this information would not cause competitive harm to reporters because the data for individual NGL products (which would be likely to cause competitive harm) would not be disclosed. While most plants receive and supply several different NGL products, we have identified a few plants that receive and/or supply only one NGL product. For example, some plants remove only ethane from the natural gas received. For this subset of plants, the quantity to be reported under subpart W is identical to the quantity reported under subpart NN, which the EPA determined to be CBI (see 76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011). Thus, the EPA has decided not to make a confidentiality determination for 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(iii) and (aa)(3)(iv).
For the natural gas transmission sector, the EPA has revised the confidentiality determination in this action for three data elements: The quantity of gas transported through a compressor station (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(4)(i)) and the average upstream and downstream pressures (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(4)(iv) and (v), respectively). We proposed that these data elements be designated as “not CBI.” We noted that the natural gas transmission sector was heavily regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and state commissions due to a lack of competition between companies. We further noted that FERC controls pricing, sets rules for business practices, and is responsible for approving the location, construction, and operations of companies operating in this sector. However, we received comments from this industry sector noting that FERC Order 636 had introduced greater competition to this sector and that some companies charge customers less than the FERC approved rates because of competitive market pressures. The three data elements identified above would provide information on the quantity of gas transported by a specific pipeline. This information may potentially cause competitive harm to some pipeline companies operating in more competitive market areas. Since the determination would depend on the particular market conditions for each company, the EPA was not able to make a determination for these data elements that would apply for all reporters. Thus, the EPA has decided not to make a confidentiality determination for 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(4)(i), (iv) and (v). The confidentiality status of these data elements will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the existing CBI regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, upon receipt of a public request for these data elements.
The EPA received several comments questioning the proposed determination that several new or revised data elements should be treated as non-confidential. Specifically, we received comments requesting that the EPA classify certain data elements associated with exploratory wells (delineation and wildcat wells) as CBI for a period of at least 24 months from the start of exploration. These comments and the EPA's responses are summarized in Section III.B of this preamble. Based on consideration of these comments and consistent with the EPA's previous decisions related to exploratory wells under Part 98 (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014), the EPA is revising the final rule to provide reporters with the option to delay reporting of 12 data elements for two reporting years in situations where exploratory wells are the only wells in a sub-basin. For a given sub-basin, in situations where wildcat wells and/or delineation wells are the only wells in a sub-basin that can be used for the required measurement, the following data elements associated with the delineation or wildcat well may be delayed for two reporting years: (1) Cumulative flowback time for each sub-basin (40 CFR 98.236(g)(5)(i)); (2) measured flowback rate for each sub-basin (40 CFR 98.236(g)(5)(ii)); (3) average daily gas production rate for all completions without hydraulic fracturing in the sub-basin without flaring (40 CFR 98.236(h)(1)(iv)); (4) average daily gas production rate for all completions without hydraulic fracturing in the sub-basin with flaring (40 CFR 98.236(h)(2)(iv)); (5) if using Calculation Method 1 or 2 for atmospheric storage tanks, the total annual gas-liquid separator oil volume that is sent to atmospheric storage tanks in the sub-basin, in barrels; (6) if using Calculation Method 3 for atmospheric storage tanks, the total annual oil throughput that is sent to atmospheric tanks in the basin (40 CFR 98.236(j)(2)(i)(A)); (7) if oil well testing is not performed where emissions are not vented to a flare, the average flow rate in barrels of oil per day for well(s) tested (40 CFR 98.236(l)(1)(iv); (8) if oil well testing is performed where emissions are vented to a flare, the average flow rate in barrels of oil per day for well(s) tested (40 CFR 98.236(l)(2)(iv)); (9) if gas well testing is performed where emissions are not vented to a flare, average annual production rate in actual cubic feet per day for well(s) tested (40 CFR 98.236(l)(3)(iii)); (10) if gas well testing is performed where emissions are vented to a flare, average annual production rate in actual cubic feet per day for well(s) tested. (40 CFR 98.236(l)(4)(iii)); (11) volume of oil produced in the calendar year during the time periods in which associated gas was vented or flared (40 CFR 98.236(m)(5)); and (12) total volume of associated gas sent to sales in the calendar year during time periods in which associated gas was vented or flared (40 CFR 98.236(m)(6))).
Six of the 12 data elements for which reporting may be delayed by 2 years are inputs to emission equations and the EPA provided the same option in the EPA's previous decisions related to exploratory wells under Part 98 (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014). Five of the 12 data elements are inputs only when the applicable data are related to a single well (40 CFR 98.236(g)(5)(i), (h)(1)(iv), (h)(2)(iv), (m)(5), and (m)(6)), and one data element is never an input (40 CFR 98.236(j)(2)(i)(A)). The EPA decided to treat all early disclosure concerns related to exploratory wells consistently throughout subpart W by providing the option to delay reporting by 2 years to all 12 data elements. For the six data elements that are not always inputs, the finalized confidentiality determinations of “not CBI” apply in situations where the data elements are not an input to an equation. Specifically, the “not CBI” determination applies to all situations that involve multiple non-exploratory wells or a mix of exploratory and non-exploratory wells, and the “not CBI” determinations also will apply to data elements related to multiple exploratory wells once the data are reported to the EPA following the 2 year delay. For the situations when the data elements are used as inputs to equations, the EPA is assigning them to the “Inputs to Emission Equations” data category and is not making confidentiality determinations for these data.
In response to public comments, the EPA has added eight new data elements related to compressors as reporting requirements and has assigned them to the “Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” data category. Two of the new data elements require reporters to indicate whether compressor blowdown emissions are included in the measured volume of flow from compressor sources that are monitored continuously. Four of the new data elements require reporters to indicate whether measurements for manifolded groups of compressor sources are located prior to or after comingling with non-compressor emissions. These six data elements apply to both centrifugal compressors and reciprocating compressors, and they are located in 40 CFR 98.236(o)(3)(i)(F), (o)(4)(iii), (o)(4)(iv), (p)(3)(i)(F), (p)(4)(iii), and (p)(4)(iv). For each centrifugal and reciprocating compressor equipped with blind flanges, the other two new data elements require reporters to provide the dates when the blind flanges were in place, and these elements are located in 40 CFR 98.236(o)(1)(x) and (p)(1)(xii). All eight of the new data elements are the same type of data as other data elements included in this category in
The EPA has determined that we inadvertently omitted proposing confidentiality determinations for 12 new data reporting elements. The measured scrubber dump valve leak rate vented directly to atmosphere (40 CFR 98.236(k)(2)(ii)), the measured scrubber dump valve leak rate vented to flare (40 CFR 98.236(k)(3)(ii)), and the annual CO
Five of the new data elements for which we did not propose confidentiality determinations in the proposed rule are similar to data elements that were assigned to the “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” data category. For example, the type of control device for emissions from glycol dehydrators with an annual average daily natural gas throughput less than 0.4 MMscf per day (40 CFR 98.236(e)(2)(iii)) is the same as the data element in 40 CFR 98.236(e)(3)(i) for reporting the type of control device used to control emissions from dehydrators that use desiccant. The number of atmospheric tanks in the sub-basin that did not control emissions with flares (40 CFR 98.236(j)(2)(ii)(B)) and the number of atmospheric tanks in the sub-basin that controlled emissions with flares (40 CFR 98.236(j)(2)(iii)(B)) are comparable to the data elements in 40 CFR 98.236(e)(2) and (e)(3) for the counts of dehydrators that vent to atmosphere, flare, vapor recovery, or other types of control devices. The duration of time that a scrubber dump valve leak occurred (40 CFR 98.236(k)(2)(iii)) and the duration of time that flaring of a scrubber dump valve leak occurred (40 CFR 98.236(k)(3)(iii)) are comparable to the data element in 40 CFR 98.236(j)(3)(ii) for the total time that dump valves on gas-liquid separators did not close properly. Furthermore, as we noted in the discussion of the confidentiality determination for 40 CFR 98.236(j)(3)(ii) in the preamble to the proposed rule, because the time period during which a dump valve is malfunctioning provides little insight into maintenance practices or the nature or cost of repairs that are needed, public disclosure of such information would not be likely to cause substantial competitive harm to reporters. The finalized confidentiality determinations for all of the data elements that are comparable to the five data elements that were inadvertently omitted from the analysis at proposal are “not CBI.” We conclude that it is appropriate to assign the five previously omitted data elements to the “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” data category and finalize our determination that these data elements are “not CBI” in this action.
Three of the new data elements for which we did not propose confidentiality determinations in the proposed rule are identical to other data elements that were included in the analysis at proposal. The centrifugal compressor name or ID (40 CFR 98.236(o)(2)(i)(A)), the centrifugal compressor source (40 CFR 98.236(o)(2)(i)(B)), and the unique name or ID for the leak or vent (40 CFR 98.236(o)(2)(i)(C)) are identical to the corresponding data elements for reciprocating compressors in 40 CFR 98.236(p)(2)(i)(A), (p)(2)(i)(B), and (p)(2)(i)(C). These data elements for reciprocating compressors were assigned to the “Facility and Unit Identifier Information” data category, and the final confidentiality determination for these data elements is “not CBI.” We conclude that it is appropriate to assign the three previously omitted data elements to the “Facility and Unit Identifier Information” data category and finalize our determination that these data elements are “not CBI” in this action.
As discussed in Section II.B.5 of this preamble, the final rule clarifies the reporting requirements for the time variable used in Equation W–10A (40 CFR 98.236(g)(5)(i)). Specifically, the final rule requires reporting of both cumulative gas flowback time values used in the revised Equation W–10A (“T
In the final rule, the EPA has also edited for clarity numerous reporting elements based on public comments. Portions of 40 CFR 98.236 also were rearranged to improve clarity in the final rule. These edits did not change the type of data to be reported and, thus, the confidentiality determinations do not need to be reassessed. All of the changes are documented in the Memorandum “Final Revisions to the Subpart W Reporting Requirements in the `Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule:
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to the proposed categorical assignments and confidentiality determinations. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses. See the memorandum “Final Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements (excluding inputs to emission equations) in the `Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 2014 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems; Final Rule' ” in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of final data category assignments and confidentiality determinations, and a discussion of changes since proposal.
We have not identified any reliable public sources for the following data elements: The quantity of gas transported through a compressor station (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(4)(i)) and the average upstream and downstream pressures (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(4)(iv) and (v), respectively). These data elements provide information on the quantity of gas transported by a specific pipeline and disclosure of this data may potentially cause competitive harm to some pipeline companies operating in more competitive market areas. Since the determination would depend on the particular market conditions for each company, the EPA was not able to make a determination for these data elements that would apply for all reporters. Thus, the EPA has decided not to make a confidentiality determination for 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(4)(i), (iv) and (v). The confidentiality status of these data elements will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the existing CBI regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, upon receipt of a public request for these data elements.
Thus, the proposed rule only included one new data element (“Whether any CO
The second data element is the quantity of gas received at a gas processing plant (reported by natural gas processing plants under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(i)), which we proposed as “not CBI.” Plants that fractionate natural gas into its constituent NGL are required to report the volume of natural gas received by their plant for processing (see 40 CFR 40 CFR 98.406(a)(3)). In a previous notice, we determined that the data element required by 40 CFR 98.406(a)(3) was entitled to confidential treatment under 40 CFR 2.208 because it provided information regarding raw material consumption that we believed was not already in the public domain and could potentially cause competitive harm if disclosed. During the preparation of the proposal for this action, the EPA found that detailed plant-level information is reported by all natural gas plants to the EIA on Schedule A of form EIA–757 (Natural Gas Processing Plant Survey) once every 3 years. The information reported includes the annual average natural gas flow in million cubic feet per day entering a natural gas plant (including plants that also fractionate natural gas). EIA considers the information on annual average natural gas flows entering a plant to be non-proprietary information that it makes available to the public. However, because the information reported to EIA is on a different frequency than that required under subpart W, we have determined that the quantity of natural gas received at a gas processing plant under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(i) is entitled to confidential treatment under the provisions of 40 CFR 2.208. These data provide detailed information regarding the quantities of natural gas processed that would be likely to cause competitive harm if disclosed as it provides sensitive information on market share. Thus, in this final action we are changing the determination for 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(i) from “not CBI” to “CBI.”
The other data elements specifically mentioned by commenters are either not the same as those reported under subpart NN or they have determinations that are consistent with those in subpart NN. For example, commenters noted that the quantity of NGL (bulk and fractionated) received (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(iii) and the quantity of NGL (bulk and fractionated) leaving the plant (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(iv)) are the same as the data elements reported under 40 CFR 98.406(a)(2) and (a)(1), respectively. However, the commenters are mistaken. Under subpart W, the data elements reported are actually aggregated totals for all NGL products received and all NGL products supplied. Under subpart NN, facilities report the quantities of each individual product. The subpart NN data elements were previously determined to be entitled to confidential treatment because they provide detailed information regarding the quantities of individual products that would be likely to cause competitive harm if disclosed as it provides sensitive information on market share. Since the NGL data reported under subpart W is in an aggregated form, the quantities of individual products is not disclosed and therefore does not pose the same risk of causing competitive harm to the reporters. The only exception is in situations where the plant is known to receive or supply only one NGL product. In these situations, the EPA has decided not to make a confidentiality determination for 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(iii) and (aa)(3)(iv).
The commenter noted that Federal law and State codes allow companies to designate as confidential the data obtained from exploratory wells, especially in new discovery areas or areas that are being explored for development. The commenter further noted that the original intent of State oil and gas commissions to allow withholding of select drilling and production information from early release to the public was to allow competitive exploration by searching for new pockets of oil or gas and experimenting with new tools and techniques. The commenter stated that releasing data on such wells through Part 98—despite the fact that they are held confidential by other regulatory bodies—could cause substantial
The commenter requested that the EPA categorically determine that all information associated with exploratory wells, with the exception of well ID and location, be classified as CBI for a period of at least 24 months from the start of exploration. The commenter recommended either of two suggested approaches under Part 98: (1) Companies would report all data to the EPA as mandated by subpart W, but the EPA would hold the reported data as CBI and not include it in its public data release for at least 24 months (this could be accomplished by a flagging system (or a “radio button”) in the Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool that could also allow for a short informative text on why that particular well information is to be maintained confidential); or (2) the EPA could set up a deferral system where initial data on exploratory wells will be well ID and location information and the remaining data would be backfilled by companies after a period of 24 months. The commenter added that neither option would require case-by-case review of companies' information, and both are consistent with the approach taken by state oil and gas commissions and are protective of companies' commercial investment interests. The commenter identified the following data elements as potentially sensitive when reported for exploratory wells:
• Sub-basin ID. (40 CFR 98.236(g)(1))
• Well type. (40 CFR 98.236(g)(2))
• Cumulative backflow time, in hours, for each sub basin. (40 CFR 98.236(g)(5)(i))
• Vented natural gas volume, in standard cubic feet, for each well in the sub-basin. (40 CFR 98.236(g)(6))
• Annual gas emissions, in standard cubic feet. (40 CFR 98.236(g)(7))
• For each sub-basin with gas well completions without hydraulic fracturing and without flaring, Sub-basin ID. (40 CFR 98.236(h)(1)(i))
• For each sub-basin with gas well completions without hydraulic fracturing and without flaring, average daily gas production rate for all completions without hydraulic fracturing in the sub-basin without flaring, in standard cubic feet per hour. (40 CFR 98.236(h)(1)(iv))
• For each sub-basin with gas well completions without hydraulic fracturing and with flaring, Sub-basin ID. (40 CFR 98.236(h)(2)(i))
• For each sub-basin with gas well completions without hydraulic fracturing and with flaring, average daily gas production rate for all completions without hydraulic fracturing in the sub-basin with flaring, in standard cubic feet per hour. (40 CFR 98.236(h)(2)(iv))
• At the basin level for atmospheric tanks where emissions were calculated using Calculation Method 3, the total annual oil throughput that is sent to atmospheric tanks in the basin, in barrels. (40 CFR 98.236(j)(2)(i)(A))
• If oil well testing is performed where emissions are not vented to a flare, the average flow rate in barrels of oil per day for well(s) tested. (40 CFR 98.236(l)(1)(iv))
• If oil well testing is performed where emissions are vented to a flare, the average flow rate in barrels of oil per day for well(s) tested. (40 CFR 98.236(l)(2)(iv))
• If gas well testing is performed where emissions are not vented to a flare, the average annual production rate in actual cubic feet per day for well(s) tested. (40 CFR 98.236(l)(3)(iii))
• If gas well testing is performed where emissions are vented to a flare, the average annual production rate in actual cubic feet per day for well(s) tested. (40 CFR 98.236(l)(4)(iii))
• If associated gas was vented or flared during the calendar year, Sub-basin ID. (40 CFR 98.236(m)(1))
• For each sub-basin, indicate whether any associated gas was vented without flaring. (40 CFR 98.236(m)(2))
• For each sub-basin, indicate whether any associated gas was flared. (40 CFR 98.236(m)(3))
• Volume of oil produced, in barrels, in the calendar year during the time periods in which associated gas was vented or flared. (40 CFR 98.236(m)(5))
• Total volume of associated gas sent to sales, in standard cubic feet, in the calendar year during time periods in which associated gas was vented or flared. (40 CFR 98.236(m)(6))
• Formation type. (40 CFR 98.236(aa)(1)(ii)(C))
• For each sub-basin category, the number of producing wells at the end of the calendar year. (40 CFR 98.236(aa)(1)(ii)(D))
• For each sub-basin category, the number of wells completed during the calendar year. (40 CFR 98.236(aa)(1)(ii)(G))
• For offshore production, the quantity of gas produced from the offshore platform in the calendar year for sales. (40 CFR 98.236(aa)(2)(i))
• For gas well completions or workovers with hydraulic fracturing, where wildcat wells and/or delineation wells are the only wells in a sub-basin that can be used for the measurement;
• For gas well completions without hydraulic fracturing, where wildcat wells and/or delineation wells are the only wells in a sub-basin that can be used for the measurement;
• For onshore production storage tanks, where wildcat wells and/or delineation wells are the only wells in a sub-basin or basin;
• For well testing, where wildcat wells and/or delineation wells are the only wells in a sub-basin that are tested;
• For associated gas venting and flaring, where wildcat wells and/or delineation wells are the only wells in a sub-basin;
The data elements that could reveal well productivity for wildcat and/or delineation wells in the applicable situations listed above are as follows:
• Cumulative flowback time, in hours, for each sub basin. (40 CFR 98.236(g)(5)(i))
• For the measured well(s), the flowback rate, in standard cubic feet per hour, for each sub-basin. (40 CFR 98.236(g)(5)(ii))
• For each sub-basin with gas well completions without hydraulic fracturing and without flaring, average daily gas production rate for all completions without hydraulic fracturing in the sub-basin without flaring, in standard cubic feet per hour. (40 CFR 98.236(h)(1)(iv))
• For each sub-basin with gas well completions without hydraulic fracturing and with flaring, average daily gas production rate for all completions without hydraulic fracturing in the sub-basin with flaring, in standard cubic feet per hour. (40 CFR 98.236(h)(2)(iv))
• At the sub-basin level for atmospheric tanks where emissions were calculated using Calculation Method 1 or 2, the total annual gas-
• At the basin level for atmospheric tanks where emissions were calculated using Calculation Method 3, the total annual oil throughput that is sent to atmospheric tanks in the basin, in barrels. (40 CFR 98.236(j)(2)(i)(A))
• If oil well testing is performed where emissions are not vented to a flare, the average flow rate in barrels of oil per day for well(s) tested. (40 CFR 98.236(l)(1)(iv))
• If oil well testing is performed where emissions are vented to a flare, the average flow rate in barrels of oil per day for well(s) tested. (40 CFR 98.236(l)(2)(iv))
• If gas well testing is performed where emissions are not vented to a flare, the average annual production rate in actual cubic feet per day for well(s) tested. (40 CFR 98.236(l)(3)(iii))
• If gas well testing is performed where emissions are vented to a flare, the average annual production rate in actual cubic feet per day for well(s) tested. (40 CFR 98.236(l)(4)(iii))
• Volume of oil produced, in barrels, in the calendar year during the time periods in which associated gas was vented or flared. (40 CFR 98.236(m)(5))
• Total volume of associated gas sent to sales, in standard cubic feet, in the calendar year during time periods in which associated gas was vented or flared. (40 CFR 98.236(m)(6))
These 12 data elements are themselves a very small subset of data elements collected in subpart W. Further, wildcat and delineation wells represent a relatively small percentage of the wells being reported under Part 98 for these data elements. As a result, in the interim period before these data are reported to the EPA, the EPA will be able to verify the majority of the emissions using data elements that will be reported to the EPA. For the 12 data elements that may be delayed for 2 years, the EPA will verify emissions using other data reported to the EPA, and will conclude verification upon receipt of the data. The EPA agrees with the commenter that a two year delay of reporting is sufficient to prevent early public disclosure of these data and will provide sufficient time for the reporter to thoroughly conduct an assessment of the well. Given the results of this evaluation, the EPA determined that, for these 12 data elements, in those cases where a reporter has delineation wells or wildcat wells in cases where wildcat wells and/or delineation wells in a sub-basin and these wells meet one of the five situations described above, reporters should be provided an option to delay reporting of the given data element for two reporting years starting in 2015. In such cases, if the two-year delay in reporting is used, the reporter must report the following information in the current reporting year: indicate for each delayed reporting element that one of the five situations listed above is true (
The following data elements meet the definition of emission data in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i) because they are actual volumes of gas emitted by the facility: volume of natural gas vented (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(g)(6)) and annual gas emissions (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(g)(7)). Under CAA section 114(c), the EPA must make available emission data, whether or not such data are CBI. For these data elements that are assigned to the “Emissions” data category, the commenter did not claim or provide any justification for why these data elements do not meet the definition of emission data.
For the remaining data elements identified by the commenter as potentially sensitive with respect to delineation and wildcat wells, the EPA disagrees that public disclosure of these data elements in the time period following annual reporting would reveal well productivity, thereby resulting in the loss of investment value to the reporter. The sub-basin ID (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(g)(1), (h)(1)(i), (h)(2)(i), and (m)(1)) and number of wells can be discerned from the well IDs, which are publicly available for all wells and provide the location of the well and the name of the drilling company. Since the location of the well can be discerned from the well ID, the type of formation (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(1)(ii)(C)) can be determined through publicly available information such as U.S. Geological Survey reports. The well type (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(g)(2)), including whether hydraulic fracturing is used, can be inferred from the formation type. Similarly, although indicating whether the well vents or flares associated gas emissions (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(m)(2) and (m)(3)) identifies the well as an oil well, this information can also be concluded from the formation type, which, as previously mentioned, may be determined through publicly available information. The number of producing wells at the end of the calendar year (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(1)(ii)(D)) and the number of wells completed during the calendar year (reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(1)(ii)(G)) are reported for sub-basins with production wells. Information regarding production wells is available from state databases. Since these data elements are either not sensitive or can be easily inferred from information already in the public domain, the EPA has determined that release of this information would not result in competitive harm.
The final amendments to subpart W include technical corrections and revisions to the calculation, monitoring, and reporting requirements that do not significantly increase the burden of data collection and improve the accuracy of the data reported. In general, these revisions provide greater flexibility for reporters and increase the clarity and congruency of the calculation and reporting requirements. These final amendments do not impart significant additional burden to reporters and in some cases reduce burden to reporters and regulators.
First, the following revisions to the calculation and monitoring requirements of subpart W are anticipated to decrease the burden or have no impact on the burden relative to the burden to comply with the current rule:
• Allowing for the use of either site-specific composition data or a default gas composition for natural gas transmission compression, underground natural gas storage, LNG storage, LNG
• For well venting from liquids unloading, allowing the measurement period to differ slightly from the standard calendar year combined with annualizing the resulting venting data for facilities that calculate emissions using a recording flow meter.
• Allowing for the option to use a site-specific compressibility factor for calculation of emissions from blowdown vents and for conversion of volumetric emissions at actual conditions to standard conditions.
• Revising calculation methods for onshore production storage tanks to require quantification of emissions from well pad gas-liquid separator liquid dump valves only if the dump valve is determined to not be closing properly.
• Including a term to account for situations where part of the associated gas from a well goes to a sales line while another part of the gas is flared or vented. The term is already being calculated elsewhere and/or can be estimated.
• Deciding against finalizing the addition of the term “ERE
• Removing vented compressor emissions routed to a flare from the compressor emissions total and retaining the requirement to report uncontrolled vented emissions from compressors.
• Addressing reporter concerns related to measuring centrifugal and reciprocating compressor emissions that are routed to a common vent manifold or flare header. Reporters were previously required to conduct emissions measurements for each individual compressor routed to the common vent. The final rule requires only a single annual emissions measurement at the common vent for groups of manifolded compressors. We are not finalizing the proposed requirement to conduct measurement of manifolded compressor source emissions before comingling with emissions from other sources.
• Revising requirements to conduct measurements in the not-operating-depressurized mode once every three years or at the next scheduled depressurized shutdown (for centrifugal compressors) or at the next scheduled shutdown when the compressor rod packing is replaced (for reciprocating compressors). We are not finalizing the proposed requirement to conduct testing in the operating-mode once every 3 years.
• Revising calculation methods for the natural gas distribution segment to clarify the calculation methodologies and reporting requirements for above grade metering-regulating stations.
• Removing the existing best available monitoring method (BAMM) provisions in 40 CFR 98.234(f) and providing transitional BAMM for the 2015 calendar year. Removing the existing provisions does not add to previous burden estimates for subpart W reporters; these estimates were prepared based on all reporters complying with the monitoring methods in 40 CFR 98.234 without BAMM. The transitional BAMM included in this final rule would allow facilities to obtain the necessary equipment to conduct measurements as required under the revised calculation methods in this final rule, and would not add to the burden estimates included in the proposed rule. (See further discussion in Section II.D of this preamble.)
• Providing for the use of optical gas imaging as a screening tool to detect emissions from reciprocating and centrifugal compressors; measurement to quantify the emissions is required only if the screening detects emissions.
• Providing clarified, specific missing data procedures that provide guidance for reporters when a measurement is inadvertently missed.
Second, the following revisions to the calculation, monitoring, and reporting requirements of subpart W slightly increase the burden relative to the burden to comply with the current rule:
• Revising the calculation and reporting requirements for completions and workovers to differentiate between completions and workovers with different well type combinations in each sub-basin category.
• Revising the calculation and reporting requirements for onshore natural gas transmission compression, underground natural gas storage, LNG storage, and LNG import and export to include emissions from flare stacks.
Finally, the following revisions to the reporting requirements for subpart W do increase the burden of data collection, but not significantly. As further discussed in Section II of this preamble, the EPA is finalizing the addition of 247 new data elements, while substantially revising 13 data elements and deleting 34 data elements that were required to be reported under Part 98. Although not previously required to be reported, many of these data elements are typically already collected by reporters, related to data that are already being reported, or are readily available to reporters. For example, some of the new reporting elements are required for use in subpart W equations used to calculate emissions and others are collected to differentiate between identical equipment types.
These final additions improve the quality of the data reported by removing ambiguity for the reporter and do not increase burden significantly, since the reporting elements are already available.
The EPA received multiple comments regarding the impacts of the proposed amendments. After evaluating these comments and reviewing other changes from proposal, the EPA revised the impacts assessment. The final amendments to subpart W are not expected to significantly increase burden. See the memorandum, “Assessment of Impacts of the 2014 Final Revisions to Subpart W” in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for additional information.
This section summarizes the major comments and responses related to the impacts of the proposed amendments to subpart W of Part 98. See the 2014 response to comment document in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512 for a complete listing of all comments and responses.
The EPA maintains that allowing 3 minutes per data element is accurate. All new reporting elements are related to emission sources for which information is already being gathered and reported under subpart W. The new elements include such information as the name or ID of the emission source, measurement dates, installation dates, maintenance dates, equipment counts, measurement counts, operating hours, etc. Most, if not all, of these elements can be gathered at the same time as required measurements are being taken.
Additionally, in this final rule, we are specifying that “as found” measurements from manifolded compressors be taken one time per year instead of three separate measurements per year as proposed.
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).
In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with the final amendments to subpart W. This analysis is contained in the memorandum “Assessment of Impacts of the 2014 Final Revisions to Subpart W.” A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action (see Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0512) and the analysis is briefly summarized in Section IV of this preamble.
The information collection requirements in this final rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
This action simplifies the existing reporting methods in subpart W, clarifies monitoring methods and data reporting requirements, and finalizes confidentiality determinations for reported data elements. The EPA is restructuring the reporting requirements for clarity and to align them with the calculation requirements by adding 247 new data elements, substantially revising 13 data elements, and deleting 34 data elements.
OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements for 40 CFR part 98 under the provisions of the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
The information collection will result in an overall increase in annual burden of approximately 7,700 hours and $600,000. The estimated total projected cost and hour burden associated with reporting for subpart W are approximately $22,024,000 and 244,000 hours, respectively. For the hour burden, the estimated average burden hours per response is 53.7 hours, the frequency of response is once annually, and the estimated number of likely respondents is 2,885. These amendments to subpart W affect the labor costs, not the capital costs and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Therefore, the estimated total capital and start-up cost of monitoring equipment and related facility/process modifications annualized over the expected useful life of the equipment remains at $796,000 per year, and the total O&M cost remains at $1,690,000 per year. The total labor cost is $19,538,000 per year for all of subpart W.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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 today's final rule 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.
This action (1) amends monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart W; (2) amends reporting requirements; (3) assigns subpart W data reporting elements into CBI data categories; and (4) amends a definition in subpart A. After considering the economic impacts of these final rule amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small entities directly regulated by this final rule include small businesses in the petroleum and gas industry, small governmental jurisdictions and small non-profits. The EPA has determined that some small businesses would be affected because their production processes emit GHGs exceeding the reporting threshold.
This action includes final amendments that do not result in a significant burden increase on subpart W reporters. In some cases, the EPA is increasing flexibility in the selection of methods used for calculating GHGs, and is also revising certain methods that may result in greater conformance to current industry practices. In addition, the EPA is revising specific provisions to provide clarity on what information is being reported. These revisions would not significantly increase the burden on reporters while maintaining the data quality of the information being reported to the EPA.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. As part of the process of finalizing the subpart W 2010 final rule, the EPA took several steps to evaluate the effect of the rule on small entities. For example, the EPA determined appropriate thresholds that reduced the number of small businesses reporting. In addition, the EPA supports a “help desk” for the rule, which is available to answer questions on the provisions in the rule. Finally, the EPA continues to conduct significant outreach on the GHG reporting rule and maintains an “open door” policy for stakeholders to help inform the EPA's understanding of key issues for the industries.
This rule contains no 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. 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 (1) amends monitoring and calculation methodologies in subpart W; (2) amends reporting requirements, (3) assigns subpart W data reporting elements into CBI data categories; and (4) amends a definition in subpart A. The rule applies to few, if any, small governments. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
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. However, for a more detailed discussion about how Part 98 relates to existing state programs, please see Section II of the preamble to the final Part 98 rule (74 FR 56266, October 30, 2009).
Few, if any, state or local government facilities would be affected by the provisions in this rule. This regulation also does not limit the power of States or localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) the EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or the EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
The EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial new direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This regulation would apply directly to petroleum and natural gas facilities that emit GHGs. Although few facilities that would be subject to the rule are likely to be owned by tribal governments, the EPA has sought opportunities to provide information to tribal governments and representatives during the development of the proposed and final subpart W that was promulgated on November 30, 2010 (75 FR 74458). The EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing subpart W to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development.
For additional information about the EPA's interactions with tribal governments, see Section IV.F of the preamble to the re-proposal of subpart W published on April 12, 2010 (75 FR 18608), and Section IV.F of the preamble to the subpart W 2010 final rule published on November 30, 2010 (75 FR 74458).
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 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 does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
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 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
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 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. Instead, this rule addresses information collection and reporting procedures.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Greenhouse gases, 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. 7401–7671q.
(a) * * *
(2)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(11) Reciprocating compressor venting.
(d) * * *
(1) Reciprocating compressor venting.
(e) * * *
(1) Reciprocating compressor venting.
(6) Flare stack emissions.
(f) * * *
(1) Reciprocating compressor venting.
(4) Flare stack emissions.
(g) * * *
(1) Reciprocating compressor venting.
(4) Flare stack emissions.
(h) ** * *
(1) Reciprocating compressor venting.
(5) Flare stack emissions.
(i) * * *
(1) Equipment leaks from connectors, block valves, control valves, pressure relief valves, orifice meters, regulators, and open-ended lines at above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations.
(2) Equipment leaks at below grade transmission-distribution transfer stations.
(3) Equipment leaks at above grade metering-regulating stations that are not above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations.
(4) Equipment leaks at below grade metering-regulating stations.
(5) Distribution main equipment leaks.
(6) Distribution services equipment leaks.
(7) Report under subpart W of this part the emissions of CO
The revisions and additions read as follows:
You must calculate and report the annual GHG emissions as prescribed in this section. For calculations that specify measurements in actual conditions, reporters may use a flow or volume measurement system that corrects to standard conditions and determine the flow or volume at standard conditions; otherwise, reporters must use average atmospheric conditions or typical operating conditions as applicable to the respective monitoring methods in this section.
(a)
(1) For all industry segments, determine “Count
(2) For the onshore petroleum and natural gas production industry segment, you have the option in the first two consecutive calendar years to determine “Count
(4) Calculate both CH
(c)
(2) Calculate both CH
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) Natural gas feed temperature, pressure, and flow rate.
(ii) Acid gas content of feed natural gas.
(iii) Acid gas content of outlet natural gas.
(iv) Unit operating hours, excluding downtime for maintenance or standby.
(v) Exit temperature of natural gas.
(vi) Solvent pressure, temperature, circulation rate, and weight.
(5) For Calculation Method 3, determine the gas flow rate of the inlet when using Equation W–4A of this section or the gas flow rate of the outlet when using Equation W–4B of this section for the natural gas stream of an AGR unit using a meter according to methods set forth in § 98.234(b). If you do not have a continuous flow meter, either install a continuous flow meter or use an engineering calculation to determine the flow rate.
(6) For Calculation Method 2, if a continuous gas analyzer is not available on the vent stack, either install a
(7) For Calculation Method 3, if a continuous gas analyzer is installed on the inlet gas stream, then the continuous gas analyzer results must be used. If a continuous gas analyzer is not available, either install a continuous gas analyzer or take quarterly gas samples from the inlet gas stream for each quarter that the AGR unit is operating to determine Vol
(8) For Calculation Method 3, determine annual average volumetric fraction of CO
(i) If a continuous gas analyzer is installed on the outlet gas stream, then the continuous gas analyzer results must be used. If a continuous gas analyzer is not available, you may install a continuous gas analyzer.
(ii) If a continuous gas analyzer is not available or installed, quarterly gas samples may be taken from the outlet gas stream for each quarter that the AGR unit is operating to determine Vol
(iii) If a continuous gas analyzer is not available or installed, you may use sales line quality specification for CO
(9) Calculate annual volumetric CO
(10) Calculate annual mass CO
(11) Determine if CO
(e)
(1)
(i) Feed natural gas flow rate.
(ii) Feed natural gas water content.
(iii) Outlet natural gas water content.
(iv) Absorbent circulation pump type (
(v) Absorbent circulation rate.
(vi) Absorbent type (
(vii) Use of stripping gas.
(viii) Use of flash tank separator (and disposition of recovered gas).
(ix) Hours operated.
(x) Wet natural gas temperature and pressure.
(xi) Wet natural gas composition. Determine this parameter using one of the methods described in paragraphs (e)(1)(xi)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Use the GHG mole fraction as defined in paragraph (u)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(B) If the GHG mole fraction cannot be determined using paragraph (u)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section, select a representative analysis.
(C) You may use an appropriate standard method published by a consensus-based standards organization if such a method exists or you may use an industry standard practice as specified in § 98.234(b) to sample and analyze wet natural gas composition.
(D) If only composition data for dry natural gas is available, assume the wet natural gas is saturated.
(2)
(3)
(4) For glycol dehydrators that use the calculation method in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, calculate both CH
(5) Determine if the dehydrator unit has vapor recovery. Adjust the emissions estimated in paragraphs (e)(1), (2), and (3) of this section downward by the magnitude of emissions recovered using a vapor recovery system as determined by engineering estimate based on best available data.
(6) Calculate annual emissions from dehydrator vents to flares or regenerator fire-box/fire tubes as follows:
(i) Use the dehydrator vent volume and gas composition as determined in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section, as applicable.
(ii) Use the calculation method of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this section to determine dehydrator vent emissions from the flare or regenerator combustion gas vent.
(f)
(1)
(i) Determine the well vent average flow rate (“FR” in Equation W–7A of this section) as specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section for at least one well in a unique well tubing diameter group and pressure group combination in each sub-basin category. Calculate emissions from wells with plunger lifts and wells without plunger lifts separately.
(A) Calculate the average flow rate per hour of venting for each unique tubing diameter group and pressure group combination in each sub-basin category by dividing the recorded total annual flow by the recorded time (in hours) for all measured liquid unloading events with venting to the atmosphere.
(B) Apply the average hourly flow rate calculated under paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) of this section to all wells in the same pressure group that have the same tubing diameter group, for the number of hours of venting these wells.
(C) Calculate a new average flow rate every other calendar year starting with the first calendar year of data collection. For a new producing sub-basin category, calculate an average flow rate beginning in the first year of production.
(ii) Calculate natural gas volumetric emissions at standard conditions using calculations in paragraph (t) of this section.
(2)
(3)
(4) Calculate CH
(g)
(1) If you elect to use Equation W–10A of this section, you must use Calculation Method 1 as specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section, or Calculation Method 2 as specified in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, to determine the value of FRM
(i)
(ii)
(iii) For Equation W–10A of this section, calculate FRM
(iv) For Equation W–10A of this section, calculate FRM
(v) For Equation W–10A of this section, the ratio of flowback rate during well completions and workovers from hydraulic fracturing to 30-day production rate for horizontal and vertical wells are applied to all horizontal and vertical well completions in the gas producing sub-basin and well type combination and to all horizontal and vertical well workovers, respectively, in the gas producing sub-basin and well type combination for the total number of hours of flowback and for the first 30 day average production rate for each of these wells.
(vi) For Equation W–12A and W–12B of this section, calculate new flowback rates for horizontal and vertical gas well completions and horizontal and vertical gas well workovers in each sub-basin category once every two years starting in the first calendar year of data collection.
(2) For paragraphs (g) introductory text and (g)(1) of this section, measurements and calculations are completed separately for workovers and completions per sub-basin and well type combination. A well type combination is a unique combination of the parameters listed in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Vertical or horizontal (directional drilling).
(ii) With flaring or without flaring.
(iii) Reduced emission completion/workover or not reduced emission completion/workover.
(3) Calculate both CH
(4) Calculate annual emissions from gas well venting during well completions and workovers from hydraulic fracturing where all or a portion of the gas is flared as specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Use the volumetric total natural gas emissions vented to the atmosphere during well completions and workovers as determined in paragraph (g) of this section to calculate volumetric and mass emissions using paragraphs (u) and (v) of this section.
(ii) Use the calculation method of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this section to adjust emissions for the portion of gas flared during well completions and workovers using hydraulic fracturing. This adjustment to emissions from completions using flaring, versus completions without flaring, accounts for the conversion of CH
(h)
(1) Calculate both CH
(2) Calculate annual emissions of CH
(i) Use the gas well venting volume and gas composition during well completions and workovers that are flared as determined using the methods specified in paragraphs (h) and (h)(1) of this section.
(ii) Use the calculation method of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this section to determine emissions from the flare for gas well venting to a flare during completions and workovers without hydraulic fracturing.
(i)
(1)
(2)
(i) Calculate the total annual natural gas emissions from each unique physical volume that is blown down using either Equation W–14A or W–14B of this section.
(ii) Except as allowed in paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this section, calculate annual CH
(iii) For onshore natural gas transmission compression facilities and LNG import and export equipment, as an alternative to using the procedures in paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section, you may elect to sum the annual natural gas emissions as calculated using either Equation W–14A or Equation W–14B of paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section for all unique physical volumes associated with the equipment type or event type. Calculate the total annual CH
(3)
(4)
(j)
(1)
(vii) Separator oil composition and Reid vapor pressure. If this data is not available, determine these parameters by using one of the methods described
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A) If well production oil and gas compositions are available through your previous analysis, select the latest available analysis that is representative of produced oil and gas from the sub-basin category and assume all of the CH
(B) If well production oil and gas compositions are not available, use default oil and gas compositions in software programs, such as API 4697 E&P Tank, that most closely match your well production gas/oil ratio and API gravity and assume all of the CH
(3)
(4) Determine if the storage tank receiving your separator oil has a vapor recovery system.
(i) Adjust the emissions estimated in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this section downward by the magnitude of emissions recovered using a vapor recovery system as determined by engineering estimate based on best available data.
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) Determine if the storage tank receiving your separator oil is sent to flare(s).
(i) Use your separator flash gas volume and gas composition as determined in this section.
(ii) Use the calculation method of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this section to determine storage tank emissions from the flare.
(6) If you use Calculation Method 1 or Calculation Method 2 in paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this section, calculate emissions from occurrences of well pad gas-liquid separator liquid dump valves not closing during the calendar year by using Equation W–16 of this section.
(7) Calculate both CH
(k)
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (k)(1)(iv) of this section, you must monitor the tank vapor vent stack annually for emissions using one of the methods specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Use an optical gas imaging instrument according to methods set forth in § 98.234(a)(1).
(ii) Measure the tank vent directly using a flow meter or high volume sampler according to methods in § 98.234(b) or (d) for a duration of 5 minutes.
(iii) Measure the tank vent using a calibrated bag according to methods in § 98.234(c) for a duration of 5 minutes or until the bag is full, whichever is shorter.
(iv) You may annually monitor leakage through compressor scrubber dump valve(s) into the tank using an acoustic leak detection device according to methods set forth in § 98.234(a)(5).
(2) If the tank vapors from the vent stack are continuous for 5 minutes, or
(i) Use a flow meter, such as a turbine meter, calibrated bag, or high volume sampler to estimate tank vapor volumes from the vent stack according to methods set forth in § 98.234(b) through (d). If you do not have a continuous flow measurement device, you may install a flow measuring device on the tank vapor vent stack. If the vent is directly measured for five minutes under paragraph (k)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section to detect continuous leakage, this serves as the measurement.
(ii) Use an acoustic leak detection device on each scrubber dump valve connected to the tank according to the method set forth in § 98.234(a)(5).
(3) If a leaking dump valve is identified, the leak must be counted as having occurred since the beginning of the calendar year, or from the previous test that did not detect leaking in the same calendar year. If the leaking dump valve is fixed following leak detection, the leak duration will end upon being repaired. If a leaking dump valve is identified and not repaired, the leak must be counted as having occurred through the rest of the calendar year.
(4) Use the requirements specified in paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section to quantify annual emissions.
(i) Use the appropriate gas composition in paragraph (u)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) Calculate CH
(5) Calculate annual emissions from storage tanks to flares as specified in paragraphs (k)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Use the storage tank emissions volume and gas composition as determined in paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of this section.
(ii) Use the calculation method of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this section to determine storage tank emissions sent to a flare.
(l)
(1) Determine the gas to oil ratio (GOR) of the hydrocarbon production from oil well(s) tested. Determine the production rate from gas well(s) tested.
(2) If GOR cannot be determined from your available data, then you must measure quantities reported in this section according to one of the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section to determine GOR.
(i) You may use an appropriate standard method published by a consensus-based standards organization if such a method exists.
(ii) You may use an industry standard practice as described in § 98.234(b).
(3) Estimate venting emissions using Equation W–17A (for oil wells) or Equation W–17B (for gas wells) of this section.
(4) Calculate natural gas volumetric emissions at standard conditions using calculations in paragraph (t) of this section.
(5) Calculate both CH
(6) Calculate emissions from well testing if emissions are routed to a flare as specified in paragraphs (l)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Use the well testing emissions volume and gas composition as determined in paragraphs (l)(1) through (4) of this section.
(ii) Use the calculation method of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this section to determine well testing emissions from the flare.
(m)
(1) Determine the GOR of the hydrocarbon production from each well whose associated natural gas is vented or flared. If GOR from each well is not available, use the GOR from a cluster of wells in the same sub-basin category.
(2) If GOR cannot be determined from your available data, then you must use one of the procedures specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section to determine GOR.
(i) You may use an appropriate standard method published by a consensus-based standards organization if such a method exists.
(ii) You may use an industry standard practice as described in § 98.234(b).
(3) Estimate venting emissions using Equation W–18 of this section.
(4) Calculate both CH
(5) Calculate emissions from associated natural gas if emissions are routed to a flare as specified in paragraphs (m)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Use the associated natural gas volume and gas composition as determined in paragraph (m)(1) through (4) of this section.
(ii) Use the calculation method of flare stacks in paragraph (n) of this section to determine associated gas emissions from the flare.
(n)
(1) If you have a continuous flow measurement device on the flare, you must use the measured flow volumes to calculate the flare gas emissions. If all of the flare gas is not measured by the existing flow measurement device, then the flow not measured can be estimated using engineering calculations based on best available data or company records. If you do not have a continuous flow measurement device on the flare, you can use engineering calculations based on process knowledge, company records, and best available data.
(2) If you have a continuous gas composition analyzer on gas to the flare, you must use these compositions in calculating emissions. If you do not have a continuous gas composition analyzer on gas to the flare, you must use the appropriate gas compositions for each stream of hydrocarbons going to the flare as specified in paragraphs (n)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) For onshore natural gas production, determine the GHG mole fraction using paragraph (u)(2)(i) of this section.
(ii) For onshore natural gas processing, when the stream going to flare is natural gas, use the GHG mole fraction in feed natural gas for all streams upstream of the de-methanizer or dew point control, and GHG mole fraction in facility specific residue gas to transmission pipeline systems for all emissions sources downstream of the de-methanizer overhead or dew point control for onshore natural gas processing facilities. For onshore natural gas processing plants that solely fractionate a liquid stream, use the GHG mole fraction in feed natural gas liquid for all streams.
(iii) For any industry segment required to report to flare stack emissions under § 98.232, when the stream going to the flare is a hydrocarbon product stream, such as methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane-plus and mixed light hydrocarbons, then you may use a representative composition from the source for the stream determined by engineering calculation based on process knowledge and best available data.
(3) Determine flare combustion efficiency from manufacturer. If not available, assume that flare combustion efficiency is 98 percent.
(4) Convert GHG volumetric emissions to standard conditions using calculations in paragraph (t) of this section.
(5) Calculate GHG volumetric emissions from flaring at standard conditions using Equations W–19 and W–20 of this section.
(6) Calculate both CH
(7) Calculate N
(8) If you operate and maintain a CEMS that has both a CO
(9) The flare emissions determined under this paragraph (n) must be corrected for flare emissions calculated and reported under other paragraphs of
(o)
(1)
(i) Centrifugal compressor source as found measurements. Measure venting from each compressor according to either paragraph (o)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section at least once annually, based on the compressor mode (as defined in § 98.238) in which the compressor was found at the time of measurement, except as specified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i)(C) and (D) of this section. If additional measurements beyond the required annual testing are performed (including duplicate measurements or measurement of additional operating modes), then all measurements satisfying the applicable monitoring and QA/QC that is required by this paragraph (o) must be used in the calculations specified in this section.
(A) For a compressor measured in operating-mode, you must measure volumetric emissions from blowdown valve leakage through the blowdown vent as specified in either paragraph (o)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section and, if the compressor has wet seal oil degassing vents, measure volumetric emissions from wet seal oil degassing vents as specified in paragraph (o)(2)(ii) of this section.
(B) For a compressor measured in not-operating-depressurized-mode, you must measure volumetric emissions from isolation valve leakage as specified in either paragraph (o)(2)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this section. If a compressor is not operated and has blind flanges in place throughout the reporting period, measurement is not required in this compressor mode.
(C) You must measure the compressor as specified in paragraph (o)(1)(i)(B) of this section at least once in any three consecutive calendar years, provided the measurement can be taken during a scheduled shutdown. If three consecutive calendar years occur without measuring the compressor in not-operating-depressurized-mode, you must measure the compressor as specified in paragraph (o)(1)(i)(B) of this section at the next scheduled depressurized shutdown. The requirement specified in this paragraph does not apply if the compressor has blind flanges in place throughout the reporting year. For purposes of this paragraph, a scheduled shutdown means a shutdown that requires a compressor to be taken off-line for planned or scheduled maintenance. A scheduled shutdown does not include instances when a compressor is taken offline due to a decrease in demand but must remain available.
(D) An annual as found measurement is not required in the first year of operation for any new compressor that begins operation after as found measurements have been conducted for all existing compressors. For only the first year of operation of new compressors, calculate emissions according to paragraph (o)(6)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Centrifugal compressor source continuous monitoring. Instead of measuring the compressor source according to paragraph (o)(1)(i) of this section for a given compressor, you may elect to continuously measure volumetric emissions from a compressor source as specified in paragraph (o)(3) of this section.
(iii) Manifolded centrifugal compressor source as found measurements. For a compressor source that is part of a manifolded group of compressor sources (as defined in § 98.238), instead of measuring the compressor source according to paragraph (o)(1)(i), (ii), or (iv) of this section, you may elect to measure combined volumetric emissions from the manifolded group of compressor sources by conducting measurements at the common vent stack as specified in paragraph (o)(4) of this section. The measurements must be conducted at the frequency specified in paragraphs (o)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) A minimum of one measurement must be taken for each manifolded group of compressor sources in a calendar year.
(B) The measurement may be performed while the compressors are in any compressor mode.
(iv) Manifolded centrifugal compressor source continuous monitoring. For a compressor source that is part of a manifolded group of compressor sources, instead of measuring the compressor source according to paragraph (o)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, you may elect to continuously measure combined volumetric emissions from the manifolded group of compressor sources as specified in paragraph (o)(5) of this section.
(2)
(i) For blowdown valves on compressors in operating-mode and for isolation valves on compressors in not-operating-depressurized-mode, determine the volumetric emissions using one of the methods specified in paragraphs (o)(2)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Determine the volumetric flow at standard conditions from the blowdown vent using calibrated bagging or high volume sampler according to methods set forth in § 98.234(c) and § 98.234(d), respectively.
(B) Determine the volumetric flow at standard conditions from the blowdown
(C) Use an acoustic leak detection device according to methods set forth in § 98.234(a)(5).
(D) You may choose to use any of the methods set forth in § 98.234(a) to screen for emissions. If emissions are detected using the methods set forth in § 98.234(a), then you must use one of the methods specified in paragraph (o)(2)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. If emissions are not detected using the methods in § 98.234(a), then you may assume that the volumetric emissions are zero. For the purposes of this paragraph, when using any of the methods in § 98.234(a), emissions are detected whenever a leak is detected according to the methods.
(ii) For wet seal oil degassing vents in operating-mode, determine vapor volumes at standard conditions, using a temporary meter such as a vane anemometer or permanent flow meter according to methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
(3)
(i) Continuously measure the volumetric flow for the individual compressor source at standard conditions using a permanent meter according to methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
(ii) If compressor blowdown emissions are included in the metered emissions specified in paragraph (o)(3)(i) of this section, the compressor blowdown emissions may be included with the reported emissions for the compressor source and do not need to be calculated separately using the method specified in paragraph (i) of this section for blowdown vent stacks.
(4)
(i) Measure at a single point in the manifold downstream of all compressor inputs and, if practical, prior to comingling with other non-compressor emission sources.
(ii) Determine the volumetric flow at standard conditions from the common stack using one of the methods specified in paragraphs (o)(4)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) A temporary meter such as a vane anemometer according the methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
(B) Calibrated bagging according to methods set forth in § 98.234(c).
(C) A high volume sampler according to methods set forth § 98.234(d).
(D) An acoustic leak detection device according to methods set forth in § 98.234(a)(5).
(E) You may choose to use any of the methods set forth in § 98.234(a) to screen for emissions. If emissions are detected using the methods set forth in § 98.234(a), then you must use one of the methods specified in paragraph (o)(4)(ii)(A) through (o)(4)(ii)(D) of this section. If emissions are not detected using the methods in § 98.234(a), then you may assume that the volumetric emissions are zero. For the purposes of this paragraph, when using any of the methods in § 98.234(a), emissions are detected whenever a leak is detected according to the method.
(5)
(i) Measure at a single point in the manifold downstream of all compressor inputs and, if practical, prior to comingling with other non-compressor emission sources.
(ii) Continuously measure the volumetric flow for the manifolded group of compressor sources at standard conditions using a permanent meter according to methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
(iii) If compressor blowdown emissions are included in the metered emissions specified in paragraph (o)(5)(ii) of this section, the compressor blowdown emissions may be included with the reported emissions for the manifolded group of compressor sources and do not need to be calculated separately using the method specified in paragraph (i) of this section for blowdown vent stacks.
(6)
(i) Using Equation W–21 of this section, calculate the annual volumetric GHG emissions for each centrifugal compressor mode-source combination specified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section that was measured during the reporting year.
(ii) Using Equation W–22 of this section, calculate the annual volumetric GHG emissions from each centrifugal compressor mode-source combination specified in paragraph (o)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section that was not measured during the reporting year.
(iii) Using Equation W–23 of this section, develop an emission factor for each compressor mode-source combination specified in paragraph (o)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. These emission factors must be calculated annually and used in Equation W–22 of this section to determine volumetric emissions from a centrifugal compressor in the mode-source combinations that were not measured in the reporting year.
(iv) The reporter emission factor in Equation W–23 of this section may be calculated by using all measurements from a single owner or operator instead of only using measurements from a single facility. If you elect to use this option, the reporter emission factor must be applied to all reporting facilities for the owner or operator.
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(i) Paragraphs (o)(1) through (11) of this section are not required for compressor sources that are routed to a flare.
(ii) If any compressor sources are routed to a flare, calculate the emissions for the flare stack as specified in paragraph (n) of this section and report emissions from the flare as specified in § 98.236(n), without subtracting emissions attributable to compressor sources from the flare.
(iii) Report all applicable activity data for compressors with compressor sources routed to flares as specified in § 98.236(o).
(p)
(1)
(i) Reciprocating compressor source as found measurements. Measure venting from each compressor according to either paragraph (p)(1)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this section at least once annually, based on the compressor mode (as defined in § 98.238) in which the compressor was found at the time of measurement, except as specified in paragraphs (p)(1)(i)(D) and (E) of this section. If additional measurements beyond the required annual testing are performed (including duplicate measurements or measurement of additional operating modes), then all measurements satisfying the applicable monitoring and QA/QC that is required by this paragraph (o) must be used in the calculations specified in this section.
(A) For a compressor measured in operating-mode, you must measure volumetric emissions from blowdown valve leakage through the blowdown vent as specified in either paragraph (p)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section, and measure volumetric emissions from
(B) For a compressor measured in standby-pressurized-mode, you must measure volumetric emissions from blowdown valve leakage through the blowdown vent as specified in either paragraph (p)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
(C) For a compressor measured in not-operating-depressurized-mode, you must measure volumetric emissions from isolation valve leakage as specified in either paragraph (p)(2)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this section. If a compressor is not operated and has blind flanges in place throughout the reporting period, measurement is not required in this compressor mode.
(D) You must measure the compressor as specified in paragraph (p)(1)(i)(C) of this section at least once in any three consecutive calendar years, provided the measurement can be taken during a scheduled shutdown. If there is no scheduled shutdown within three consecutive calendar years, you must measure the compressor as specified in paragraph (p)(1)(i)(C) of this section at the next scheduled depressurized shutdown. For purposes of this paragraph, a scheduled shutdown means a shutdown that requires a compressor to be taken off-line for planned or scheduled maintenance. A scheduled shutdown does not include instances when a compressor is taken offline due to a decrease in demand but must remain available.
(E) An annual as found measurement is not required in the first year of operation for any new compressor that begins operation after as found measurements have been conducted for all existing compressors. For only the first year of operation of new compressors, calculate emissions according to paragraph (p)(6)(ii) of this section.
(ii) Reciprocating compressor source continuous monitoring. Instead of measuring the compressor source according to paragraph (p)(1)(i) of this section for a given compressor, you may elect to continuously measure volumetric emissions from a compressor source as specified in paragraph (p)(3) of this section.
(iii) Manifolded reciprocating compressor source as found measurements. For a compressor source that is part of a manifolded group of compressor sources (as defined in § 98.238), instead of measuring the compressor source according to paragraph (p)(1)(i), (ii), or (iv) of this section, you may elect to measure combined volumetric emissions from the manifolded group of compressor sources by conducting measurements at the common vent stack as specified in paragraph (p)(4) of this section. The measurements must be conducted at the frequency specified in paragraphs (p)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) A minimum of one measurement must be taken for each manifolded group of compressor sources in a calendar year.
(B) The measurement may be performed while the compressors are in any compressor mode.
(iv) Manifolded reciprocating compressor source continuous monitoring. For a compressor source that is part of a manifolded group of compressor sources, instead of measuring the compressor source according to paragraph (p)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, you may elect to continuously measure combined volumetric emissions from the manifolded group of compressors sources as specified in paragraph (p)(5) of this section.
(2)
(i) For blowdown valves on compressors in operating-mode or standby-pressurized-mode, and for isolation valves on compressors in not-operating-depressurized-mode, determine the volumetric emissions using one of the methods specified in paragraphs (p)(2)(i)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) Determine the volumetric flow at standard conditions from the blowdown vent using calibrated bagging or high volume sampler according to methods set forth in § 98.234(c) and (d), respectively.
(B) Determine the volumetric flow at standard conditions from the blowdown vent using a temporary meter such as a vane anemometer, according to methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
(C) Use an acoustic leak detection device according to methods set forth in § 98.234(a)(5).
(D) You may choose to use any of the methods set forth in § 98.234(a) to screen for emissions. If emissions are detected using the methods set forth in § 98.234(a), then you must use one of the methods specified in paragraphs (p)(2)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. If emissions are not detected using the methods in § 98.234(a), then you may assume that the volumetric emissions are zero. For the purposes of this paragraph, when using any of the methods in § 98.234(a), emissions are detected whenever a leak is detected according to the method.
(ii) For reciprocating rod packing equipped with an open-ended vent line on compressors in operating-mode, determine the volumetric emissions using one of the methods specified in paragraphs (p)(2)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) Determine the volumetric flow at standard conditions from the open-ended vent line using calibrated bagging or high volume sampler according to methods set forth in § 98.234(c) and (d), respectively.
(B) Determine the volumetric flow at standard conditions from the open-ended vent line using a temporary meter such as a vane anemometer, according to methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
(C) You may choose to use any of the methods set forth in § 98.234(a) to screen for emissions. If emissions are detected using the methods set forth in § 98.234(a), then you must use one of the methods specified in paragraph (p)(2)(ii)(A) and (p)(4)(ii)(B) of this section. If emissions are not detected using the methods in § 98.234(a), then you may assume that the volumetric emissions are zero. For the purposes of this paragraph, when using any of the methods in § 98.234(a), emissions are detected whenever a leak is detected according to the method.
(iii) For reciprocating rod packing not equipped with an open-ended vent line on compressors in operating-mode, you must determine the volumetric emissions using the method specified in paragraphs (p)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) You must use the methods described in § 98.234(a) to conduct annual leak detection of equipment leaks from the packing case into an open distance piece, or for compressors with a closed distance piece, conduct annual detection of gas emissions from the rod packing vent, distance piece vent, compressor crank case breather cap, or other vent emitting gas from the rod packing.
(B) You must measure emissions found in paragraph (p)(2)(iii)(A) of this section using an appropriate meter, calibrated bag, or high volume sampler according to methods set forth in § 98.234(b), (c), and (d), respectively.
(3)
(i) Continuously measure the volumetric flow for the individual compressor sources at standard conditions using a permanent meter according to methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
(ii) If compressor blowdown emissions are included in the metered emissions specified in paragraph (p)(3)(i) of this section, the compressor blowdown emissions may be included with the reported emissions for the compressor source and do not need to be calculated separately using the method specified in paragraph (i) of this section for blowdown vent stacks.
(4)
(i) Measure at a single point in the manifold downstream of all compressor inputs and, if practical, prior to comingling with other non-compressor emission sources.
(ii) Determine the volumetric flow at standard conditions from the common stack using one of the methods specified in paragraph (p)(4)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) A temporary meter such as a vane anemometer according the methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
(B) Calibrated bagging according to methods set forth in § 98.234(c).
(C) A high volume sampler according to methods set forth § 98.234(d).
(D) An acoustic leak detection device according to methods set forth in § 98.234(a)(5).
(E) You may choose to use any of the methods set forth in § 98.234(a) to screen for emissions. If emissions are detected using the methods set forth in § 98.234(a), then you must use one of the methods specified in paragraph (p)(4)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section. If emissions are not detected using the methods in § 98.234(a), then you may assume that the volumetric emissions are zero. For the purposes of this paragraph, when using any of the methods in § 98.234(a), emissions are detected whenever a leak is detected according to the method.
(5)
(i) Measure at a single point in the manifold downstream of all compressor inputs and, if practical, prior to comingling with other non-compressor emission sources.
(ii) Continuously measure the volumetric flow for the manifolded group of compressor sources at standard conditions using a permanent meter according to methods set forth in § 98.234(b).
(iii) If compressor blowdown emissions are included in the metered emissions specified in paragraph (p)(5)(ii) of this section, the compressor blowdown emissions may be included with the reported emissions for the manifolded group of compressor sources and do not need to be calculated separately using the method specified in paragraph (i) of this section for blowdown vent stacks.
(6)
(i) Using Equation W–26 of this section, calculate the annual volumetric GHG emissions for each reciprocating compressor mode-source combination specified in paragraphs (p)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section that was measured during the reporting year.
(ii) Using Equation W–27 of this section, calculate the annual volumetric GHG emissions from each reciprocating compressor mode-source combination specified in paragraph (p)(1)(i)(A), (B), and (C) of this section that was not measured during the reporting year.
(iii) Using Equation W–28 of this section, develop an emission factor for
(iv) The reporter emission factor in Equation W–28 of this section may be calculated by using all measurements from a single owner or operator instead of only using measurements from a single facility. If you elect to use this option, the reporter emission factor must be applied to all reporting facilities for the owner or operator.
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(i) Paragraphs (p)(1) through (11) of this section are not required for compressor sources that are routed to a flare.
(ii) If any compressor sources are routed to a flare, calculate the emissions for the flare stack as specified in paragraph (n) of this section and report emissions from the flare as specified in § 98.236(n), without subtracting emissions attributable to compressor sources from the flare.
(iii) Report all applicable activity data for compressors with compressor sources routed to flares as specified in § 98.236(p).
(q)
(1) You must conduct either one leak detection survey in a calendar year or multiple complete leak detection
(2) Calculate both CO
(3) Onshore natural gas processing facilities must use the appropriate default total hydrocarbon leaker emission factors for compressor components in gas service and non-compressor components in gas service listed in Table W–2 of this subpart.
(4) Onshore natural gas transmission compression facilities must use the appropriate default total hydrocarbon leaker emission factors for compressor components in gas service and non-compressor components in gas service listed in Table W–3 of this subpart.
(5) Underground natural gas storage facilities must use the appropriate default total hydrocarbon leaker emission factors for storage stations in gas service listed in Table W–4 of this subpart.
(6) LNG storage facilities must use the appropriate default methane leaker emission factors for LNG storage components in gas service listed in Table W–5 of this subpart.
(7) LNG import and export facilities must use the appropriate default methane leaker emission factors for LNG terminals components in LNG service listed in Table W–6 of this subpart.
(8) Natural gas distribution facilities must use Equation W–30 of this section and the default methane leaker emission factors for transmission-distribution transfer station components in gas service listed in Table W–7 of this subpart to calculate component emissions from annual equipment leak surveys conducted at above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations. Natural gas distribution facilities are required to perform equipment leak surveys only at above grade stations that qualify as transmission-distribution transfer stations. Below grade transmission-distribution transfer stations and all metering-regulating stations that do not meet the definition of transmission-distribution transfer stations are not required to perform equipment leak surveys under this section.
(i) Natural gas distribution facilities may choose to conduct equipment leak surveys at all above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations over multiple years “n”, not exceeding a five year period to cover all above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations. If the facility chooses to use the multiple year option, then the number of transmission-distribution transfer stations that are monitored in each year should be approximately equal across all years in the cycle.
(ii) Use Equation W–31 of this section to determine the meter/regulator run population emission factors for each GHG
(iii) The emission factor “EF
(9) If you chose to conduct equipment leak surveys at all above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations over multiple years, “n,” according to paragraph (q)(8)(i) of this section, you must use the meter/regulator run population emission factors calculated using Equation W–31 of this section and the total count of all meter/regulator runs at above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations to calculate emissions from all above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations using Equation W–32B in paragraph (r) of this section.
(r)
(1) Calculate both CH
(2) Onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities must use the appropriate default whole gas population emission factors listed in Table W–1A of this subpart. Major equipment and components associated with gas wells are considered gas service components in reference to Table W–1A of this subpart and major natural gas equipment in reference to Table W–1B of this subpart. Major equipment and components associated with crude oil wells are considered crude service components in reference to Table W–1A of this subpart and major crude oil equipment in reference to Table W–1C of this subpart. Where facilities conduct EOR operations the emissions factor listed in Table W–1A of this subpart shall be used to estimate all streams of gases, including recycle CO
(i)
(A) Count all major equipment listed in Table W–1B and Table W–1C of this subpart. For meters/piping, use one meters/piping per well-pad.
(B) Multiply major equipment counts by the average component counts listed in Table W–1B and W–1C of this subpart for onshore natural gas production and onshore oil production, respectively. Use the appropriate factor in Table W–1A of this subpart for operations in Eastern and Western U.S. according to the mapping in Table W–1D of this subpart.
(ii)
(3) Underground natural gas storage facilities must use the appropriate default total hydrocarbon population emission factors for storage wellheads in gas service listed in Table W–4 of this subpart.
(4) LNG storage facilities must use the appropriate default methane population emission factor for LNG storage compressors in gas service listed in Table W–5 of this subpart.
(5) LNG import and export facilities must use the appropriate default methane population emission factor for LNG terminal compressors in gas
(6) Natural gas distribution facilities must use the appropriate methane emission factors as described in paragraphs (r)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Below grade metering-regulating stations, distribution mains, and distribution services must use the appropriate default methane population emission factors listed in Table W–7 of this subpart. Below grade transmission-distribution transfer stations must use the emission factor for below grade metering-regulating stations.
(ii) Above grade metering-regulating stations that are not above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations must use the meter/regulator run population emission factor calculated in Equation W–31. Natural gas distribution facilities that do not have above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations are not required to calculate emissions for above grade metering-regulating stations and are not required to report GHG emissions in § 98.236(r)(2)(v).
(s) * * *
(2) Offshore production facilities that are not under BOEMRE jurisdiction must use the most recent monitoring methods and calculation methods published by BOEMRE referenced in 30 CFR 250.302 through 250.304 to calculate and report annual emissions (GOADS).
(i) For any calendar year that does not overlap with the most recent BOEMRE emissions study publication, you may report the most recently reported emissions data submitted to demonstrate compliance with this subpart of part 98, with emissions adjusted based on the operating time for the facility relative to operating time in the previous reporting period.
(3) If BOEMRE discontinues or delays their data collection effort by more than 4 years, then offshore reporters shall once in every 4 years use the most recent BOEMRE data collection and emissions estimation methods to estimate emissions. These emission estimates would be used to report emissions from the facility sources as required in paragraph (s)(1)(i) of this section.
(4) For either first or subsequent year reporting, offshore facilities either within or outside of BOEMRE jurisdiction that were not covered in the previous BOEMRE data collection cycle must use the most recent BOEMRE data collection and emissions estimation methods published by BOEMRE referenced in 30 CFR 250.302 through 250.304 to calculate and report emissions.
(t)
(1) Calculate natural gas volumetric emissions at standard conditions using actual natural gas emission temperature and pressure, and Equation W–33 of this section for conversions of E
(2) Calculate GHG volumetric emissions at standard conditions using actual GHG emissions temperature and pressure, and Equation W–34 of this section.
You may use either a default compressibility factor of 1, or a site-specific compressibility factor based on actual temperature and pressure conditions.
(u)
(2) * * *
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(v)
ρ
(w)
(1) Calculate the total injection pump system volume in cubic feet (including pipelines, manifolds and vessels) between isolation valves.
(3) Calculate the total annual CO
(x)
(1) Determine the amount of CO
(2) * * *
S
(z) * * *
(1) If a fuel combusted in the stationary or portable equipment is listed in Table C–1 of subpart C of this part, or is a blend containing one or more fuels listed in Table C–1, calculate emissions according to paragraph (z)(1)(i) of this section. If the fuel combusted is natural gas and is of pipeline quality specification and has a minimum high heat value of 950 Btu per standard cubic foot, use the calculation method described in paragraph (z)(1)(i) of this section and you may use the emission factor provided for natural gas as listed in Table C–1. If the fuel is natural gas, and is not pipeline quality or has a high heat value of less than 950 Btu per standard cubic feet, calculate emissions according to paragraph (z)(2) of this section. If the fuel is field gas, process vent gas, or a blend containing field gas or process vent gas, calculate emissions according to paragraph (z)(2) of this section.
(i) For fuels listed in Table C–1 or a blend containing one or more fuels listed in Table C–1, calculate CO
(ii) Emissions from fuel combusted in stationary or portable equipment at onshore natural gas and petroleum production facilities and at natural gas distribution facilities will be reported according to the requirements specified in § 98.236(z) and not according to the reporting requirements specified in subpart C of this part.
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(vi) * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) You must use any of the methods described as follows in this paragraph to conduct leak detection(s) of equipment leaks and through-valve leakage from all source types listed in § 98.233(k), (o), (p) and (q) that occur during a calendar year.
(d) * * *
(1) A technician following manufacturer instructions shall conduct measurements, including equipment manufacturer operating procedures and measurement methods relevant to using a high volume sampler, including positioning the instrument for complete capture of the equipment leak without creating backpressure on the source.
(f)
(i) Monitoring methods currently used by the facility that do not meet the specifications of this subpart.
(ii) Supplier data.
(iii) Engineering calculations.
(iv) Other company records.
(2)
(i) If Calculation Method 1 for liquids unloading in § 98.233(f)(1) was used in calendar year 2014 and will be used again in calendar year 2015, the vented natural gas flow rate for any well in a unique tubing diameter group and pressure group combination that has not been previously measured.
(ii) If using Equation W–10A of this subpart to determine natural gas emissions from completions and workovers for representative wells, the initial and average flowback rates (when using Calculation Method 1 in § 98.233(g)(1)(i)) or pressures upstream and downstream of the choke (when using Calculation Method 2 in § 98.233(g)(1)(ii)) for any well in a well type combination that has not been previously measured.
(3)
(i) Centrifugal compressor as found measurements of manifolded emissions from groups of centrifugal compressor sources according to § 98.233(o)(4) and (5), in onshore natural gas processing, onshore natural gas transmission compression, underground natural gas storage, LNG storage, and LNG import and export equipment as specified in § 98.232(d)(2), (e)(2), (f)(2), (g)(2), and (h)(2).
(ii) Reciprocating compressor as found measurements of manifolded emissions from groups of reciprocating compressor sources according to § 98.233(p)(4) and (5), in onshore natural gas processing, onshore natural gas transmission compression, underground natural gas storage, LNG storage, and LNG import and export equipment as specified in § 98.232(d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1), and (h)(1).
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(A) A list of specific source types and parameters for which you are seeking use of best available monitoring methods.
(B) For each specific source type for which you are requesting use of best available monitoring methods, a description of the reasons that the needed equipment could not be obtained and installed before April 1, 2015.
(C) A description of the specific actions you will take to obtain and install the equipment as soon as reasonably feasible and the expected date by which the equipment will be installed and operating.
(iii)
(h) For well venting for liquids unloading, if a monitoring period other than the full calendar year is used to determine the cumulative amount of time in hours of venting for each well (the term “T
Except as specified in § 98.233, whenever a value of a parameter is unavailable for a GHG emission calculation required by this subpart (including, but not limited to, if a measuring device malfunctions during unit operation or activity data are not collected), you must follow the procedures specified in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section, as applicable.
(a) For stationary and portable combustion sources that use the calculation methods of subpart C of this part, you must use the missing data procedures in subpart C of this part.
(b) For each missing value of a parameter that should have been measured quarterly or more frequently using equipment including, but not limited to, a continuous flow meter, composition analyzer, thermocouple, or pressure gauge, you must substitute the arithmetic average of the quality-assured values of that parameter immediately preceding and immediately following the missing data incident. If the “after” value is not obtained by the end of the reporting year, you may use the “before” value for the missing data substitution. If, for a particular parameter, no quality-assured data are available prior to the missing data incident, you must use the first quality-assured value obtained after the missing data period as the substitute data value. A value is quality-assured according to the procedures specified in § 98.234.
(c) For each missing value of a parameter that should have been measured annually, you must repeat the estimation or measurement activity for those sources as soon as possible, including in the subsequent calendar year if missing data are not discovered until after December 31 of the year in which data are collected, until valid data for reporting are obtained. Data developed and/or collected in a subsequent calendar year to substitute for missing data cannot be used for that subsequent year's emissions estimation. Where missing data procedures are used for the previous year, at least 30 days must separate emissions estimation or measurements for the previous year and emissions estimation or measurements for the current year of data collection.
(d) For each missing value of a parameter that should have been measured biannually (every two years), you must conduct the estimation or measurement activity for those sources as soon as possible in the subsequent calendar year if the estimation or measurement was not made in the appropriate year (first year of data collection and every two years thereafter), until valid data for reporting are obtained. Data developed and/or collected in a subsequent calendar year to substitute for missing data cannot be used to alternate or postpone subsequent biannual emissions estimations or measurements.
(e) For the first 6 months of required data collection, facilities that become newly subject to this subpart W may use best engineering estimates for any data that cannot reasonably be measured or obtained according to the requirements of this subpart.
(f) For the first 6 months of required data collection, facilities that are currently subject to this subpart W and that acquire new sources from another facility that were not previously subject to this subpart W may use best engineering estimates for any data related to those newly acquired sources that cannot reasonably be measured or obtained according to the requirements of this subpart.
(g) Unless addressed in another paragraph of this section, for each missing value of any activity data, you must substitute data value(s) using the best available estimate(s) of the parameter(s), based on all applicable and available process or other data (including, but not limited to, processing rates, operating hours).
(h) You must report information for all measured and substitute values of a parameter, and the procedures used to substitute an unavailable value of a parameter per the requirements in § 98.236(bb).
(i) You must follow recordkeeping requirements listed in § 98.237(f).
In addition to the information required by § 98.3(c), each annual report must contain reported emissions and related information as specified in this section. Reporters that use a flow or volume measurement system that corrects to standard conditions as provided in the introductory text in § 98.233 for data elements that are otherwise required to be determined at actual conditions, report gas volumes at standard conditions rather the gas volumes at actual conditions and report the standard temperature and pressure used by the measurement system rather than the actual temperature and pressure.
(a) The annual report must include the information specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section for each applicable industry segment. The annual report must also include annual emissions totals, in metric tons of each GHG, for each applicable industry segment listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section, and each applicable emission source listed in paragraphs (b) through (z) of this section.
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
(xvi)
(xvii)
(2)
(3)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(4)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(5)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(6)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(7)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(8)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(1) The number of natural gas pneumatic devices as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The total number of devices of each type, determined according to § 98.233(a)(1) and (2).
(ii) If the reported value in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section is an estimated value determined according to § 98.233(a)(2), then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) The number of devices of each type reported in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section that are counted.
(B) The number of devices of each type reported in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section that are estimated (not counted).
(C) Whether the calendar year is the first calendar year of reporting or the second calendar year of reporting.
(2) For each type of pneumatic device, the estimated average number of hours in the calendar year that the natural gas pneumatic devices reported in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section were operating in the calendar year (“T
(3) Annual CO
(4) Annual CH
(c)
(1) Count of natural gas driven pneumatic pumps.
(2) Average estimated number of hours in the calendar year the pumps were operational (“T” in Equation W–2 of this subpart).
(3) Annual CO
(4) Annual CH
(d)
(1) You must report the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section for each acid gas removal unit.
(i) A unique name or ID number for the acid gas removal unit. For the onshore petroleum and natural gas production industry segment, a different name or ID may be used for a single acid gas removal unit for each location it operates at in a given year.
(ii) Total feed rate entering the acid gas removal unit, using a meter or engineering estimate based on process knowledge or best available data, in million cubic feet per year.
(iii) The calculation method used to calculate CO
(iv) Whether any CO
(v) Annual CO
(vi) Sub-basin ID that best represents the wells supplying gas to the unit (for the onshore petroleum and natural gas production industry segment only).
(2) You must report information specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, applicable to the calculation method reported in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section, for each acid gas removal unit.
(i) If you used Calculation Method 1 or Calculation Method 2 as specified in § 98.233(d) to calculate CO
(A) Annual average volumetric fraction of CO
(B) Annual volume of gas vented from the acid gas removal unit, in cubic feet.
(ii) If you used Calculation Method 3 as specified in § 98.233(d) to calculate CO
(A) Indicate which equation was used (Equation W–4A or W–4B).
(B) Annual average volumetric fraction of CO
(C) Annual average volumetric fraction of CO
(D) The natural gas flow rate used, as specified in Equation W–4A of this subpart, reported as either total annual volume of natural gas flow into the acid gas removal unit in cubic feet at actual conditions; or total annual volume of natural gas flow out of the acid gas removal unit, as specified in Equation W–4B of this subpart, in cubic feet at actual conditions.
(iii) If you used Calculation Method 4 as specified in § 98.233(d) to calculate CO
(A) The name of the simulation software package used.
(B) Natural gas feed temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit.
(C) Natural gas feed pressure, in pounds per square inch.
(D) Natural gas flow rate, in standard cubic feet per minute.
(E) Acid gas content of the feed natural gas, in mole percent.
(F) Acid gas content of the outlet natural gas, in mole percent.
(G) Unit operating hours, excluding downtime for maintenance or standby, in hours per year.
(H) Exit temperature of the natural gas, in degrees Fahrenheit.
(I) Solvent pressure, in pounds per square inch.
(J) Solvent temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit.
(K) Solvent circulation rate, in gallons per minute.
(L) Solvent weight, in pounds per gallon.
(e)
(1) For each glycol dehydrator that has an annual average daily natural gas throughput greater than or equal to 0.4 million standard cubic feet per day (as specified in § 98.233(e)(1)), you must report the information specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (xviii) of this section for the dehydrator.
(i) A unique name or ID number for the dehydrator. For the onshore petroleum and natural gas production industry segment, a different name or ID may be used for a single dehydrator for each location it operates at in a given year.
(ii) Dehydrator feed natural gas flow rate, in million standard cubic feet per day, determined by engineering estimate based on best available data.
(iii) Dehydrator feed natural gas water content, in pounds per million standard cubic feet.
(iv) Dehydrator outlet natural gas water content, in pounds per million standard cubic feet.
(v) Dehydrator absorbent circulation pump type (
(vi) Dehydrator absorbent circulation rate, in gallons per minute.
(vii) Type of absorbent (
(viii) Whether stripper gas is used in dehydrator.
(ix) Whether a flash tank separator is used in dehydrator.
(x) Total time the dehydrator is operating, in hours.
(xi) Temperature of the wet natural gas, in degrees Fahrenheit.
(xii) Pressure of the wet natural gas, in pounds per square inch gauge.
(xiii) Mole fraction of CH
(xiv) Mole fraction of CO
(xv) Whether any dehydrator emissions are vented to a vapor recovery device.
(xvi) Whether any dehydrator emissions are vented to a flare or regenerator firebox/fire tubes. If any emissions are vented to a flare or
(A) Annual CO
(B) Annual CH
(C) Annual N
(xvii) Whether any dehydrator emissions are vented to the atmosphere without being routed to a flare or regenerator firebox/fire tubes. If any emissions are not routed to a flare or regenerator firebox/fire tubes, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(xvii)(A) and (B) of this section for those emissions from the dehydrator.
(A) Annual CO
(B) Annual CH
(xviii) Sub-basin ID that best represents the wells supplying gas to the dehydrator (for the onshore petroleum and natural gas production industry segment only).
(2) For glycol dehydrators with an annual average daily natural gas throughput less than 0.4 million standard cubic feet per day (as specified in § 98.233(e)(2)), you must report the information specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (v) of this section for the entire facility.
(i) The total number of dehydrators at the facility.
(ii) Whether any dehydrator emissions were vented to a vapor recovery device. If any dehydrator emissions were vented to a vapor recovery device, then you must report the total number of dehydrators at the facility that vented to a vapor recovery device.
(iii) Whether any dehydrator emissions were vented to a control device other than a vapor recovery device or a flare or regenerator firebox/fire tubes. If any dehydrator emissions were vented to a control device(s) other than a vapor recovery device or a flare or regenerator firebox/fire tubes, then you must specify the type of control device(s) and the total number of dehydrators at the facility that were vented to each type of control device.
(iv) Whether any dehydrator emissions were vented to a flare or regenerator firebox/fire tubes. If any dehydrator emissions were vented to a flare or regenerator firebox/fire tubes, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) The total number of dehydrators venting to a flare or regenerator firebox/fire tubes.
(B) Annual CO
(C) Annual CH
(D) Annual N
(v) For dehydrator emissions that were not vented to a flare or regenerator firebox/fire tubes, report the information specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(v)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) Annual CO
(B) Annual CH
(3) For dehydrators that use desiccant (as specified in § 98.233(e)(3)), you must report the information specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section for the entire facility.
(i) The same information specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for glycol dehydrators, and report the information under this paragraph for dehydrators that use desiccant.
(ii) Annual CO
(iii) Annual CH
(f)
(1) For each sub-basin and well tubing diameter and pressure group for which you used Calculation Method 1 to calculate natural gas emissions from well venting for liquids unloading, report the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (xii) of this section. Report information separately for wells with plunger lifts and wells without plunger lifts.
(i) Sub-basin ID.
(ii) Well tubing diameter and pressure group ID.
(iii) Plunger lift indicator.
(iv) Count of wells vented to the atmosphere for the sub-basin/well tubing diameter and pressure group.
(v) Percentage of wells for which the monitoring period used to determine the cumulative amount of time venting was not the full calendar year.
(vi) Cumulative amount of time wells were vented (sum of “T
(vii) Cumulative number of unloadings vented to the atmosphere for each well, aggregated across all wells in the sub-basin/well tubing diameter and pressure group.
(viii) Annual natural gas emissions, in standard cubic feet, from well venting for liquids unloading, calculated according to § 98.233(f)(1).
(ix) Annual CO
(x) Annual CH
(xi) For each well tubing diameter group and pressure group combination, you must report the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(xi)(A) through (E) of this section for each individual well not using a plunger lift that was tested during the year.
(A) API Well Number of tested well.
(B) Casing pressure, in pounds per square inch absolute.
(C) Internal casing diameter, in inches.
(D) Measured depth of the well, in feet.
(E) Average flow rate of the well venting over the duration of the liquids unloading, in standard cubic feet per hour.
(xii) For each well tubing diameter group and pressure group combination, you must report the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(xii)(A) through (E) of this section for each individual well using a plunger lift that was tested during the year.
(A) API Well Number.
(B) The tubing pressure, in pounds per square inch absolute.
(C) The internal tubing diameter, in inches.
(D) Measured depth of the well, in feet.
(E) Average flow rate of the well venting over the duration of the liquids unloading, in standard cubic feet per hour.
(2) For each sub-basin for which you used Calculation Method 2 or 3 (as specified in § 93.233(f)) to calculate natural gas emissions from well venting for liquids unloading, you must report the information in (f)(2)(i) through (x) of this section. Report information separately for each calculation method.
(i) Sub-basin ID.
(ii) Calculation method.
(iii) Plunger lift indicator.
(iv) Number of wells vented to the atmosphere.
(v) Cumulative number of unloadings vented to the atmosphere for each well, aggregated across all wells.
(vi) Annual natural gas emissions, in standard cubic feet, from well venting for liquids unloading, calculated according to § 98.233(f)(2) or (3), as applicable.
(vii) Annual CO
(viii) Annual CH
(ix) For wells without plunger lifts, the average internal casing diameter, in inches.
(x) For wells with plunger lifts, the average internal tubing diameter, in inches.
(g)
(1) Sub-basin ID.
(2) Well type combination.
(3) Number of completions or workovers in the sub-basin and well type combination category.
(4) Calculation method used.
(5) If you used Equation W–10A to calculate annual volumetric total gas emissions, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (g)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Cumulative gas flowback time, in hours, from when gas is first detected until sufficient quantities are present to enable separation, and the cumulative flowback time, in hours, after sufficient quantities of gas are present to enable separation (sum of “T
(ii) For the measured well(s), the flowback rate, in standard cubic feet per hour (average of “FR
(6) If you used Equation W–10B to calculate annual volumetric total gas emissions, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (g)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Vented natural gas volume, in standard cubic feet, for each well in the sub-basin (“FV
(ii) Flow rate at the beginning of the period of time when sufficient quantities of gas are present to enable separation, in standard cubic feet per hour, for each well in the sub-basin (“FR
(7) Annual gas emissions, in standard cubic feet (“E
(8) Annual CO
(9) Annual CH
(10) If the well emissions were vented to a flare, then you must report the total N
(h)
(1) For each sub-basin with gas well completions without hydraulic fracturing and without flaring, report the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Sub-basin ID.
(ii) Number of well completions that vented gas directly to the atmosphere without flaring.
(iii) Total number of hours that gas vented directly to the atmosphere during venting for all completions in the sub-basin category (the sum of all “T
(iv) Average daily gas production rate for all completions without hydraulic fracturing in the sub-basin without flaring, in standard cubic feet per hour (average of all “V
(v) Annual CO
(vi) Annual CH
(2) For each sub-basin with gas well completions without hydraulic fracturing and with flaring, report the information specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) Sub-basin ID.
(ii) Number of well completions that flared gas.
(iii) Total number of hours that gas vented to a flare during venting for all completions in the sub-basin category (the sum of all “T
(iv) Average daily gas production rate for all completions without hydraulic fracturing in the sub-basin with flaring, in standard cubic feet per hour (the average of all “V
(v) Annual CO
(vi) Annual CH
(vii) Annual N
(3) For each sub-basin with gas well workovers without hydraulic fracturing and without flaring, report the information specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Sub-basin ID.
(ii) Number of workovers that vented gas to the atmosphere without flaring.
(iii) Annual CO
(iv) Annual CH
(4) For each sub-basin with gas well workovers without hydraulic fracturing and with flaring, report the information specified in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Sub-basin ID.
(ii) Number of workovers that flared gas.
(iii) Annual CO
(iv) Annual CH
(v) Annual N
(i)
(1)
(i) Total number of blowdowns in the calendar year for the equipment or event type (the sum of equation variable “N” from Equation W–14A or Equation W–14B of this subpart, for all unique physical volumes for the equipment or event type).
(ii) Annual CO
(iii) Annual CH
(2)
(i) Annual CO
(ii) Annual CH
(j)
(1) If you used Calculation Method 1 or Calculation Method 2 to calculate GHG emissions, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (xiv) of this section for each sub-basin and by calculation method.
(i) Sub-basin ID.
(ii) Calculation method used, and name of the software package used if using Calculation Method 1.
(iii) The total annual oil volume from gas-liquid separators and direct from wells that is sent to applicable onshore production storage tanks, in barrels. You may delay reporting of this data element if you indicate in the annual report that wildcat wells and delineation wells are the only wells in the sub-basin with oil production greater than or equal to 10 barrels per day and flowing to gas-liquid separators or direct to storage tanks. If you elect to delay reporting of this data element, you must report by the date
(iv) The average gas-liquid separator temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit.
(v) The average gas-liquid separator pressure, in pounds per square inch gauge.
(vi) The average sales oil or stabilized oil API gravity, in degrees.
(vii) The minimum and maximum concentration (mole fraction) of CO
(viii) The minimum and maximum concentration (mole fraction) of CH
(ix) The number of wells sending oil to gas-liquid separators or directly to atmospheric tanks.
(x) The number of atmospheric tanks.
(xi) An estimate of the number of atmospheric tanks, not on well-pads, receiving your oil.
(xii) If any emissions from the atmospheric tanks at your facility were controlled with vapor recovery systems, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(xii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) The number of atmospheric tanks that control emissions with vapor recovery systems.
(B) Total CO
(C) Total CH
(D) Annual CO
(E) Annual CH
(xiii) If any atmospheric tanks at your facility vented gas directly to the atmosphere without using a vapor recovery system or without flaring, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(xiii)(A) through (C) of this section.
(A) The number of atmospheric tanks that vented gas directly to the atmosphere without using a vapor recovery system or without flaring.
(B) Annual CO
(C) Annual CH
(xiv) If you controlled emissions from any atmospheric tanks at your facility with one or more flares, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(xiv)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) The number of atmospheric tanks that controlled emissions with flares.
(B) Annual CO
(C) Annual CH
(D) Annual N
(2) If you used Calculation Method 3 to calculate GHG emissions, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Report the information specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)(A) through (F) of this section, at the basin level, for atmospheric tanks where emissions were calculated using Calculation Method 3.
(A) The total annual oil throughput that is sent to all atmospheric tanks in the basin, in barrels. You may delay reporting of this data element if you indicate in the annual report that wildcat wells and delineation wells are the only wells in the sub-basin with oil production less than 10 barrels per day and that send oil to atmospheric tanks. If you elect to delay reporting of this data element, you must report by the date specified in § 98.236(cc) the total annual oil throughput from all wells and the API Well Number(s) for the well(s) included in this volume.
(B) An estimate of the fraction of oil throughput reported in paragraph (j)(2)(i)(A) of this section sent to atmospheric tanks in the basin that controlled emissions with flares.
(C) An estimate of the fraction of oil throughput reported in paragraph (j)(2)(i)(A) of this section sent to atmospheric tanks in the basin that controlled emissions with vapor recovery systems.
(D) The number of atmospheric tanks in the basin.
(E) The number of wells with gas-liquid separators (“Count” from Equation W–15 of this subpart) in the basin.
(F) The number of wells without gas-liquid separators (“Count” from Equation W–15 of this subpart) in the basin.
(ii) Report the information specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section for each sub-basin with atmospheric tanks whose emissions were calculated using Calculation Method 3 and that did not control emissions with flares.
(A) Sub-basin ID.
(B) The number of atmospheric tanks in the sub-basin that did not control emissions with flares.
(C) Annual CO
(D) Annual CH
(iii) Report the information specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(iii)(A) through (E) of this section for each sub-basin with atmospheric tanks whose emissions were calculated using Calculation Method 3 and that controlled emissions with flares.
(A) Sub-basin ID.
(B) The number of atmospheric tanks in the sub-basin that controlled emissions with flares.
(C) Annual CO
(D) Annual CH
(E) Annual N
(3) If you used Calculation Method 1 or Calculation Method 2, and any gas-liquid separator liquid dump values did not close properly during the calendar year, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (j)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section for each sub-basin.
(i) The total number of gas-liquid separators whose liquid dump valves did not close properly during the calendar year.
(ii) The total time the dump valves on gas-liquid separators did not close properly in the calendar year, in hours (sum of the “T
(iii) Annual CO
(iv) Annual CH
(k)
(1) For each transmission storage tank vent stack, report the information specified in (k)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) The unique name or ID number for the transmission storage tank vent stack.
(ii) Method used to determine if dump valve leakage occurred.
(iii) Indicate whether scrubber dump valve leakage occurred for the transmission storage tank vent according to § 98.233(k)(2).
(iv) Indicate if there is a flare attached to the transmission storage tank vent stack.
(2) If scrubber dump valve leakage occurred for a transmission storage tank vent stack, as reported in paragraph (k)(1)(iii) of this section, and the vent stack vented directly to the atmosphere during the calendar year, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (v) of this section for each transmission storage vent stack where scrubber dump valve leakage occurred.
(i) Method used to measure the leak rate.
(ii) Measured leak rate (average leak rate from a continuous flow measurement device), in standard cubic feet per hour.
(iii) Duration of time that the leak is counted as having occurred, in hours, as determined in § 98.233(k)(3) (may use best available data if a continuous flow measurement device was used).
(iv) Annual CO
(v) Annual CH
(3) If scrubber dump valve leakage occurred for a transmission storage tank vent stack, as reported in paragraph (k)(1)(iii), and the vent stack vented to a flare during the calendar year, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (k)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Method used to measure the leak rate.
(ii) Measured leakage rate (average leak rate from a continuous flow measurement device) in standard cubic feet per hour.
(iii) Duration of time that flaring occurred in hours, as defined in § 98.233(k)(3) (may use best available data if a continuous flow measurement device was used).
(iv) Annual CO
(v) Annual CH
(vi) Annual N
(l)
(1) If you used Equation W–17A to calculate annual volumetric natural gas emissions at actual conditions from oil wells and the emissions are not vented to a flare, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Number of wells tested in the calendar year.
(ii) Average number of well testing days per well for well(s) tested in the calendar year.
(iii) Average gas to oil ratio for well(s) tested, in cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil.
(iv) Average flow rate for well(s) tested, in barrels of oil per day. You may delay reporting of this data element if you indicate in the annual report that wildcat wells and/or delineation wells are the only wells that are tested. If you elect to delay reporting of this data element, you must report by the date specified in § 98.236(cc) the measured average flow rate for well(s) tested and the API Well Number(s) for the well(s) included in the measurement.
(v) Annual CO
(vi) Annual CH
(2) If you used Equation W–17A to calculate annual volumetric natural gas emissions at actual conditions from oil wells and the emissions are vented to a flare, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) Number of wells tested in the calendar year.
(ii) Average number of well testing days per well for well(s) tested in the calendar year.
(iii) Average gas to oil ratio for well(s) tested, in cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil.
(iv) Average flow rate for well(s) tested, in barrels of oil per day. You may delay reporting of this data element if you indicate in the annual report that wildcat wells and/or delineation wells are the only wells that are tested. If you elect to delay reporting of this data element, you must report by the date specified in § 98.236(cc) the measured average flow rate for well(s) tested and the API Well Number(s) for the well(s) included in the measurement.
(v) Annual CO
(vi) Annual CH
(vii) Annual N
(3) If you used Equation W–17B to calculate annual volumetric natural gas emissions at actual conditions from gas wells and the emissions were not vented to a flare, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (l)(3)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Number of wells tested in the calendar year.
(ii) Average number of well testing days per well for well(s) tested in the calendar year.
(iii) Average annual production rate for well(s) tested, in actual cubic feet per day. You may delay reporting of this data element if you indicate in the annual report that wildcat wells and/or delineation wells are the only wells that are tested. If you elect to delay reporting of this data element, you must report by the date specified in § 98.236(cc) the measured average annual production rate for well(s) tested and the API Well Number(s) for the well(s) included in the measurement.
(iv) Annual CO
(v) Annual CH
(4) If you used Equation W–17B to calculate annual volumetric natural gas emissions at actual conditions from gas wells and the emissions were vented to a flare, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (l)(4)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Number of wells tested in calendar year.
(ii) Average number of well testing days per well for well(s) tested in the calendar year.
(iii) Average annual production rate for well(s) tested, in actual cubic feet
(iv) Annual CO
(v) Annual CH
(vi) Annual N
(m)
(1) Sub-basin ID.
(2) Indicate whether any associated gas was vented directly to the atmosphere without flaring.
(3) Indicate whether any associated gas was flared.
(4) Average gas to oil ratio, in standard cubic feet of gas per barrel of oil (average of the “GOR” values used in Equation W–18 of this subpart).
(5) Volume of oil produced, in barrels, in the calendar year during the time periods in which associated gas was vented or flared (the sum of “V
(6) Total volume of associated gas sent to sales, in standard cubic feet, in the calendar year during time periods in which associated gas was vented or flared (the sum of “SG” values used in Equation W–18 of § 98.233(m)). You may delay reporting of this data element if you indicate in the annual report that wildcat wells and/or delineation wells from which associated gas was vented or flared. If you elect to delay reporting of this data element, you must report by the date specified in § 98.236(cc) the measured total volume of associated gas sent to sales for well(s) with associated gas venting and flaring and the API Well Number(s) for the well(s) included in the measurement.
(7) If you had associated gas emissions vented directly to the atmosphere without flaring, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (m)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section for each sub-basin.
(i) Total number of wells for which associated gas was vented directly to the atmosphere without flaring.
(ii) Annual CO
(iii) Annual CH
(8) If you had associated gas emissions that were flared, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (m)(8)(i) through (iv) of this section for each sub-basin.
(i) Total number of wells for which associated gas was flared.
(ii) Annual CO
(iii) Annual CH
(iv) Annual N
(n)
(1) Unique name or ID for the flare stack. For the onshore petroleum and natural gas production industry segment, a different name or ID may be used for a single flare stack for each location where it operates at in a given calendar year.
(2) Indicate whether the flare stack has a continuous flow measurement device.
(3) Indicate whether the flare stack has a continuous gas composition analyzer on feed gas to the flare.
(4) Volume of gas sent to the flare, in standard cubic feet (“V
(5) Fraction of the feed gas sent to an un-lit flare (“Z
(6) Flare combustion efficiency, expressed as the fraction of gas combusted by a burning flare.
(7) Mole fraction of CH
(8) Mole fraction of CO
(9) Annual CO
(10) Annual CH
(11) Annual N
(12) Indicate whether a CEMS was used to measure emissions from the flare. If a CEMS was used to measure emissions from the flare, then you are not required to report N
(o)
(1)
(i) Unique name or ID for the centrifugal compressor.
(ii) Hours in operating-mode.
(iii) Hours in not-operating-depressurized-mode.
(iv) Indicate whether the compressor was measured in operating-mode.
(v) Indicate whether the compressor was measured in not-operating-depressurized-mode.
(vi) Indicate which, if any, compressor sources are part of a manifolded group of compressor sources.
(vii) Indicate which, if any, compressor sources are routed to a flare.
(viii) Indicate which, if any, compressor sources have vapor recovery.
(ix) Indicate which, if any, compressor source emissions are captured for fuel use or are routed to a thermal oxidizer.
(x) Indicate whether the compressor has blind flanges installed and associated dates.
(xi) Indicate whether the compressor has wet or dry seals.
(xii) If the compressor has wet seals, the number of wet seals.
(xiii) Power output of the compressor driver (hp).
(xiv) Indicate whether the compressor had a scheduled depressurized shutdown during the reporting year.
(2)
(A) Centrifugal compressor name or ID. Use the same ID as in paragraph (o)(1)(i) of this section.
(B) Centrifugal compressor source (wet seal, isolation valve, or blowdown valve).
(C) Unique name or ID for the leak or vent. If the leak or vent is connected to a manifolded group of compressor sources, use the same leak or vent ID for each compressor source in the manifolded group. If multiple compressor sources are released through a single vent for which continuous measurements are used, use the same leak or vent ID for each compressor source released via the measured vent. For a single compressor using as found measurements, you must provide a different leak or vent ID for each compressor source.
(ii) For each leak or vent, report the information specified in paragraphs (o)(2)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) Indicate whether the leak or vent is for a single compressor source or manifolded group of compressor sources and whether the emissions from the leak or vent are released to the atmosphere, routed to a flare, combustion (fuel or thermal oxidizer), or vapor recovery.
(B) Indicate whether an as found measurement(s) as identified in § 98.233(o)(2) or (4) was conducted on the leak or vent.
(C) Indicate whether continuous measurements as identified in § 98.233(o)(3) or (5) were conducted on the leak or vent.
(D) Report emissions as specified in paragraphs (o)(2)(ii)(D)(
(
(
(E) If the leak or vent is routed to flare, combustion, or vapor recovery, report the percentage of time that the respective device was operational when the compressor source emissions were routed to the device.
(3)
(i) For each as found measurement performed on a leak or vent, report the information specified in paragraphs (o)(3)(i)(A) through (F) of this section.
(A) Name or ID of leak or vent. Use same leak or vent ID as in paragraph (o)(2)(i)(C) of this section.
(B) Measurement date.
(C) Measurement method. If emissions were not detected when using a screening method, report the screening method. If emissions were detected using a screening method, report only the method subsequently used to measure the volumetric emissions.
(D) Measured flow rate, in standard cubic feet per hour.
(E) For each compressor attached to the leak or vent, report the compressor mode during which the measurement was taken.
(F) If the measurement is for a manifolded group of compressor sources, indicate whether the measurement location is prior to or after comingling with non-compressor emission sources.
(ii) For each compressor mode-source combination where a reporter emission factor as calculated in Equation W–23 was used to calculate emissions in Equation W–22, report the information specified in paragraphs (o)(3)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section.
(A) The compressor mode-source combination.
(B) The compressor mode-source combination reporter emission factor, in standard cubic feet per hour (EF
(C) The total number of compressors measured in the compressor mode-source combination in the current reporting year and the preceding two reporting years (Count
(D) Indicate whether the compressor mode-source combination reporter emission factor is facility-specific or based on all of the reporter's applicable facilities.
(4)
(i) Name or ID of leak or vent. Use same leak or vent ID as in paragraph (o)(2)(i)(C) of this section.
(ii) Measured volume of flow during the reporting year, in million standard cubic feet.
(iii) Indicate whether the measured volume of flow during the reporting year includes compressor blowdown emissions as allowed for in § 98.233(o)(3)(ii) and (o)(5)(iii).
(iv) If the measurement is for a manifolded group of compressor sources, indicate whether the measurement location is prior to or after comingling with non-compressor emission sources.
(5)
(i) Number of centrifugal compressors that have wet seal oil degassing vents.
(ii) Annual CO
(iii) Annual CH
(p)
(1)
(i) Unique name or ID for the reciprocating compressor.
(ii) Hours in operating-mode.
(iii) Hours in standby-pressurized-mode.
(iv) Hours in not-operating-depressurized-mode.
(v) Indicate whether the compressor was measured in operating-mode.
(vi) Indicate whether the compressor was measured in standby-pressurized-mode.
(vii) Indicate whether the compressor was measured in not-operating-depressurized-mode.
(viii) Indicate which, if any, compressor sources are part of a manifolded group of compressor sources.
(ix) Indicate which, if any, compressor sources are routed to a flare.
(x) Indicate which, if any, compressor sources have vapor recovery.
(xi) Indicate which, if any, compressor source emissions are captured for fuel use or are routed to a thermal oxidizer.
(xii) Indicate whether the compressor has blind flanges installed and associated dates.
(xiii) Power output of the compressor driver (hp).
(xiv) Indicate whether the compressor had a scheduled depressurized shutdown during the reporting year.
(2)
(A) Reciprocating compressor name or ID. Use the same ID as in paragraph (p)(1)(i) of this section.
(B) Reciprocating compressor source (isolation valve, blowdown valve, or rod packing).
(C) Unique name or ID for the leak or vent. If the leak or vent is connected to a manifolded group of compressor sources, use the same leak or vent ID for each compressor source in the manifolded group. If multiple compressor sources are released through a single vent for which continuous measurements are used, use the same leak or vent ID for each compressor source released via the measured vent. For a single compressor using as found measurements, you must provide a different leak or vent ID for each compressor source.
(ii) For each leak or vent, report the information specified in paragraphs (p)(2)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) Indicate whether the leak or vent is for a single compressor source or manifolded group of compressor sources and whether the emissions from the leak or vent are released to the atmosphere, routed to a flare, combustion (fuel or thermal oxidizer), or vapor recovery.
(B) Indicate whether an as found measurement(s) as identified in § 98.233(p)(2) or (4) was conducted on the leak or vent.
(C) Indicate whether continuous measurements as identified in § 98.233(p)(3) or (5) were conducted on the leak or vent.
(D) Report emissions as specified in paragraphs (p)(2)(ii)(D)(
(
(
(E) If the leak or vent is routed to flare, combustion, or vapor recovery, report the percentage of time that the respective device was operational when the compressor source emissions were routed to the device.
(3)
(i) For each as found measurement performed on a leak or vent, report the information specified in paragraphs (p)(3)(i)(A) through (F) of this section.
(A) Name or ID of leak or vent. Use same leak or vent ID as in paragraph (p)(2)(i)(C) of this section.
(B) Measurement date.
(C) Measurement method. If emissions were not detected when using a screening method, report the screening method. If emissions were detected using a screening method, report only the method subsequently used to measure the volumetric emissions.
(D) Measured flow rate, in standard cubic feet per hour.
(E) For each compressor attached to the leak or vent, report the compressor mode during which the measurement was taken.
(F) If the measurement is for a manifolded group of compressor sources, indicate whether the measurement location is prior to or after comingling with non-compressor emission sources.
(ii) For each compressor mode-source combination where a reporter emission factor as calculated in Equation W–28 was used to calculate emissions in Equation W–27, report the information specified in paragraphs (p)(3)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section
(A) The compressor mode-source combination.
(B) The compressor mode-source combination reporter emission factor, in standard cubic feet per hour (EF
(C) The total number of compressors measured in the compressor mode-source combination in the current reporting year and the preceding two reporting years (Count
(D) Indicate whether the compressor mode-source combination reporter emission factor is facility-specific or based on all of the reporter's applicable facilities.
(4)
(i) Name or ID of leak or vent. Use same leak or vent ID as in paragraph (p)(2)(i)(C) of this section.
(ii) Measured volume of flow during the reporting year, in million standard cubic feet.
(iii) Indicate whether the measured volume of flow during the reporting year includes compressor blowdown emissions as allowed for in § 98.233(p)(3)(ii) and (p)(5)(iii).
(iv) If the measurement is for a manifolded group of compressor sources, indicate whether the measurement location is prior to or after comingling with non-compressor emission sources.
(5)
(i) Number of reciprocating compressors.
(ii) Annual CO
(iii) Annual CH
(q)
(1) You must report the information specified in paragraphs (q)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (q)(1)(ii) of this section, the number of complete equipment leak surveys performed during the calendar year.
(ii) Natural gas distribution facilities performing equipment leak surveys across a multiple year leak survey cycle must report the number of years in the leak survey cycle.
(2) You must indicate whether your facility contains any of the component types listed in § 98.232(d)(7), (e)(7), (f)(5), (g)(3), (h)(4), or (i)(1), for your facility's industry segment. For each component type that is located at your facility, you must report the information specified in paragraphs (q)(2)(i) through (v) of this section. If a component type is located at your facility and no leaks were identified from that component, then you must report the information in paragraphs (q)(2)(i) through (v) of this section but report a zero (“0”) for the information required according to paragraphs (q)(2)(iii), (iv), and (v) of this section.
(i) Component type.
(ii) Total number of the surveyed component type that were identified as leaking in the calendar year (“x
(iii) Average time the surveyed components are assumed to be leaking and operational, in hours (average of “T
(iv) Annual CO
(v) Annual CH
(3) Natural gas distribution facilities with emission sources listed in § 98.232(i)(1) must also report the information specified in paragraphs (q)(3)(i) through (viii) and, if applicable, (q)(3)(ix) of this section.
(i) Number of above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations surveyed in the calendar year.
(ii) Number of meter/regulator runs at above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations surveyed in the calendar year (“Count
(iii) Average time that meter/regulator runs surveyed in the calendar year were operational, in hours (average of “T
(iv) Number of above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations surveyed in the current leak survey cycle.
(v) Number of meter/regulator runs at above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations surveyed in current leak survey cycle (sum of “Count
(vi) Average time that meter/regulator runs surveyed in the current leak survey cycle were operational, in hours (average of “T
(vii) Meter/regulator run CO
(viii) Meter/regulator run CH
(ix) If your natural gas distribution facility performs equipment leak surveys across a multiple year leak survey cycle, you must also report:
(A) The total number of meter/regulator runs at above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations at your facility (“Count
(B) Average estimated time that each meter/regulator run at above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations was operational in the calendar year, in hours per meter/regulator run (“T
(C) Annual CO
(D) Annual CH
(r)
(1) You must indicate whether your facility contains any of the emission source types required to use Equation W–32A of this subpart. You must report the information specified in paragraphs (r)(1)(i) through (v) of this section separately for each emission source type required to use Equation W–32A of this subpart that is located at your facility. Onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities must report the information specified in paragraphs (r)(1)(i) through (v) of this section separately by component type, service type, and geographic location (
(i) Emission source type. Onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities must report the component type, service type and geographic location.
(ii) Total number of the emission source type at the facility (“Count
(iii) Average estimated time that the emission source type was operational in the calendar year, in hours (“T
(iv) Annual CO
(v) Annual CH
(2) Natural gas distribution facilities must also report the information specified in paragraphs (r)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) Number of above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations at the facility.
(ii) Number of above grade metering-regulating stations that are not transmission-distribution transfer stations at the facility.
(iii) Total number of meter/regulator runs at above grade metering-regulating stations that are not above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations (“Count
(iv) Average estimated time that each meter/regulator run at above grade metering-regulating stations that are not above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations was operational in the calendar year, in hours per meter/regulator run (“T
(v) If your facility has above grade metering-regulating stations that are not above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations and your facility also has above grade transmission-distribution transfer stations, you must also report:
(A) Annual CO
(B) Annual CH
(3) Onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities must also report the information specified in paragraphs (r)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Calculation method used.
(ii) Onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities must report the information specified in paragraphs (r)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section, for each major equipment type, production type (
(A) An indication of whether the facility contains the major equipment type.
(B) If the facility does contain the equipment type, the count of the major equipment type.
(s)
(1) Annual CO
(2) Annual CH
(3) Annual N
(t) [Reserved]
(u) [Reserved]
(v) [Reserved]
(w)
(1) Sub-basin ID.
(2) EOR injection pump system identifier.
(3) Pump capacity, in barrels per day.
(4) Total volume of EOR injection pump system equipment chambers, in cubic feet (“V
(5) Number of blowdowns for the EOR injection pump system in the calendar year.
(6) Density of critical phase EOR injection gas, in kilograms per cubic foot (“R
(7) Mass fraction of CO
(8) Annual CO
(x)
(1) Sub-basin ID.
(2) Total volume of hydrocarbon liquids produced through EOR operations in the calendar year, in barrels (“V
(3) Average CO
(4) Annual CO
(y) [Reserved]
(z)
(1) Indicate whether the combustion units include: External fuel combustion units with a rated heat capacity less than or equal to 5 million Btu per hour; or, internal fuel combustion units that are not compressor-drivers, with a rated heat capacity less than or equal to 1 mmBtu/hr (or the equivalent of 130 horsepower). If the facility contains external fuel combustion units with a rated heat capacity less than or equal to 5 million Btu per hour or internal fuel combustion units that are not compressor-drivers, with a rated heat capacity less than or equal to 1 million Btu per hour (or the equivalent of 130 horsepower), then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (z)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section for each unit type.
(i) The type of combustion unit.
(ii) The total number of combustion units.
(2) Indicate whether the combustion units include: External fuel combustion units with a rated heat capacity greater than 5 million Btu per hour; internal fuel combustion units that are not compressor-drivers, with a rated heat capacity greater than 1 million Btu per hour (or the equivalent of 130 horsepower); or, internal fuel combustion units of any heat capacity that are compressor-drivers. If your facility contains: External fuel combustion units with a rated heat capacity greater than 5 mmBtu/hr; internal fuel combustion units that are not compressor-drivers, with a rated heat capacity greater than 1 million Btu per hour (or the equivalent of 130 horsepower); or internal fuel combustion units of any heat capacity that are compressor-drivers, then you must report the information specified in paragraphs (z)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section for each combustion unit type and fuel type combination.
(i) The type of combustion unit.
(ii) The type of fuel combusted.
(iii) The quantity of fuel combusted in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet, gallons, or tons.
(iv) Annual CO
(v) Annual CH
(vi) Annual N
(aa) Each facility must report the information specified in paragraphs (aa)(1) through (9) of this section, for each applicable industry segment, by using best available data. If a quantity required to be reported is zero, you must report zero as the value.
(1) For onshore petroleum and natural gas production, report the data specified in paragraphs (aa)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Report the information specified in paragraphs (aa)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section for the basin as a whole.
(A) The quantity of gas produced in the calendar year from wells, in thousand standard cubic feet. This includes gas that is routed to a pipeline, vented or flared, or used in field operations. This does not include gas injected back into reservoirs or shrinkage resulting from lease condensate production.
(B) The quantity of gas produced in the calendar year for sales, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(C) The quantity of crude oil and condensate produced in the calendar year for sales, in barrels.
(ii) Report the information specified in paragraphs (aa)(1)(ii)(A) through (M) of this section for each unique sub-basin category.
(A) State.
(B) County.
(C) Formation type.
(D) The number of producing wells at the end of the calendar year (exclude only those wells permanently taken out of production,
(E) The number of producing wells acquired during the calendar year.
(F) The number of producing wells divested during the calendar year.
(G) The number of wells completed during the calendar year.
(H) The number of wells permanently taken out of production (
(I) Average mole fraction of CH
(J) Average mole fraction of CO
(K) If an oil sub-basin, report the average GOR of all wells, in thousand standard cubic feet per barrel.
(L) If an oil sub-basin, report the average API gravity of all wells.
(M) If an oil sub-basin, report average low pressure separator pressure, in pounds per square inch gauge.
(2) For offshore production, report the quantities specified in paragraphs (aa)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The total quantity of gas handled at the offshore platform in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet, including production volumes and volumes transferred via pipeline from another location.
(ii) The total quantity of oil and condensate handled at the offshore platform in the calendar year, in barrels, including production volumes and volumes transferred via pipeline from another location.
(3) For natural gas processing, report the information specified in paragraphs (aa)(3)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) The quantity of natural gas received at the gas processing plant in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(ii) The quantity of processed (residue) gas leaving the gas processing plant in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(iii) The cumulative quantity of all NGLs (bulk and fractionated) received at the gas processing plant in the calendar year, in barrels.
(iv) The cumulative quantity of all NGLs (bulk and fractionated) leaving the gas processing plant in the calendar year, in barrels.
(v) Average mole fraction of CH
(vi) Average mole fraction of CO
(vii) Indicate whether the facility fractionates NGLs.
(4) For natural gas transmission compression, report the quantity specified in paragraphs (aa)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) The quantity of gas transported through the compressor station in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(ii) Number of compressors.
(iii) Total compressor power rating of all compressors combined, in horsepower.
(iv) Average upstream pipeline pressure, in pounds per square inch gauge.
(v) Average downstream pipeline pressure, in pounds per square inch gauge.
(5) For underground natural gas storage, report the quantities specified in paragraphs (aa)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The quantity of gas injected into storage in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(ii) The quantity of gas withdrawn from storage in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(iii) Total storage capacity, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(6) For LNG import equipment, report the quantity of LNG imported in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(7) For LNG export equipment, report the quantity of LNG exported in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(8) For LNG storage, report the quantities specified in paragraphs (aa)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The quantity of LNG added into storage in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(ii) The quantity of LNG withdrawn from storage in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(iii) Total storage capacity, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(9) For natural gas distribution, report the quantities specified in paragraphs (aa)(9)(i) through (vii) of this section.
(i) The quantity of natural gas received at all custody transfer stations in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet. This value may include meter corrections, but only for the calendar year covered by the annual report.
(ii) The quantity of natural gas withdrawn from in-system storage in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(iii) The quantity of natural gas added to in-system storage in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(iv) The quantity of natural gas delivered to end users, in thousand standard cubic feet. This value does not include stolen gas, or gas that is otherwise unaccounted for.
(v) The quantity of natural gas transferred to third parties such as other LDCs or pipelines, in thousand standard cubic feet. This value does not include stolen gas, or gas that is otherwise unaccounted for.
(vi) The quantity of natural gas consumed by the LDC for operational purposes, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(vii) The estimated quantity of gas stolen in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.
(bb) For any missing data procedures used, report the information in § 98.3(c)(8) except as provided in paragraphs (bb)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For quarterly measurements, report the total number of quarters that a missing data procedure was used for each data element rather than the total number of hours.
(2) For annual or biannual (once every two years) measurements, you do not need to report the number of hours that a missing data procedure was used for each data element.
(cc) If you elect to delay reporting the information in paragraph (g)(5)(i), (g)(5)(ii), (h)(1)(iv), (h)(2)(iv), (j)(1)(iii), (j)(2)(i)(A), (l)(1)(iv), (l)(2)(iv), (l)(3)(iii), (l)(4)(iii), (m)(5), or (m)(6) of this section, you must report the information required in that paragraph no later than the date 2 years following the date specified in § 98.3(b) introductory text.
(f) For each time a missing data procedure was used, keep a record listing the emission source type, a description of the circumstance that resulted in the need to use missing data procedures, the missing data provisions in § 98.235 that apply, the calculation or analysis used to develop the substitute value, and the substitute value.
The revisions and additions read as follows: