Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Employment and Training Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations to recognize the State of Sonora as a region in Mexico that is free of fever ticks. We are also establishing an exemption from acaricide dipping treatment requirements, and the documentation requirements associated with such dipping, that were formerly applicable to cattle and other ruminants originating from Sonora as a condition of eligibility for entry to the United States, provided that certain conditions are met. This action will remove restrictions on the importation of cattle and other ruminants from Sonora that we believe are no longer necessary and reduce the costs associated with tick dipping for exporters and importers of ruminants.
Effective March 30, 2015.
Dr. Betzaida Lopez, Senior Staff Veterinarian, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–3300.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals, birds, and poultry into the United States to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases of livestock and poultry. Subpart D of part 93 (§§ 93.400 through 93.436, referred to below as the regulations) governs the importation of ruminants; within subpart D, §§ 93.424 through 93.429 specifically address the importation of various ruminants from Mexico into the United States.
On July 17, 2014, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending September 15, 2014. We received two comments by that date. They were from a cattle producers' association and an individual. One commenter supported the proposed rule. The other expressed a generalized opposition, but did not address the actual content of the proposed rule. Thus, there is no need to address that comment. Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S. C. 604, we have performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under
We are recognizing the Mexican State of Sonora as a region that is free of fever ticks. Under this rulemaking, importers of cattle from Sonora will have to submit an application either for inspection or dipping, but not both, as was previously required.
From 2009 to 2013, 1.21 million cattle were imported yearly from Mexico. About one-fourth came from Sonora. Cattle imported into the United States from Mexico are generally purchased by stocker operations that background the cattle on pasture before they are shipped to feedlots.
The average unit price of cattle imported from Mexico between 2009 and 2013 was about $440. The average cost of dipping with an acaricide is $3.50 to $10.00 per head. It takes approximately 5 seconds for 3 cattle to cross a dipping vat. For an average 500-head herd, dipping takes about 15 minutes. To inspect a 500-head herd takes from 4 to 12 hours. Depending on the size of the herd and time needed for inspection, some importers may choose to have the cattle dipped rather than inspected. The estimated cost of dipping is equivalent to about 1 to 2 percent of the value of the imported cattle. Any resulting cost savings realized by U.S. cattle importers due to inspection rather than dipping of cattle will depend on the relative price responsiveness of the sellers and buyers of the cattle. APHIS does not expect the rule to result in an increase of any consequence in the number of cattle imported from Mexico.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S. C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2727.
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 93 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
(b)(1)
(i) The cattle are accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with § 93.405 that states that the cattle originate from a region of Mexico that APHIS has determined to be free from fever ticks.
(ii) If the cattle will transit to the United States through an area of Mexico that APHIS has not determined to be free from fever ticks, they are moved in a sealed means of conveyance, and that seal remains intact throughout such transit.
(iii) The cattle are presented for entry into the United States at a land border port of entry listed in § 93.403(c).
(iv) The cattle are segregated at the U.S. port of entry from cattle from regions of Mexico that APHIS has not determined to be free from fever ticks.
(v) The importer, or his or her agent, executes and delivers to the inspector at the port of entry an application for inspection or supervised dipping. In this application, the importer, or his or her agent, waive all claims against the United States for any loss or damage to the cattle occasioned by or resulting from inspection or dipping or from the fact that the cattle are later found still to be tick infested, and for any loss or damage to any other cattle in the importer's possession or control that come in contact with the dipped cattle.
(vi) The cattle are either inspected by an APHIS inspector at the port of entry for evidence of tick infestation or are treated with a tickicidal dip that is listed in § 72.13 of this chapter under the supervision of an inspector at the port of entry.
(vii) If any cattle are determined to be infested with fever ticks, the lot of cattle is refused entry and may only be imported into the United States subject to the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2)
(i) The cattle have been inspected by a veterinarian in Mexico and, in the determination of the veterinarian, are free from fever ticks and all evidence of communicable diseases, and have not been exposed to communicable diseases, other than bovine babesiosis, during the 60 days prior to movement to a port of entry into the United States.
(ii) The cattle have been treated in Mexico with a tickicidal dip that is listed in § 72.13 of this chapter within 7 to 14 days before being offered for entry into the United States.
(iii) The cattle are accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with § 93.405 that states that this inspection and dipping have occurred.
(iv) The cattle are presented for entry into the United States at the port of entry at Santa Teresa, NM, or a port of entry within Texas that is listed in § 93.403(c).
(v) The importer, or his or her agent, executes and delivers to the inspector at the port of entry an application for inspection and supervised dipping. In this application, the importer, or his or her agent, agrees to waive all claims against the United States for any loss or damage to the cattle occasioned by or resulting from this dipping or from the fact that the cattle are later found to still be infested with ticks, and for any loss or damage to any other cattle in the importer's possession or control that come in contact with the dipped cattle.
(vi) When offered for entry, the cattle receive an inspection by an inspector. If free from fever ticks, the cattle are treated once with a tickicidal dip that is listed in § 72.13 of this chapter 7 to 14 days after the dipping required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. If found to be infested with fever ticks, the cattle are refused entry and may not be inspected again at a port of entry until they are again dipped and 7 to 14 days have elapsed.
(vii) The cattle are not imported into an area of Texas that is quarantined in accordance with § 72.5 of this chapter for bovine babesiosis, or for tick infestation.
Final rule.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we or our) amends our regulations related to Farm Credit System (System) bank and association disclosures to shareholders and investors of senior officer compensation in the Summary Compensation Table (Table). Under the final rule, System banks and associations are not required to report in the Table the compensation of employees who are not senior officers and who would not otherwise be considered “highly compensated employees” but for the payments related to, or change(s) in value of, the employees' qualified pension plans, provided that the plans were available to all employees on the same basis at the time the employees joined the plans.
Michael T. Wilson, Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102–5090, (703) 883–4124, TTY (703) 883–4056, Or
Jeff Pienta, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102–5090, (703) 883–4020, TTY (703) 883–4056.
The objective of this rule is to improve the quality of disclosure information shareholders receive on senior officer and highly compensated employee compensation.
Congress explained in section 514 of the Farm Credit Banks and Associations Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (1992 Act)
With this as one of our objectives, we issued a final rule on October 3, 2012, that enhanced disclosure of senior officer compensation and other related topics. Section 620.6(c)(2)(i) requires System Banks and associations to disclose senior officer compensation for the last 3 fiscal years. For purposes of this reporting requirement only, § 620.6(c)(2)(i) extends the regulatory definition of “senior officers” to include any employee whose compensation level was among the five highest paid during the reporting period. The intent of this extension was to ensure that System banks and associations provide shareholders with necessary compensation information on highly compensated employees even though they did not fall within the regulatory definition of “senior officer.” The intent was not to provide compensation information on employees who would only reach the “highly compensated” threshold solely because of payments related to or change(s) in the value of a qualified pension plan that was available to all employees on the same basis at the time they joined the plan. We believe that application of the existing rule could create such an unintended effect and reduce the effectiveness of the disclosure.
Therefore, on November 17, 2014, we proposed amending existing § 620.6(c)(2)(i) to exclude reporting employees' compensation in the Table if the employees were not senior officers and would be considered highly compensated employees solely because of payments related to or change(s) in value of the employees' qualified pension plans provided that the plans were available to all employees on the same basis at the time the employee joined the plan.
The comment period for the proposed rule closed on December 17, 2014 (79 FR 68376, Nov. 17, 2014). We received four comment letters on our proposed rule: One comment letter from the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), responding on behalf of its members; one comment from a Farm Credit bank (FCB); one comment letter from a System association; and one comment letter from the Farm Credit Council, responding on behalf of its members. Two commenters supported the proposed rule, one supported it with suggested changes, and one opposed the rule. In the discussion below, we address the significant comments. After careful consideration of the comments, the proposed rule is finalized without any changes.
The ICBA opposes the proposed rule and urges the FCA to withdraw the proposed rule or adopt the ICBA's recommendations. The ICBA asserts that the proposed rule reduces transparency of pension disclosures to System shareholders and seeks to allow System institutions to hide significant enhancements to pensions and other compensation arrangements by not disclosing them. We agree with the ICBA that employee compensation should be reported in this disclosure item if the employee's compensation reaches the highly compensated employee threshold due to large or significant bonuses and other such payments. As we explained in the proposed rule, however, there would be no reporting requirement for this disclosure item solely for employees
The ICBA also expressed concern that large one-time lump sum payments made to numerous employees at the same time from a qualified pension plan that was available to all employees on the same basis at the time they joined the plan could represent significant cash outlays for the institution during a reporting period. The ICBA believes that System institution owners should be made aware of these payouts. We agree with the ICBA and would expect that such payouts be included in the financial statements or notes thereto or discussed in the management's discussion and analysis section of the annual report if material to the institution's financial condition and results of operations. As discussed above, the intent of this specific disclosure item was not and is not to include such payments in the calculation of the top five highest paid employees.
In its comment letter, the ICBA also makes a number of recommendations, such as to disclose all employees' compensation if that compensation exceeds the average income of the citizens in the surrounding geographic area, or to disclose the compensation for the twenty-five (25) highest paid employees for larger System institutions. We believe these recommendations go beyond the scope of the proposed rule and cannot be addressed in this rulemaking.
The FCB, the Farm Credit Council, and the System association supported our proposed rule in their comment letters. Furthermore, they expressed that our proposal improves the disclosure language and aligns it with the intended purpose. The FCB also offered two constructive suggestions. The first suggestion was to allow System institutions affected by our proposed rule to disclose in a note to the Table that the calculation formula changed and describe the reason for the change and its effects. Also, because data is reported in the Table for 3 years, the FCB's second suggestion was that each System institution be allowed to choose the method of compliance that works best for that institution's situation. We agree with the suggestion regarding explanatory notes, but do not believe a change to our proposal is necessary. Such disclosure is not prohibited so long as the disclosure is not misleading, incomplete or inaccurate. Whether a System institution opts to restate one or all of the prior years' disclosures or to report the data prospectively beginning for fiscal year ending 2015, we would expect that any change in the method of calculations versus prior years' disclosures be described in a footnote to the Table to the extent needed so that the reported data will not be misleading or incomplete. Therefore, we agree with the FCB's suggestion to the extent that the 3-year reporting period raises issues for affected institutions, but we do not believe that a change to the regulation language is necessary. We have addressed this issue in the compliance date information.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 620 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Secs. 4.3, 4.3A, 4.19, 5.9, 5.19 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2154, 2154a, 2207, 2243, 2252, 2254); sec. 424 of Pub. L. 100–233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1656, sec. 514 of Pub. L. 102–552, 106 Stat. 4102.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) If applicable, when any employee who is not a senior officer has annual compensation at a level that is among the five highest paid by the institution during the reporting period, include the highly compensated employee(s) in the aggregate number and amount of compensation reported in the Compensation Table. However, exclude any such employee from the Compensation Table if the employee would be considered highly compensated solely because of payments related to or change(s) in value of the employee's qualified pension plan provided that the plan was available to all similarly situated employees on the same basis at the time the employee joined the plan.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for Boeing Model 767–2C series
This action is effective on The Boeing Company on February 26, 2015. We must receive your comments by April 13, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2014–0710 using any of the following methods:
Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1298; facsimile (425) 227–1320.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On January 18, 2010, Boeing applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. A1NM to include a new Model 767–2CX series airplane, a derivative of the 767–200, which later was renamed 767–2C. Later, Boeing requested, and the FAA approved, an extension to the date of application for FAA amended type certification to December 22, 2010.
The Model 767–2C is a freighter airplane equipped with Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engines. This freighter has a maximum takeoff weight of 415,000 pounds and can be configured to carry up to 11 supernumeraries (see Exemption No. 10691).
The regulations listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type-certification basis.” The regulations to be listed in A1NM are as follows:
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Boeing Model 767–2C series airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–130, and 14 CFR 25.1316 at Amendment 25–134, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. These regulations will be listed in Type Certificate No. A1NM after type-certification approval of the 767–2C.
14 CFR part 26 as amended by Amendments 26–1 through 26–6, and any later amendments in existence at the time of certification per 14 CFR 26.5. For any future part 26 Amendments, the holder of this type certificate must demonstrate compliance with the applicable sections.
14 CFR part 34 as amended by Amendments 34–1 through 34–5A, and any later amendments in existence at the time of certification.
14 CFR part 36 as amended by Amendments 36–1 through 36–29, and any later amendments in existence at the time of certification.
The certification basis also includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 767–2C series airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.
The Boeing Model 767–2C series airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
The electronic-system network architecture for the Model 767–2C series airplane introduces potential security risks and vulnerabilities not addressed in current regulations and airplane-level or system-level safety-assessment methods.
This network architecture allows connection to previously isolated data networks connected to systems that perform functions required for the safe operation of the airplane. This data network and design integration may result in security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional internal-connection corruption of data and systems critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.
The Boeing Model 767–2C series airplane design introduces the potential for unauthorized persons to access, from internal connection, airplane-control domain and operator-information-services domain in the passenger-services domain. The Model 767–2C design further introduces the potential for security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of viruses, worms, user mistakes, and intentional sabotage of airplane networks, systems, and databases. As such, these special conditions address these vulnerabilities.
The digital systems architecture for the Boeing Model 767–2C series airplanes is composed of several connected networks. This network architecture is used for a diverse set of functions, including:
1. Flight-safety related control and navigation systems,
2. operator business and administrative support, and
3. passenger entertainment.
The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate this type of system architecture or electronic access to airplane systems. Furthermore, regulations, and current system safety-assessment policy and techniques, do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be caused by unauthorized access to airplane data buses and servers. These special conditions are meant to ensure that security, integrity, and availability of airplane systems are not compromised by certain wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane data busses and networks.
Special conditions have been applied on past airplane programs to require consideration of related security vulnerabilities. These special conditions are similar to those previously applied, except that the scope has been adjusted to be consistent with those features unique to the Model 767–2C series airplane.
As discussed above, these special conditions apply to Boeing Model 767–2C series airplanes. Should Boeing apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances, and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type-certification basis for Boeing Model 767–2C series airplanes.
1. The applicant must ensure that the design provides isolation from, or airplane electronic-system security protection against, access by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required for safe flight and operations.
2. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic-system security safeguards.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for Boeing Model 767–2C series airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by The Boeing Company, will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with airplane electronic-system security protection or isolation from unauthorized external access. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on The Boeing Company on February 26, 2015. We must receive your comments by April 13, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2014–0711 using any of the following methods:
Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1298; facsimile (425) 227–1320.
The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplane. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On January 18, 2010, Boeing applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. A1NM to include a new Model 767–2CX series airplane, a derivative of the 767–200, which later was renamed 767–2C. Later, Boeing requested, and the FAA approved, an extension to the date of application for FAA amended type certification to December 22, 2010.
The Model 767–2C is a freighter airplane equipped with Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engines. This freighter has a maximum takeoff weight of 415,000 pounds and can be configured to carry up to 11 supernumeraries (see Exemption No. 10691).
The regulations listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type-certification basis.” The regulations to be listed in A1NM are as follows:
Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Boeing Model 767–2C series airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–130, and 14 CFR 25.1316 at Amendment 25–134, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. These regulations will be listed in Type Certificate No. A1NM after type-certification approval of the 767–2C.
14 CFR part 26 as amended by Amendments 26–1 through 26–6, and any later amendments in existence at the time of certification per 14 CFR 26.5. For any future part 26 Amendments, the holder of this type certificate must demonstrate compliance with the applicable sections.
14 CFR part 34 as amended by Amendments 34–1 through 34–5A, and any later amendments in existence at the time of certification.
14 CFR part 36 as amended by Amendments 36–1 through 36–29, and any later amendments in existence at the time of certification.
The certification basis also includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 767–2C series airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.
The Boeing Model 767–2C series airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
The electronic-system network architecture for the Model 767–2C series airplane introduces potential security risks and vulnerabilities not addressed in current regulations and airplane-level or system-level safety-assessment methods. This network architecture allows connection to airplane electronic systems and networks, and access from airplane external sources (
The Boeing Model 767–2C series airplane design introduces the potential for unauthorized persons to access airplane-control domain and operator-information-services domain in the passenger-services domain. The 767–2C design further introduces the potential for security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of viruses, worms, user mistakes, and intentional sabotage of airplane networks, systems, and
The digital systems architecture for the Boeing Model 767–2C series airplanes is composed of several connected networks. This network architecture is used for a diverse set of functions providing data connectivity between systems, including:
1. Airplane control, communication, display, monitoring and navigation systems,
2. operator business and administrative support systems,
3. passenger entertainment systems, and
4. access by systems external to the airplane.
The Model 767–2C series airplane electronic-system network architecture allows connection to airplane electronic systems and networks, and access from airplane external sources (
This design may result in network-security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and systems required for the safety, operations, and maintenance of the airplane. The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate this type of system architecture, or external wired and wireless electronic access to airplane electronic systems. Furthermore, regulations, and current system safety-assessment policy and techniques, do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be caused by unauthorized access to airplane electronic systems and networks.
Special conditions have been applied on past airplane programs to require consideration of related security vulnerabilities. These special conditions are similar to those previously applied, except that the scope has been adjusted to be consistent with those features unique to the Model 767–2C series airplane.
As discussed above, these special conditions apply to Boeing Model 767–2C series airplanes. Should Boeing apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances, and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type-certification basis for Boeing Model 767–2C series airplanes.
1. The applicant must ensure airplane electronic-system security protection from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
2. The applicant must ensure that electronic-system security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic-system security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.
3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is maintained, including all post type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic-system security safeguards.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order, and will be part of the codified language for the Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.
This order is effective February 26, 2015. The classification was applicable June 6, 2014.
Michael Bailey, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G120, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–6530.
In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i), to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.
Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112–144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1), the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device, or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk”, or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.
In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.
On August 3, 2012, FDA issued an order classifying the EEVA System into class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. On August 23, 2012, Auxogyn, Inc., submitted a de novo request for classification of the EEVA System under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).
In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on June 6, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding § 884.6195 (21 CFR 884.6195).
Following the effective date of this final classification administrative order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for an Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System will need to comply with the special controls named in the final administrative order.
The device is assigned the generic name Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System, and it is identified as a prescription device that is designed to obtain and analyze light microscopy images of developing embryos. This device provides information to aid in the selection of embryo(s) for transfer when there are multiple embryos deemed suitable for transfer or freezing.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in Table 1:
FDA believes that the following special controls, in addition to the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness:
An Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System is a prescription device restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device. (See 21 CFR 801.109 (
Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the Assisted Reproduction Embryo Image Assessment System they intend to market.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final administrative order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other 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 part 807, subpart E regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0120 and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910–0485.
The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Medical devices, Obstetrical and Gynecological devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 884 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device to predict embryo development. Classification performance (sensitivity and specificity) and predictive accuracy (Positive Predictive Value and Negative Predictive Value) must be assessed at the subject and embryo levels.
(2) Software validation, verification, and hazard analysis must be provided.
(3) Non-clinical performance testing data must demonstrate the performance characteristics of the device. Testing must include the following:
(i) Total light exposure and output testing;
(ii) A safety analysis must be performed based on maximum (worst-case) light exposure to embryos, which also includes the safety of the light wavelength(s) emitted by the device;
(iii) Simulated-use testing;
(iv) Mouse Embryo Assay testing to assess whether device operation impacts growth and development of mouse embryos to the blastocyst stage;
(v) Cleaning and disinfection validation of reusable components;
(vi) Package integrity and transit testing;
(vii) Hardware fail-safe validation;
(viii) Electrical equipment safety and electromagnetic compatibility testing; and
(ix) Prediction algorithm reproducibility.
(4) Labeling must include the following:
(i) A detailed summary of clinical performance testing, including any adverse events;
(ii) Specific instructions, warnings, precautions, and training needed for safe use of the device
(iii) Appropriate electromagnetic compatibility information;
(iv) Validated methods and instructions for cleaning and disinfection of reusable components; and
(v) Information identifying compatible cultureware and explain how they are used with the device.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations.
This document contains temporary regulations that provide rules for the definition of a covered entity for purposes of the fee imposed by section 9010 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended. The temporary regulations are necessary to clarify certain terms in section 9010. The temporary regulations affect persons engaged in the business of providing health insurance for United States health risks. The text of the temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations (REG–143416–14) published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the
Rachel S. Smith, (202) 317–6855 (not a toll-free number).
Section 9010 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Public Law 111–148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)), as amended by section 10905 of PPACA, and as further amended by section 1406 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111–152 (124 Stat. 1029 (2010)) (collectively, the Affordable Care Act or ACA) imposes an annual fee on covered entities that provide health insurance for United States health risks. All references in this preamble to section 9010 are references to the ACA. Section 9010 did not amend the Internal Revenue Code (Code) but contains cross-references to specified Code sections. Unless otherwise indicated, all other references to subtitles, chapters, subchapters, and sections in this preamble are references to subtitles, chapters, subchapters, and sections in the Code and related regulations. All references to “fee” in this preamble are references to the fee imposed by section 9010.
On November 27, 2013, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued the Health Insurance Providers Fee regulations as final regulations (TD 9643). On August 12, 2014, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 2014–47, 2014–35 IRB 522, to provide further guidance for the 2014 fee year on the definition of a covered entity. The temporary regulations provide further guidance on the definition of a covered entity for the 2015 fee year and subsequent fee years.
Section 9010(a) imposes an annual fee on each covered entity engaged in the business of providing health insurance. The fee is due by the annual date specified by the Secretary, but in no event later than September 30th of each calendar year in which a fee must be paid (fee year).
Section 9010(b) requires the Secretary to determine the annual fee for each covered entity based on the ratio of the covered entity's net premiums written for health insurance for any United States health risk that are taken into account for the calendar year immediately before the fee year (data year) to the aggregate net premiums written for health insurance of United States health risks of all covered entities that are taken into account during the data year. In calculating the fee, the Secretary must determine each covered entity's net premiums written for United States health risks based on reports submitted to the Secretary by the covered entity and through the use of any other source of information available to the Secretary.
Section 9010(c)(1) defines a covered entity as any entity that provides health insurance for any United States health risk during each fee year. Section 9010(c)(2) excludes the following entities from being covered entities: (A) Any employer to the extent that the employer self-insures its employees' health risks; (B) any governmental entity; (C) any entity (i) that is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under a State law, (ii) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section 501(h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, and (iii) more than 80 percent of the gross revenues of which is received from government programs that target low income, elderly, or disabled populations under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act; and (D) any entity that is described in section 501(c)(9) (a voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA)) and is established by an entity (other than by an employer or employers) for purposes of providing health care benefits.
Section 9010(c)(3)(A) provides a controlled group rule under which all persons treated as a single employer under section 52(a) or (b) or section 414(m) or (o) are treated as a single covered entity. Section 9010(c)(4) provides that, if more than one person is liable to pay the fee on a single covered entity by reason of the application of the controlled group rule, then all such persons are jointly and severally liable for payment of the fee.
Section 57.2(c)(1) of the Health Insurance Providers Fee regulations defines the term
Following the publication of the final regulations in TD 9643, the Treasury Department and the IRS received questions about how to apply the exclusions under section 9010(c)(2) to the general definition of a covered entity. The Treasury Department and the IRS also received questions about whether covered entities must report information on net premiums written for certain members of a controlled group. Notice 2014–47 was subsequently issued to resolve those questions for the 2014 fee year. The temporary regulations adopt the general approach of Notice 2014–47 to resolve those questions for the 2015 fee year and each subsequent fee year.
Notice 2014–47 provided that, for the 2014 fee year, the Treasury Department and the IRS would not treat any entity as a covered entity if it would be
The temporary regulations amend the rules in the existing Health Insurance Providers Fee regulations to incorporate the general approach in Notice 2014–47. Specifically, the temporary regulations provide that, for the 2015 fee year and each subsequent fee year, an entity qualifies for an exclusion under section 9010(c)(2) if it qualifies for an exclusion either for the entire data year ending on the prior December 31st or for the entire fee year beginning on January 1st. An entity that qualifies for an exclusion under this rule is not a covered entity for that fee year and must not report its net premiums written.
The temporary regulations also impose two additional requirements. First, the temporary regulations generally impose a consistency requirement that binds an entity to its original selection of either the data year or the fee year (its test year) to determine whether it qualifies for an exclusion under section 9010(c)(2) for the 2015 fee year and each subsequent fee year. For example, if an entity selects the 2014 data year as its test year for the 2015 fee year, it must use the data year as its test year for the 2016 fee year and each subsequent fee year.
Second, the temporary regulations impose a special rule for an entity that uses the fee year as its test year. A special rule is important in this context because the fee is due by September 30th of the fee year, and it may not be clear until the end of the fee year whether an entity will in fact qualify for an exclusion. If an entity using the fee year as its test year does not report its net premiums written because it expects to qualify for an exclusion under section 9010(c)(2), but the entity ultimately does not qualify for an exclusion, the temporary regulations require the entity to use the data year as its test year in all subsequent fee years. In this circumstance, the entity will necessarily be a covered entity that is required to report its net premiums written for the immediately following fee year. In addition, an entity that does not timely file a report in a fee year, and that is a covered entity for that fee year because it does not qualify for an exclusion, may be subject to penalties, including the failure to report penalty under section 9010(g)(2).
For example, assume that for the 2015 fee year an entity used the fee year as its test year and reasonably expected to qualify for the section 9010(c)(2)(C) exclusion for that fee year. As a result, the entity did not report its net premiums written and it was not treated as a covered entity for purposes of the 2015 fee calculation. Further assume that as of December 31, 2015, the entity did not satisfy the 80 percent minimum gross revenues requirement of section 9010(c)(2)(C)(iii) and therefore did not qualify for this or any other exclusion under section 9010(c)(2) for the 2015 fee year. Under the temporary regulations, this entity must use the data year for each subsequent fee year to determine whether it qualifies for an exclusion under section 9010(c)(2). Thus, for the 2016 fee year, because this entity must determine its eligibility for an exclusion based on the 2015 data year, it would not be eligible for an exclusion under section 9010(c)(2) for the 2016 fee year and must submit a report in that year. This entity must also use the data year as its test year for the 2017 fee year and each subsequent fee year.
The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments regarding whether there are any circumstances in which an entity should be permitted by the IRS to change its test year, and if so, what conditions and limitations should apply to any such change.
Notice 2014–47 provided that a controlled group must report net premiums written only for each person who is a controlled group member at the end of the day on December 31st of the data year and who would qualify as a covered entity in the fee year if it were a single-person covered entity (that is, not a member of a controlled group). The temporary regulations incorporate this rule for the 2015 fee year and each subsequent fee year. Therefore, a controlled group must not report net premiums written for any controlled group member who would fail to be a covered entity in the fee year if it were not a member of a controlled group. Although that person's net premiums written are not taken into account, it remains a member of the controlled group and is jointly and severally liable for the fee amount allocated to the controlled group.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these temporary regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small businesses.
The principal author of these regulations is Rachel S. Smith, IRS Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Health Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 57 is amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805; sec. 9010, Public Law 111–148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)).
The addition and revision read as follows:
(b) * * *
(3) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 57.2T(b)(3).
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance see § 57.2T(c)(3)(ii).
(a) through (b)(2) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 57.2(a) through (b)(2).
(3)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)(4) through (c)(3)(i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 57.2(b)(4) through (c)(3)(i).
(ii) A person is treated as being a member of the controlled group if it is a member of the group at the end of the day on December 31st of the data year. However, a person's net premiums written are included in net premiums written for the controlled group only if the person would qualify as a covered entity in the fee year if the person were not a member of the controlled group.
(d) through (n) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 52.7(d) through (n).
(a)
(b) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 57.10T(b).
(a) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 57.10(a).
(b)
(c)
Department of the Army, DoD.
Direct final rule.
The Department of the Army is amending the Army Privacy Program Regulation. Specifically, Army is reinstating exemptions that were mistakenly deleted when the Army's Privacy Program Regulation was last revised. These rules provide policies and procedures for the Army's implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
This direct final rule makes changes to the Department of the Army's Privacy Program rules. These changes will allow the Department to exempt records from certain portions of the Privacy Act. This will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD's program by preserving the exempt status of the records when the purposes underlying the exemption are valid and necessary to protect the contents of the records.
This rule is being published as a direct final rule as the Department of Defense does not expect to receive any adverse comments, and so a proposed rule is unnecessary.
The revisions to these rules are part of DoD's retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563 completed in August 2011. DoD's full plan can be accessed at
The rule will be effective on May 7, 2015 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before April 27, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal:
• Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350–3100.
Ms. Tracy Rogers, Chief, FOIA/PA, telephone: 703–428–6513.
DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves changes dealing with DoD's management of its Privacy Programs. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
a. These rules provide policies and procedures for Army's implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.
b. Authority: Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93–579, Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
The Army is reinstating and adding exemption rules in the exemptions section.
This regulatory action imposes no monetary costs to the Agency or public. The benefit to the public is the accurate reflection of the Agency's Privacy Program to ensure that policies and procedures are known to the public.
It has been determined that Privacy Act rules for the Department of Defense are not significant rules. This rule does not (1) have 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; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive Orders.
It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense does not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act within the Department of Defense.
It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense imposes no information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
It has been determined that this Privacy Act rulemaking for the Department of Defense does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
It has been determined that the Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense does not have federalism implications. The rule 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.
Privacy.
Accordingly 32 CFR part 505 is amended as follows:
Pub. L. 93–579, Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Information compiled to identify individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders, which consists only of identifying data and arrest records; type and disposition of charges; sentencing, confinement, and release records; and parole and probation status;
(2) Information compiled for the purpose of criminal investigation including reports of informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable individual; or
(3) Reports identifiable to an individual, compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws, from arrest or indictment through release from supervision.
(d)
(1) Classified information in every Army system of records. Before denying any individual access to classified information, the Access and Amendment Refusal Authority must make sure that it was properly classified under the standards of Executive Orders 11652, 12065, or 12958 and that it must remain so in the interest of national defense of foreign policy (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1)).
(2) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes (other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if this information has been used to deny someone a right, privilege or benefit to which the individual is entitled by Federal law, or for which an individual would otherwise be eligible as a result of the maintenance of the information, it must be released, unless doing so would reveal the identity of a confidential source. Note: When claimed, this exemption allows limited protection of investigative reports maintained in a system of records used in personnel or administrative actions.
(3) Records maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or other individuals protected pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C., section 3056 (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(3)).
(4) Records maintained solely for statistical research or program evaluation purposes and which are not used to make decisions on the rights, benefits, or entitlements of individuals, except for census records which may be disclosed under Title 13 U.S.C., section 8 (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(4)).
(5) Investigatory material compiled solely to determine suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information. This information may be withheld only to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5)).
(6) Testing or examination material used solely to determine if a person is qualified for appointment or promotion in the Federal service. This information may be withheld only if disclosure would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the examination process (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6)).
(7) Evaluation material used solely to determine promotion potential in the Armed Forces. Information may be withheld, but only to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source (5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(7)).
(e)
(f) The Army system of records notices for a particular type of record will state whether the Secretary of the Army has authorized a particular general and specific exemption to a certain type of record. The Army system of records notices are published on the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division's Web site:
(g)
(1) System identifier: A0020–1 SAIG.
(i) System name: Inspector General Records.
(ii) Exemptions: (A) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(B) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and(k)(5).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d) because access to such records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violations of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information is retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(2) System identifier: A0 025–400–2 0AA.
(i) System name: Army Records Information Management System (ARIMS)
(ii) Exemption: During the course of records management, declassification and claims research, exempt materials from other systems of records may in turn become part of the case record in this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those “other” systems of records are entered into this system, the Department of the Army hereby claims the same exemptions for the records from those “other” systems.
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2) and (k)(1) through (k)(7).
(iv) Reasons: Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent such provisions have been identified and an exemption claimed for the original record and the purposes underlying the exemption for the original record still pertain to the record which is now contained in this system of records. In general, the exemptions were claimed in order to protect properly classified information relating to national defense and foreign policy, to avoid interference during the conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative actions or investigations, to ensure protective services provided to the President and others are not compromised, to protect records used solely as statistical records, to protect the identity of confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations, to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of Federal testing materials, and to safeguard evaluation materials used for military promotions when furnished by a confidential source. The exemption rule for the original records will identify the specific reasons why the records may be exempt from specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.
(3) System identifier: A0025–55 OAA.
(i) System name: Freedom of Information Act Program Files.
(ii) Exemption: During the processing of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, exempt materials from other systems of records may in turn become part of the case record in this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those “other” systems of records are entered into this system, the Department of the Army claims the same exemptions for the records from those “other” systems.
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(1) through (k)(7).
(iv) Reasons: Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent such provisions have been identified and an exemption claimed for the original record and the purposes underlying the exemption for the original record still pertain to the record which is now contained in this system of records. In general, the exemptions were claimed in order to protect properly classified information relating to national defense and foreign policy, to avoid interference during the conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative actions or investigations, to ensure protective services provided to the President and others are not compromised, to protect records used solely as statistical records, to protect the identity of confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations, to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of Federal testing materials, and to safeguard evaluation materials used for military promotions when furnished by a confidential source. The exemption rule for the original records will identify the specific reasons why the records may be exempt from specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.
(4) System identifier: A0027–1 DAJA.
(i) System name: General Legal Files.
(ii) Exemption: (A) Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(B) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(D) Testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), if the disclosure would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the test or examination process.
(E) Evaluation material used to determine potential for promotion in the Military Services may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(7), but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(F) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(5), (k)(6), and (k)(7).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d) because access to such records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violations of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information is retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(5) System identifier: A0027–10a DAJA.
(i) System name: Military Justice Files.
(ii) Exemptions: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reason: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal investigation the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light and the accuracy of such information can only be determined in a court of law. The restrictions of subsection (e)(5) would restrict the ability of trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment in reporting on investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(6) System identifier: A0027–10b DAJA.
(i) System name: Courts-Martial Records and Reviews.
(ii) Exemptions: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light and the accuracy of such information can only be determined in a court of law. The restrictions of subsection (e)(5) would restrict the ability of trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment in reporting on investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(7) System identifier: A0040–5b DASG.
(i) System name: Army Public Health Data Repository (APHDR).
(ii) Exemption: (A) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(B) Records maintained solely for statistical research or program evaluation purposes and which are not used to make decisions on the rights, benefits, or entitlement of an individual except for census records which may be disclosed under 13 U.S.C. 8, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(4).
(C) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(4) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(4)
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violations of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information is retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(8) System identifier: A0190–5 OPMG.
(i) System name: Vehicle Registration System.
(ii) Exemption: Parts of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its primary function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light and the accuracy of such information can only be determined in a court of law. The restrictions of subsection (e)(5) would restrict the ability of trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment reporting on investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(9) System identifier: A0190–9 OPMG.
(i) System name: Absentee Case Files.
(ii) Exemption: Parts of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light and the accuracy of such information can only be determined in a court of law. The restrictions of subsection (e)(5) would restrict the ability of trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment reporting on investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(10) System identifier: A0190–14 OPMG.
(i) System name: Registration and Permit Files.
(ii) Exemption: Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violations of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information is retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(11) System identifier: A0190–45 OPMG.
(i) System name: Military Police Reporting Program Records (MPRP).
(ii) Exemptions: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of the system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light and the accuracy of such information can only be determined in a court of law. The restrictions of subsection (e)(5) would restrict the ability of trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment reporting on investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(12) System identifier: A0190–45a OPMG.
(i) System name: Local Criminal Intelligence Files.
(ii) Exemptions: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of the system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light and the accuracy of such information can only be determined in a court of law. The restrictions of subsection (e)(5) would restrict the ability of trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment reporting on investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(13) System identifier: A0190–45b OPMG.
(i) System Name: Serious Incident Reporting Files.
(ii) Exemptions: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of the system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light and the accuracy of such information can only be determined in a court of law. The restrictions of subsection (e)(5) would restrict the ability of trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment reporting on investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(14) System identifier: A0190–47 DAPM–ACC.
(i) System Name: Army Corrections System and Parole Board Records.
(ii) Exemptions: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of the system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal or other law enforcement investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would alert the subject as to the nature or existence of the investigation and thereby present a serious impediment to effective law enforcement.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light and the accuracy of such information can only be determined in a court of law. The restrictions of subsection (e)(5) would restrict the ability of trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment reporting on investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(15) System identifier: A0195–2a USACIDC.
(i) System name: Source Register.
(ii) Exemption: (A): Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection
(d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(16) System identifier: A0195–2b USACIDC.
(i) System name: Criminal Investigation and Crime Laboratory Files.
(ii) Exemption: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsections (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this information be retained since it can aid in establishing patters of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal or other law enforcement investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would alert the subject as to the nature or existence of the investigation and thereby present a serious impediment to effective law enforcement.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsections (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because the requirement that records be maintained with attention to accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness would unfairly hamper the investigative process. It is the nature of law enforcement for investigations to uncover the commission of illegal acts at diverse stages. It is frequently impossible to determine initially what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and least of all complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the notice requirements of this provision could present a serious impediment to criminal law enforcement by revealing investigative techniques, procedures, and the existence of confidential investigations.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(17) System identifier: A0195–2c USACIDC DoD.
(i) System name: DoD Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) Files.
(ii) Exemption: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency, which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this information be retained since it can aid in establishing patters of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal or other law enforcement investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would alert the subject as to the nature or existence of the investigation and thereby present a serious impediment to effective law enforcement.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because the requirement that records be maintained with attention to accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness would unfairly hamper the investigative process. It is the nature of law enforcement for investigations to uncover the commission of illegal acts at diverse stages. It is frequently impossible to determine initially what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and least of all complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the notice requirements of this provision could present a serious impediment to criminal law enforcement by revealing investigative techniques, procedures, and the existence of confidential investigations.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(18) System identifier: A0195–2d USACIDC DoD.
(i) System name: Defense Criminal Investigation DNA Database and Sample Repository; CODIS Records.
(ii) Exemption: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency that performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light and the accuracy of such information can only be determined in a court of law. The restrictions of subsection (e)(5) would restrict the ability of trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment reporting on investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(19) System identifier: A0195–6 USACIDC.
(i) System name: Criminal Investigation Accreditation and Polygraph Examiner Evaluation Files.
(ii) Exemption: (A) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(B) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) Evaluation material used to determine potential for promotion in the Military Services may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(7), but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(D) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), (k)(5), or (k)(7) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), (k)(5), and (k)(7).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsections (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d), because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(20) System identifier: A02107 DAMO.
(i) System name: Expelled or Barred Person Files.
(ii) Exemption: Parts of this system may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) if the information is compiled and maintained by a component of the agency, which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(8), (f) and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(J) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(K) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(21) System identifier: A0340–21 OAA.
(i) System name: Privacy Case Files.
(ii) Exemption: During the processing of a Privacy Act request (which may include access requests, amendment requests, and requests for review for initial denials of such requests), exempt materials from other systems of records may in turn become part of the case record in this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those `other' systems of records are entered into this system, the Department of the Army hereby claims the same exemptions.
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), and (k)(1) through (k)(7).
(iv) Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent such provisions have been identified and an exemption claimed for the original record and the purposes underlying the exemption for the original record still pertain to the record which is now contained in this system of records. In general, the exemptions were claimed in order to protect properly classified information relating to national defense and foreign policy, to avoid interference during the conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative actions or investigations, to ensure protective services provided to the President and others are not compromised, to protect records used solely as statistical records, to protect the identity of confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations, and to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of Federal evaluation materials. The exemption rule for the original records will identify the specific reasons why the records may be exempt from specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.
(22) System identifier: A0351–12 DAPE.
(i) System name: Applicants/Students, U.S. Military Academy Prep School.
(ii) Exemption: (A) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(B) Evaluation material used to determine potential for promotion in the Military Services may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(7), but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) It is imperative that the confidential nature of evaluation material on individuals, furnished to the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School under an express promise of confidentiality, be maintained to ensure the candid presentation of information necessary in determinations involving admission to or retention at the United States Military Academy and suitability for commissioned military service.
(D) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) and (k)(7) subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) and (k)(7).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsections (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d), because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(23) System identifier: A0351–17a USMA.
(i) System name: U.S. Military Academy Candidate Files.
(ii) Exemption: (A) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(B) Testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), if the disclosure would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the test or examination process.
(C) Evaluation material used to determine potential for promotion in the Military Services may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(7), but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(D) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), (k)(6) or (k)(7) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), (k)(6) and (k)(7).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsections (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d), because access to the records contained in this system would
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(24) System identifier: A0351–17b USMA.
(i) System name: U.S. Military Academy Management System Records.
(ii) Exemption: (A) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(B) Evaluation material used to determine potential for promotion in the Military Services may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(7), but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) It is imperative that the confidential nature of evaluation and investigatory material on candidates, cadets, and graduates, furnished to the United States Military Academy under a promise of confidentiality be maintained to ensure the candid presentation of information necessary in determinations involving admissions to the Military Academy and suitability for commissioned service and future promotion.
(D) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) or (k)(7) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) and (k)(7).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsections (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d), because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(25) System identifier: A0380–67 DAMI.
(i) System name: Personnel Security Clearance Information Files.
(ii) Exemption: (A) Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(B) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(D) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(5) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I) and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(5).
(iv) Reasons: From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d), because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(26) System identifier: A0381–20b DAMI.
(i) System name: Foreign Intelligence/Counterintelligence/Information Operations/Security Files
(ii) Exemption: (A) Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(B) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(D) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2) and (k)(5) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
(E) To the extent that copies of exempt records from external systems of records are entered into A0381–10b DAMI, the Army
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), and (k)(1) through (k)(7).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d), because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(G) For records that are copies of exempt records from external systems of records, such records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent such provisions have been identified and an exemption claimed for the original record and the purposes underlying the exemption for the original record still pertain to the record which is now contained in this system of records. In general, the exemptions were claimed in order to protect properly classified information relating to national defense and foreign policy, to avoid interference during the conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative actions or investigations, to ensure protective services provided to the President and others are not compromised, to protect records used solely as statistical records, to protect the identity of confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations, to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of Federal testing materials, and to safeguard evaluation materials used for military promotions when furnished by a confidential source. The exemption rule for the original records will identify the specific reasons why the records are exempt from specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.
(27) System identifier: A0381–100a DAMI.
(i) System name: Intelligence/Counterintelligence Source Files.
(ii) Exemption: (A) Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(B) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(D) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(5) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d), because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(28) System identifier: A0381–100b DAMI.
(i) System name: Technical Surveillance Index.
(ii) Exemption: (A) Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(B) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(D) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(5) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2) or (k)(5).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d), because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(29) System identifier: A0600–20 DCSG–1.
(i) System name: Sexual Assault (SADMS) and Sexual Harassment (SHARP) Program Records.
(ii) Exemptions: This system of records is a compilation of information from other Department of Defense/Army systems of records. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those other systems of records are entered into this system of records, the Army G–1 hereby claims the same exemptions for the records from those other systems.
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), and (k)(1) through (k)(7).
(iv) Reasons: Records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent such provisions have been identified and an exemption claimed for the original record and the purposes underlying the exemption for the original record still pertain to the record which is now contained in this system of records. In general, the exemptions were claimed in order to protect properly classified information relating to national defense and foreign policy, to avoid interference during the conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative actions or investigations, to ensure protective services provided to the President and others are not compromised, to protect records used solely as statistical records, to protect the identity of confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations, to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of Federal testing materials, and to safeguard evaluation materials used for military promotions when furnished by a confidential source. The exemption rule for the original records will identify the specific reasons why the records may be exempt from specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.
(30) System identifier: A0601–141 DASG.
(i) System name: Applications for Appointment to Army Medical Department.
(ii) Exemption: Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source. Therefore, portions of the system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(k)(5) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d), because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(31) System identifier: A0601–210a USAREC.
(i) System name: Enlisted Eligibility Files.
(ii) Exemption: Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d), because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(32) System identifier: A0601–222 USMEPCOM.
(i) System name: Armed Services Military Accession Testing.
(ii) Exemption: Testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service or military service may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), if the disclosure would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the test or examination process. Therefore, portions of the system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), from subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(d).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6).
(iv) Reasons: An exemption is required for those portions of the Skill Qualification Test system pertaining to individual item responses and scoring keys to preclude compromise of the test and to ensure fairness and objectivity of the evaluation system.
(33) System identifier: A0608–18 DASG.
(i) System name: Army Family Advocacy Program Files.
(ii) Exemptions: (A) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(B) Investigative material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) Therefore, portions of the system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) or (k)(5) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I) and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5).
(iv) Reason: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d) because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because the requirements in those subsections are inapplicable to the extent that portions of this system of records may be exempt from subsection (d), concerning individual access.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(34) System identifier: A0614–115 DAMI.
(i) System name: Department of the Army Operational Support Activities.
(ii) Exemption: (A) Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(B) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(D) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), or (k)(5) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I) and (f).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (d), because access to the records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violation of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information be retained since it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.
(D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d), making these subsections not applicable.
(E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(35) System identifier: A0025–2 PMG (DFBA) DoD
(i) System name: Defense Biometrics Identification Records System
(ii) Exemptions: (A) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(B) Exempt materials from other sources listed above may become part of the case records in this system of records. To the extent that copies of exempt records from other sources listed above are entered into these case records, the Department of the Army hereby claims the same exemptions, (j)(2) and (k)(2), for the records as claimed by the source systems, specifically to the extent that copies of exempt records may become part of these records from JUSTICE/FBI–019 Terrorist Screening Records System, the Department of the Army hereby claims the same exemptions for the records as claimed at their source (JUSTICE/FBI–019, Terrorist Screening Records System).
(C) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8), (f), and (g).
(iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and(k)(2).
(iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or matter under investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(B) From subsection (c)(4) because an exemption is being claimed for subsection (d), making this subsection not applicable.
(C) From subsection (d) because access to such records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.
(D) From subsection (e)(1) because the nature of the criminal and/or civil investigative function creates unique problems in prescribing a specific parameter in a particular case with respect to what information is relevant or necessary. Also, information may be received which may relate to a case under the investigative jurisdiction of another agency. The maintenance of this information may be necessary to provide leads for appropriate law enforcement purposes and to establish patterns of activity that may relate to the jurisdiction of other cooperating agencies.
(E) From subsection (e)(2) because in a criminal investigation, the requirement that information be collected to the greatest extent possible from the subject individual would present a serious impediment to law enforcement in that the subject of the investigation would be placed on notice of the existence of the investigation and would therefore be able to avoid detection.
(F) From subsection (e)(3) because the requirement that individuals supplying information be provided with a form stating the requirements of subsection (e)(3) would constitute a serious impediment to law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation, reveal the identity of confidential sources of information and endanger the life and physical safety of confidential informants.
(G) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because the requirements in those subsections are inapplicable to the extent that portions of this system of records may be exempt from subsection (d), concerning individual access.
(H) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld in order to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.
(I) From subsection (e)(5) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. With the passage of time, seemingly irrelevant or untimely information may acquire new significance as further investigation brings new details to light and the accuracy of such information can only be determined in a court of law. The restrictions of subsection (e)(5) would restrict the ability of trained investigators and intelligence analysts to exercise their judgment in reporting on investigations and impede the development of intelligence necessary for effective law enforcement.
(J) From subsection (e)(8) because the individual notice requirements of subsection (e)(8) could present a serious impediment to law enforcement as this could interfere with the ability to issue search authorizations and could reveal investigative techniques and procedures.
(K) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).
(L) From subsection (g) because portions of this system of records are compiled for law enforcement purposes and have been exempted from the access provisions of subsections (d) and (f).
(h)
(1) Personnel Investigations Records (OPM/CENTRAL–9).
(i) Exemptions: (A) Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1–R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
(B) Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, the individual will be provided access to such information except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(C) Records maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or other individuals pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C., section 3056 may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(3).
(D) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(E) Testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), if the disclosure would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the test or examination process.
(F) Evaluation material used to determine potential for promotion in the Military Services may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(7), but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(G) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(5), (k)(6), or (k)(7) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (d).
(ii) Reasons: (A) Personnel investigations may obtain from another Federal agency, properly classified information which pertains to national defense and foreign policy. Application of exemption (k)(1) may be necessary to preclude the data subject's access to an amendment of such classified information under 5 U.S.C. 552a(d) in order to protect such information.
(B) Personnel investigations may contain investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes other than material within the scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2),
(C) Personnel investigations may obtain from another Federal agency, information that relates to providing protective services to the President of the United States or other individuals pursuant to section 3056 of title 18. Application of exemption (k)(3) may be necessary to preclude the data subject's access to or amendment of such records under 5 U.S.C. 552a(d) to ensure protective services provided to the President and others are not compromised.
(D) All information about individuals in these records that meets the criteria stated in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (d) in order to protect the identity of confidential sources incident to determinations of suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations.
(E) All material and information in the records that meets the criteria stated in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6) is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), relating to access to and amendment of records by the data subject in order to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of Federal testing materials.
(F) All material and information in the records that meets the criteria stated in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(7) is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), relating to access to and amendment of records by the data subject in order to safeguard evaluation materials used for military promotions when furnished by a confidential source.
(2) Recruiting, Examining, and Placement Records (OPM/GOVT–5).
(i) Exemptions: (A) Investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for federal civilian employment, military service, federal contracts, or access to classified information may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), but only to the extent that such material would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
(B) Testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), if the disclosure would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the test or examination process.
(C) Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), or (k)(6) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (d).
(ii) Reasons: (A) All information about individuals in these records that meets the criteria stated in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (d) in order to protect the identity of confidential sources incident to determinations of suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations. These exemptions are also claimed because this system contains investigative material compiled solely for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of a request for approval of an objection to an eligible individual's qualification for employment in the Federal service.
(B) All material and information in these records that meets the criteria stated in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6) are exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), relating to access and amendment of records by the subject, in order to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of Federal testing materials.
(3) Personnel Research Test Validation Records (OPM/GOVT–6).
(i) Exemptions: Testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6), if the disclosure would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the test or examination process. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(d).
(ii) Reasons: All material and information in these records that meets the criteria stated in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6) is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), relating to access to an amendment of the records by the data subject, in order to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of Federal testing materials.
(i) Twelve Exceptions to the “No Disclosure without Consent” rule of the Privacy Act.
(1) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(1)—To DoD officers and employees who have a need for the record in the performance of their official duties. This is the “official need to know” concept.
(2) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(2)—FOIA requires release of the information pursuant to 5. U.S.C. 552.
(3) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3)—For an authorized Routine Use,
(4) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(4)—To the Bureau of the Census to plan or carry out a census or survey, or related activity pursuant to Title 13 of the U.S. Code.
(5) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(5)—To a recipient who has provided the Department of the Army or DoD with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable.
(6) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(6)—To the National Archives and Records Administration as a record that has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the U.S. Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value. Note: Records transferred to the Federal Records Centers for storage remain under the control of the Department of the Army and no accounting for disclosure is required under the Privacy Act.
(7) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(7)—To another agency or instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity, if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the Department of the Army or DoD specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought.
(8) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(8)—To a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure, notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual.
(9) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(9)—To either House of Congress, or, to the extent the matter is within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, or any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee. Requests from a Congressional member acting on behalf of a constituent are not included in this exception, but may be covered by a routine use exception to the Privacy Act (See applicable Army system of records notice).
(10) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(10)—To the Comptroller General or authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the Government Accountability Office.
(11) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(11)—Pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction. The order must be signed by a judge.
(12) 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12)—To a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711(e) of Title 31 of the U.S. Code. The name, address, SSN, and other information identifying the individual; amount, status, and history of the claim; and the agency or program under which the case arose may be disclosed. However, before doing so, agencies must complete a series of steps designed to validate the debt and to offer the individual an opportunity to repay it.
(j)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised;
(2) The Component 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 the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and
(3) The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Component's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(16) Information Sharing Environment Routine Use. A record from a system of records maintained by a Component consisting of, or relating to, terrorism information (6 U.S.C. 485(a)(4)), homeland security information (6 U.S.C. 482(f)(1)), or law enforcement information (Guideline 2 Report attached to White House Memorandum, “Information Sharing Environment Reports,” November 22, 2006) may be disclosed to a Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign governmental and/or multinational agency, either in response to its request or upon the initiative of the Component, for purposes of sharing such information as is necessary and relevant for the agencies to the detection, prevention, disruption, preemption, and mitigation of the effects of terrorist activities against the territory, people, and interests of the United States of America as contemplated by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–458) and Executive Order 13388 (October 25, 2005).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from fugitive sources that was submitted to EPA on July 2, 2010. The SIP revision allows for a voluntary alternative work practice to detect fugitive emission leaks using optical gas imaging instruments under the EPA federal Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) requirements. The EPA is approving this SIP revision pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and consistent with EPA's guidance and regulations.
This rule is effective on April 27, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by March 30, 2015. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0611, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jennifer Huser, (214) 665–7347,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop and submit to EPA a SIP to ensure that state air quality meets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These NAAQS standards currently address six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Each federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin through air pollution regulations and control strategies. EPA-approved SIPs, including control strategies are federally enforceable. As needed, States revise the SIP and submit revisions to EPA for approval.
On July 2, 2010, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted revisions to the Texas SIP LDAR rules to allow a voluntary alternative work practice to detect fugitive emission leaks using optical gas imaging. The submitted SIP revisions amended Texas Administrative Code (TAC) at 30 TAC Chapters 115.322–115.326, 115.352–115.357, 115.781, 115.782, and 115.768–788, and added new 30 TAC Chapter 115.358 and 30 TAC Chapter 115.784, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds. The federal and state LDAR program is a fundamental aspect of air pollution control by reducing emissions from leaking piping components and instrumentation.
Section 172(c)(1) and 182 of the CAA require ozone nonattainment areas that are classified as moderate and above for ozone nonattainment to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirement for sources that are subject to Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) issued by EPA and for “major sources” of VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NO
The fugitive emission LDAR rules in 30 TAC Chapter 115 (denoted as 30 TAC 115), referenced above, fall under two general categories, and are incorporated into the SIP: 1) 30 TAC 115, Subchapter D, Divisions 2 and 3 cover general VOC fugitive emission LDAR rules and were adopted to satisfy reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements of the CAA (see 73 FR 10383, March 28, 2008 for Division 2 and 73 FR 40972, September 15, 2008 for Division 3); and 2) the highly-reactive volatile organic compounds (HRVOC) fugitive emission LDAR rules, in 30 TAC 115, Subchapter H, Division 3 were adopted as part of the HGB attainment demonstration for the one-hour ozone NAAQS (see 71 FR 52655, December 6, 2006). The revision incorporates the voluntary alternative work practice for both categories consistent with the alternative work practice adopted by the EPA on December 22, 2008 (73 FR 78199). For the first category, Subchapter D, Division 2 applies to petroleum refineries in Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria counties and 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapter D, Division 3 applies to the following facility types in the BPA, DFW, El Paso, and HGB areas as defined in 30 TAC 115.10: petroleum refineries; synthetic organic chemical, polymer, resin, or methyl-tert-butyl ether manufacturing processes; or natural gas/gasoline processing operations. For the second category, 30 TAC 115, Subchapter H, Division 3 applies to the following facility types in the HGB area as defined in 30 TAC 115.10 that have HRVOC as raw material, intermediate, final product, or in a waste stream: petroleum refineries; synthetic organic chemical, polymer, resin, or methyl-tert-butyl ether manufacturing processes; or natural gas/gasoline processing operations.
The SIP revision submitted by Texas is provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
The primary CAA requirements pertaining to the SIP revision submitted by Texas are found in CAA sections 110(l) and 182(b)(2). CAA section 110(l) requires that a SIP revision submitted to EPA be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) also requires that we not approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. CAA section 182(b)(2) requires that ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above implement RACT controls on all major VOC and NO
The alternative work practice is a voluntary alternative to hydrocarbon analyzers required by EPA Method 21 (See the technical support document (TSD) for more detail)
In its adopted rule, TCEQ made several substantive changes that were not required by the federal alternative work practice in 40 CFR part 60.18. These additional requirements were added by TCEQ to ensure that personnel using optical gas imaging instruments have adequate training and to address quality assurance and enforcement concerns with the federal alternative work practice in 40 CFR part 60.18. These changes include:
• Each person operating an optical gas imaging instrument for the purposes of the alternative work practice will be required to conduct the daily instrument check. [30 TAC 115.358(c)(2)]
• Owners or operators electing to use the alternative work practice will be required to submit notification to the appropriate TCEQ regional office at least 30 days prior to implementation. [30 TAC 115.358(g)]
• Operator training will be required for personnel performing the alternative work practice. [30 TAC 115.358(h)]
• A specific subset of components (
TCEQ also added provisions to the federal alternative work practice specifically to ensure there would be no backsliding for the HRVOC fugitive emission LDAR rules in 30 TAC 115, Subchapter H, Division 3. Those changes include:
• For leaks greater than 10,000 part per million by volume (ppmv), rapid repair times are required under 30 TAC 115.782(b) and extraordinary efforts must be undertaken within a shorter time period to qualify for delay of repair under 30 TAC 115.782(c). The rulemaking will require any leak detected using the alternative work practice to meet the more stringent repair time limits of 30 TAC 115.782(b) and (c) unless a Method 21 test is done to demonstrate that the leak is 10,000 ppmv or less.
• The rule will retain the third-party audit requirements of 30 TAC 115.788; however, an alternative audit procedure will be required if the company is using the alternative work practice.
• Consistent with EPA guidance, Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, EPA–453/R–95–017, November 1995, 30 TAC 115.782(c) requires companies to use EPA correlation equations for calculating emissions. For leaks detected using the alternative work practice, a company will be required to use the 100,000 ppmv pegged emission rates from the same section of the EPA guidance document currently referenced in the rule at 30 TAC 115.782(c)(1)(i)(II).
The SIP revision is approvable as it is consistent with the EPA federal LDAR rule that provides an alternative to required monitoring for fugitive components to ensure facilities identify and repair leaking equipment in a timely and effective manner to reduce fugitive air emissions. In addition the SIP revision improves upon the SIP-approved rules in that it provides for this voluntary alternative method for the detection of fugitive emissions from leaking components, as detailed in our TSD. Approval of this SIP revision would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Lastly, EPA's review indicates that the Texas AWP provisions are as stringent as or more stringent than the federal AWP and provide no relaxation of the state's rules for leak detection and repair.
We are taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that pertain to the control of air pollution from VOCs alternative LDAR work practice, adopted by the TCEQ on June 2, 2010, and submitted to the EPA on July 2, 2010. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with sections 110, 173 and 182 of the CAA and consistent with EPA's guidance and regulations.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP 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.
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 April 27, 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, Alternative work practice, Incorporation by reference, Leak detection and repair, Optical gas imaging, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving Indiana's State Plan to control air pollutants from “Other Solid Waste Incineration” (OSWI) units. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted the State Plan to EPA on November 27, 2007. The State Plan is consistent with Emission Guidelines (EG) promulgated by EPA on December 16, 2005. This approval means that EPA finds that the State Plan meets applicable Clean Air Act (Act) requirements for OSWI units for which construction commenced on or before December 4, 2004. Once effective, this approval also makes the State Plan Federally enforceable.
This direct final rule will be effective April 27, 2015, unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 30, 2015. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0554, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Margaret Sieffert, Environmental Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AT–18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–1151,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
On December 16, 2005, in accordance with sections 111 and 129 of the Act, EPA promulgated OSWI EGs and compliance schedules for the control of emissions from existing OSWI units.
Under section 111(d) of the Act, EPA is required to develop regulations for existing sources of noncriteria pollutants (
Under section 129(b)(2) of the Act and the regulations at Subpart FFFF, states with OSWI units must submit to EPA plans that implement the EGs. The plans must be at least as protective as the EGs, which are not Federally enforceable until EPA approves a State Plan (or promulgates a Federal Plan for implementation and enforcement).
40 CFR part 60, subpart B contains general provisions applicable to the adoption and submittal of State Plans for subject facilities under section 111(d), which would include OSWI units. On November 27, 2007, Indiana submitted its OSWI State Plan to EPA. This submission followed public hearings for preliminary adoption of the State Plan on December 6, 2006 and for final adoption on February 7, 2007. The State adopted the final Plan on February 7, 2007, and became effective on August 9, 2007. The Plan includes State rule 326 IAC 11–9, which establishes emission standards for existing OSWI. EPA was sued and subsequently State Plan submittals were put on hold. See
The State submittal is based on the OSWI EGs (§§ 60.2980–60.3078) and incorporates by reference significant portions of that rule. As prescribed by section 129 of the Act and in 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and FFFF, the State Plan addresses the nine required elements in 40 CFR 60.2983 as follows:
1. An inventory of affected OSWI units, including those that have ceased operation but have not been dismantled. Indiana has provided this.
2. An inventory of the emissions from each of the OSWI units. Indiana has provided this.
3. A compliance schedule for each affected incineration unit. Indiana has provided a compliance schedule and a compliance date of August 9, 2010.
4. For each affected incineration unit, emission limitations, operator training and qualification requirements, a waste management plan, and operating parameter requirements that are at least as protective as the emission guidelines contained in 40 CFR 60.2983. Indiana has accomplished this, through the incorporation by reference (IBR) in 326 IAC 11–9.
5. Stack testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Indiana has accomplished this, through the IBR in 326 IAC 11–9.
6. A transcript of the public hearing on the State Plan. Indiana has certified that such a hearing was held, and that there were no comments.
7. A provision for State progress reports to EPA. Indiana has stated that it will submit data and information using the EPA Aerometric Emissions Information Retrieval System. The manner and form of reporting will be coordinated with EPA, Region 5.
8. An identification of enforceable State mechanisms selected for implementing the EGs. Indiana has provided a detailed list which identified the enforceable mechanisms.
9. A demonstration of the State's legal authority to carry out sections 111(d) and 129 of the Act in its State Plan. Indiana has provided a detailed list which demonstrated that it has such legal authority. This includes the legal authority to incorporate by reference Federal EG provisions, as confirmed by an Indiana Attorney General's Opinion dated November 10, 2014.
EPA has evaluated the OSWI State Plan and related information submitted by Indiana for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations and policy. For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that the State Plan meets all applicable requirements and, therefore, is approving it.
EPA is approving the State Plan which Indiana submitted on November 27, 2007, for the control of emissions from existing OSWI sources in the State. EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), 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
In reviewing section 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 section 111(d)/129 plan submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a section 111(d)/129 plan submission, to use VCS in place of a section 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 27, 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 approving Indiana's section 111(d)/129 plan revision for SSI sources may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
On November 27, 2007, Indiana submitted the State Plan for implementing the Other Solid Waste Incineration Units (OSWI). The enforceable mechanism for this State Plan is a State rule codified in 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 11–9. The rule was adopted on February 7, 2007, and became effective on August 9, 2007.
The Indiana State Plan for existing Other Solid Waste Incineration (OSWI) units applies to all OSWI units as defined in § 60.3078 for which construction commenced on or before December 9, 2004 to comply with this subpart.
The Federal effective date of the Indiana State Plan for existing Sewage Sludge Incinerators is April 27, 2015.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Bret Gates, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–4133.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is adjusting rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes, which were last amended in March 2014. The adjustments establish new base rates made in accordance with a full ratemaking procedure. Additionally, the Coast Guard exercises the discretion provided by Step 7 of the Appendix A methodology. The result is an upward adjustment to close the gap between revenues projected by this rulemaking and those collected by the pilot associations. Our proposed rates planned to maintain parity with the Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Authority. While this continues to be our goal, we have since discovered a more significant challenge demonstrated by the recently completed revenue audits. This is a more pressing concern for the operation of safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes than maintaining parity because it demonstrates that the pilot associations are unable to properly fund their operations. Also, we are implementing temporary surcharges to accelerate recoupment of necessary and reasonable training and investment costs for the pilot associations. This final rule promotes the Coast Guard's strategic goal of maritime safety.
This final rule is effective August 1, 2015.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket USCG–2014–0481 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG–WWM–2), Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–2037, email
On September 4, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2015 Annual Review and Adjustment” in the
On December 1, 2014, we published the recently completed revenue audits of the pilot associations and reopened the public comment period in the
The basis of this final rule is the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (“the Act”) (46 U.S.C. Chapter 93), which requires U.S. vessels operating “on register”
The purpose of this final rule is to establish new base pilotage rates, using the methodology found in 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A.
The vessels affected by this final rule are those engaged in foreign trade upon the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. United States and Canadian “lakers,”
The U.S. waters of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway are divided into three pilotage districts. Pilotage in each district is provided by an association certified by the Coast Guard Director of Great Lakes Pilotage to operate a pilotage pool. It is important to note that we do not control the actual compensation that pilots receive. The actual compensation is determined by each of the three district associations, which use different compensation practices.
District One, consisting of Areas 1 and 2, includes all U.S. waters of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. District Two, consisting of Areas 4 and 5, includes all U.S. waters of Lake Erie, the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair, and the St. Clair River. District Three, consisting of Areas 6, 7, and 8, includes all U.S. waters of the St. Mary's River, Sault Ste. Marie Locks, and Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Superior. Area 3 is the Welland Canal, which is serviced exclusively by the Canadian Great Lakes Pilotage Association (GLPA) and, accordingly, is not included in the United States rate structure. Areas 1, 5, and 7 have been designated by Presidential Proclamation, pursuant to the Act, to be waters in which pilots must, at all times, be fully engaged in the navigation of vessels in their charge. Areas 2, 4, 6, and 8 have not been so designated because they are open bodies of water. While working in those undesignated areas, pilots must only “be on board and available to direct the navigation of the vessel at the discretion of and subject to the customary authority of the master.” 46 U.S.C. 9302(a) (1) (B).
This final rule is a full ratemaking to establish new base pilotage rates, using the methodology found in 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A (hereafter “Appendix A”). The last full ratemaking established the current base rates in March 2014 (79 FR 12084; Mar. 4, 2014). Among other things, the Appendix A methodology requires us to review detailed pilot association financial information, and we contract with independent accountants to assist in that review. We have now completed our review of the independent accountants' 2012 financial reports. The comments by the pilot associations on those reports and the independent accountants' final findings are discussed in our document titled “Summary—Independent Accountant's Report on Pilot Association Expenses, with Pilot Association Comments and Accountant's Responses,” which appears in the docket. In addition, we also use the independent accountant's review of pilot association revenues. The review, contracted by the Coast Guard, confirms the revenues of the pilot associations and it establishes a baseline of comparison between actual collected revenues and those projected by the rulemaking. The revenue reports also appear in the docket.
We received 10 public submissions in response to the initial public comment period of our NPRM.
In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed a 2.5 percent across the board rate increase for the three pilotage districts and varying surcharge levels across the three districts. However, due to the completion of the revenue audits during the initial comment period, the Coast Guard extended the comment period for 30 days for the public to comment on the revenue audits. We received an additional five comments to our supplementary comment period focusing on the revenue audits. Of all the comments we received, 10 came from pilots or pilot associations, 3 came from industry groups, and 2 came from the union whose contract data provides benchmark data for pilot compensation.
Based on the comments and revenue audits, the Coast Guard is implementing a 10 percent across the board rate increase for the three pilotage districts and a 10 percent surcharge for each district. The reasoning behind the changes follows. Any further changes involving the Appendix A methodology will be published for notice and comment in a future rulemaking.
Three commenters questioned various aspects of the ratemaking methodology. First, a pilot from the Western Great Lakes Pilots Association (WGLPA) questioned the application of bridge hours, as well as what the definition should include. We are currently working with the pilots, industry, and the American Pilots Association to finalize a new model to gauge necessary pilot strength. We plan to propose this model in a future rulemaking. We believe this coordinated, thorough process is needed to address the longstanding challenges with pilot recruitment and retention on the Great Lakes. Another pilot suggested that we need to incorporate multiple years of inflation in the rate to compensate for the time lapse between the conduct of the audits and the effective date of the rate. Under Step 1.C of the Appendix A methodology, the adjustment for inflation or deflation is a 1-year adjustment between the reported year (the audit year) and the succeeding navigation season. As we have stated in previous rulemakings, we are unable to incorporate a multiyear adjustment in the current methodology. We will consider changing this step in a future rulemaking.
Also, the same commenter questioned our application of benefits to the American Maritime Officers Union (AMOU) contract. This is a longstanding issue and the commenter argues that we should multiply first mate wages and benefits by 150 percent to determine designated waters compensation. We disagree and continue to maintain that the 150 percent applies only to wages; benefits are then added to the result. As part of our extensive review of the Appendix A methodology, we are actively seeking alternative compensation benchmarks to the AMOU contracts. Another commenter believes that compensation must exceed that of the AMOU in order to successfully recruit future pilots. We
Additionally, five commenters questioned use of our discretion under Step 7 of the Appendix A methodology. Two of those commenters, a member of industry and a pilot, disagree with our basis for Step 7 adjustments, citing insufficient support for our justification of parity adjustments under the Memorandum of Arrangements/Memorandum of Understanding (MOA/MOU) with Canada and Executive Order (E.O.) 13609. We disagree. The purpose of the MOA/MOU and E.O. 13609 is to work to better align U.S. and Canadian regulatory schemes. We agree that the new MOU has a less strict interpretation of parity, seeking comparable rates over identical ones. However, we believe that the revenue shortfall against projections uncovered in the recently completed audits calls for action. Our actions to seek comparable rates are undercut by overprojections and the inability of the current billing scheme to generate sufficient revenue to operate the pilotage associations. The third commenter, also a member of industry, asserts that the results of our calculations represent a “serious flaw” in the methodology. We plan to address the challenges with the current methodology in a future rulemaking. We neither believe the calculations resulting from the methodology in this rule are representative of economic conditions in the Great Lakes region, nor do they represent increased efficiencies of the pilot organizations. As such, we continue to utilize our Step 7 discretion to adjust them.
Another commenter stated that the Canadian GLPA is actually raising their rates only 1 percent rather than 2.5 percent as stated in the NPRM. While we continue to strive for comparability with Canadian rates, our greater concern currently is the gap in revenue. Thus, we seek to actively close the confirmed revenue gap between pilot association collections and Coast Guard projections by increasing the rate. The gap highlighted in the revenue audits points to an even greater disparity between U.S. and Canadian rates on the Great Lakes that must be addressed.
This leads into a discussion of the final commenter on the ratemaking methodology. The remaining commenter highlights the gap between revenues projected in the rate and those actually collected by the pilot association, as well as the second and third order effects of that gap. Based on a review of the recently completed revenue audits, we agree with the commenter that the gap between revenue projections in the rate and the revenues actually collected by the pilot associations presents an untenable situation. The revenue projections in the rate for each pilot association directly impact each association's ability to provide safe, efficient, and reliable service. Since the actual revenues collected by the associations fall well short of our projections, we are utilizing our Step 7 discretion to increase the rates in all areas by 10 percent. This rate increase will begin to address the significant shortfall in pilotage revenue against our projections. We believe that the current shortfall in revenue is a result of both bridge hour projections and a billing scheme that is not properly baselined to collect appropriate revenue. Rate increases to address the shortfall will continue to be separate and distinct from the temporary surcharges applied in the districts for training and investments.
Five commenters–three pilots or pilots' representatives and two officials from the AMOU–addressed our use of AMOU contracts to estimate average annual compensation for U.S. Registered Pilots in Step 2.A of our Appendix A ratemaking methodology. Since the application of these contracts is currently the subject of pending litigation, we refrain from addressing these comments and will continue to utilize the AMOU contract data as we did in the 2013 and 2014 ratemakings.
Eight commenters–seven pilots or pilot associations and one member of industry–addressed the proposed surcharges in the NPRM. We received a comment from the Lakes Pilots Association, Inc. supporting the proposed surcharge for District Two. Commenters from both District One and District Three stated that they require two additional pilot applicants each above their authorized strength to deal with personnel turnover. We agree with both commenters. The pilotage associations are facing a wave of retirements, both expected and unexpected, and these additional applicant pilots are necessary to ensure the system continues to operate smoothly. The long lead time for pilot training necessitates that the pilot associations begin training now to address current pilot retirements as well as those projected for the next 24 months. Thus, we are using our surcharge authority to fund applicant pilots that exceed the current authorized pilot strength of the associations. Based on how three associations plan to compensate the applicants and the costs associated with training, we have estimated that a 5 percent surcharge is necessary to fund each applicant pilot. As you will see in the following discussion, we have established a 10 percent surcharge for each district in order to accelerate the costs associated with training 2 applicant pilots.
In the case of District One, we agree with the need for two applicant pilots above their authorized strength of 11 pilots to ensure safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service. To fund these applicant pilots, we will increase their authorized surcharge to 10 percent.
We also agree with the need for two applicant pilots above their authorized strength of 15 pilots to ensure safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service in District Three. Accordingly, we will fund two additional applicants above their authorized pilot strength and increase their authorized surcharge to 10 percent. As mentioned above, in conjunction with stakeholders, we are developing a new pilotage strength model that we will provide for public comment in a future rulemaking.
Finally, a member of industry questioned the need for pilot training surcharges and the authority to charge for expenses not yet incurred. The Coast Guard has the authority to prescribe rates and charges pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 9303. Temporary surcharge authority was implemented through regulation in the 2014 ratemaking cycle. See 78 FR 48376. The surcharges include funds for
We received three comments on the revenue audits—two from pilots and one from industry. Both pilot commenters approved of the revenue audits and asked the Coast Guard to adjust for the differences between actual and projected revenues. We agree with these comments and have adjusted our rate increase to 10 percent across all districts to begin aligning actual and projected revenues. Our discussion in Step 7 provides additional discussion on this topic. It is clear that the audits for the 2013 Appendix A rulemaking demonstrate a significant shortfall. Since we only have a single data point, we plan to increase the base rate to fill this gap over a multi-year period. Ten percent is reasonable because this is greater than inflation and begins to align the revenues needed to provide safe, efficient, and reliable service with the actual revenues that our rulemakings generate. We will also work to address this discrepancy in a future rulemaking regarding the methodology. We discuss this further in Step 7 of the methodology. The industry commenter disapproves of the open-ended nature of the comment period, seeking further clarity regarding our plan for use of the revenue audits and a better explanation of our use of discretion. We disagree. The comment period was set up to allow access by all parties to the revenue audits and to provide feedback to the Coast Guard regarding their review and incorporation into the ratemaking methodology. The revenue audits clearly point to a shortcoming in the billing scheme and methodology that significantly reduces actual revenue. Failure to act on the revenue audits would ignore the point “and other supportable economic factors” in Step 7 of the methodology. While we do not propose a solution for the methodology in this rulemaking, we are working to develop new proposals to address the significant hindrances of the current methodology. The discretion exercised in Step 7 seeks to maintain safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service while we prepare a future rulemaking to address the current methodology.
We received two comments regarding purchase of new pilot boats. District Two submitted information regarding the purchase of a new boat for use in Detroit for consideration in the rate. However, based on the documents submitted, the pilots have reached an agreement with the Canadian GLPA and industry to fund the pilot boat through usage fees, not through the rate. As a result, the expenses associated with the new pilot boat will not be included in the 2015 rate. Similarly, a pilot from the WGLPA believes that infrastructure investment in a new dock and new pilot boat near Sault Sainte Marie, MI should be included in the rate. We disagree. Like District Two, the letter of intent signed between the WGLPA and the Canadian GLPA plans to recoup the cost of their infrastructure improvement through levied pilot boat fees, not the pilotage rate. We support and encourage the investment of both associations in badly needed infrastructure and capital assets but cannot allow recoupment of expenses already marked to be paid by industry separately.
We are establishing new base pilotage rates in accordance with the methodology outlined in Appendix A to 46 CFR part 404. The new rates will be established by March 1, 2015 and become effective August 1, 2015. Our calculations under Steps 1 through 6 of Appendix A would result in an average 12 percent rate decrease. This rate decrease is not the result of increased efficiencies in providing pilotage services but rather is a result of changes to AMOU contract data.
Additionally, the recently completed revenue audits demonstrate a significant shortfall between revenues projected by the Coast Guard using the Appendix A methodology and those actually captured by the current billing scheme. This gap, explained further in our Step 7 discussion, demonstrates that a more significant rate increase is necessary to promote a standard safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service by ensuring the pilot associations have sufficient actual revenue to continue operations. Therefore, we will continue to exercise the discretion outlined in Step 7, increasing rates by 10 percent to begin closing the gap between projected revenues and those actually collected by the pilot associations. Table 1 shows the percent change for the new rates for each area.
Secondly, we are implementing temporary surcharges for the pilot associations to recoup necessary and reasonable training and investment expenses incurred or that are expected to be incurred prior to the required March 1, 2015 publication of the final rule. Normally, these expenses would not be recognized until the 2016 annual ratemaking or later. By authorizing the temporary surcharges now, this action will accelerate the reimbursement for necessary and reasonable training and investment expenses. The surcharge will be authorized for the duration of the 2015 shipping season, which begins in March 2015. The value of the surcharges is based on the audited revenues of the pilot associations and the identified need to train two additional pilot applicants per District. This action will merely accelerate the recoupment of these expenses. At the conclusion of the 2015 shipping season, we would account for the monies generated by the surcharge and make adjustments as necessary to the operating expenses for the following year.
In District One, we are implementing a temporary surcharge of 10 percent to compensate pilots for $28,028.91 that the District One pilot association spent on training in 2013 and early 2014, as well as the anticipated $300,000 cost to train two new applicant pilots and prepare replacements for retiring pilots. We believe this training is necessary and reasonable to promote safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage on the Great Lakes and support the St. Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association's continued commitment to the training and professional development of their pilots.
Additionally, we are implementing a temporary surcharge of 10 percent in District Two to compensate pilots for $300,000 that the District Two pilot association spent training two applicant pilots in 2014. This is necessary and reasonable to allow the association to bring on new pilots in the face of upcoming retirements without adjusting the pilotage needs as determined by the ratemaking methodology. This surcharge will also accelerate the
Next, we are implementing a temporary surcharge of 10 percent in District Three to compensate pilots for $26,950 that the District Three pilot association plans to spend on training at the conclusion of the 2014 shipping season. We believe this training is necessary and reasonable for the provision of safe pilotage service. This also compensates District Three for the anticipated $300,000 cost of training two additional pilot applicants to increase pilot strength and advance safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service in the district.
All figures in the tables that follow are based on calculations performed either by an independent accountant or by the Director's
The Appendix A methodology provides seven steps, with sub-steps, for calculating rate adjustments. The following discussion describes those steps and sub-steps, and includes tables showing how we have applied them to the 2012 financial information supplied by the pilots association.
The Coast Guard is aware that the current annual adjustment for inflation does not account for the value of money over time. We are working on a solution to allow for a better approximation of actual costs.
For District One, the projected operating expenses are based on the calculations from Steps 1.A through 1.C. Table 8 shows these projections.
In District Two the projected operating expenses are based on the calculations from Steps 1.A through 1.C. Table 9 shows these projections.
In District Three, projected operating expenses are based on the calculations from Steps 1.A through 1.C. Table 10 shows these projections.
We rely upon union contract data provided by the AMOU, which has agreements with three U.S. companies engaged in Great Lakes shipping. We derive the data from two separate AMOU contracts—we refer to them as Agreements A and B—and apportion the compensation provided by each agreement according to the percentage of tonnage represented by companies under each agreement. Agreement A applies to vessels operated by Key Lakes, Inc., and Agreement B applies to vessels operated by American Steamship Co. and Mittal Steel USA, Inc.
Agreements A and B both expire on July 31, 2016. The AMOU has set the daily aggregate rate, including the daily wage rate, vacation pay, pension plan contributions, and medical plan contributions effective August 1, 2015, as follows: (1) In undesignated waters, $632.12 for Agreement A and $624.34 for Agreement B; and (2) In designated waters, $870.05 for Agreement A and $856.42 for Agreement B.
Because we are interested in annual compensation, we must convert these daily rates. We use a 270-day multiplier which reflects an average 30-day month, over the 9 months of the average shipping season. Table 11 shows our calculations using the 270-day multiplier.
We apportion the compensation provided by each agreement according to the percentage of tonnage represented by companies under each agreement. Agreement A applies to vessels operated by Key Lakes, Inc., representing approximately 30 percent of tonnage, and Agreement B applies to vessels operated by American Steamship Co. and Mittal Steel USA, Inc., representing approximately 70 percent of tonnage. Table 12 provides details.
We use the percentages from Table 12 to apportion the projected compensation from Table 11. This gives us a single tonnage-weighted set of figures. Table 13 shows our calculations.
According to 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A, Step 2.B(1), bridge hours are the number of hours a pilot is aboard a vessel providing pilotage service. For that reason, and as we explained most recently in the 2011 ratemaking's final rule (76 FR 6351 at 6352 col. 3 (Feb. 4, 2011)), we do not include, and never have included, pilot delay, detention, or cancellation in calculating bridge hours. Projected bridge hours are based on the vessel traffic that pilots are expected to serve. We use historical data, input from the pilots and industry, periodicals and trade magazines, and information from conferences to project demand for pilotage services for the coming year.
In our 2014 final rule, we determined that 36 pilots would be needed for ratemaking purposes. For 2015, we project 36 pilots is still the proper number to use for ratemaking purposes. The total pilot authorization strength includes five pilots in Area 2, where rounding up alone would result in only four pilots. For the same reasons we explained at length in the 2008 ratemaking final rule (74 FR 220 at 221–22 (Jan. 5, 2009)), we have determined that this adjustment is essential for
Tables 17 through 19 also relate to the second part of the formula for calculating the investment base. The second part establishes a ratio between recognized sources of funds and total sources of funds. Since non-recognized sources of funds (sources we do not recognize as required to support pilotage operations) only exist for District One for this year's rulemaking, the ratio between recognized sources of funds and total sources of funds is 1:1 (or a multiplier of 1) for Districts Two and Three. District One has a multiplier of 0.99. Table 20 applies the multiplier of 0.99 and 1 as necessary and shows the investment base for each association. Table 20 also expresses these results by area, because area results will be needed in subsequent steps.
The second part required for Step 6 compares the results of Tables 21 through 23 with the target ROI (4.24 percent) we obtained in Step 5 to determine if an adjustment to the base pilotage rate is necessary. Table 24 shows this comparison for each area.
Because Table 24 shows a significant difference between the projected and target ROIs, an adjustment to the base pilotage rates is necessary. Step 6 now requires us to determine the pilotage revenues that are needed to make the target return on investment equal to the projected return on investment. This calculation is shown in Table 25. It adjusts the investment base we used in Step 4, multiplying it by the target ROI from Step 5, and applies the result to the operating expenses and target pilot compensation determined in Steps 1 and 2.
We calculate a rate multiplier for adjusting the basic rates and charges described in 46 CFR 401.420 and 401.428, and it is applicable in all areas. We divide total revenue needed (Step 6, Table 25) by total projected revenue (Steps 3 and 3.A, Table 16). Table 29 shows this calculation.
Using this table, we calculate rates for cancellation, delay, or interruption in rendering services (46 CFR 401.420) and basic rates and charges for carrying a U.S. pilot beyond the normal change point, or for boarding at other than the normal boarding point (46 CFR 401.428). The result is a decrease by 11.55 percent in all areas.
Without further action, the existing rates we established in our 2014 final rule would then be multiplied by the rate multipliers from Tables 29 through 31 to calculate the area by area rate changes for 2015. The resulting 2015 rates across the Great Lakes, on average, would then decrease by approximately 12 percent from the 2014 rates. This decrease is not due to increased
We decline to impose this decrease because recently completed independent audits of pilot association revenues detail a significant gap between revenues projected by the Coast Guard and those actually collected by the pilot associations. Implementing a rate decrease would further widen this disparity and adversely impact the provision of safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes. In light of the revenue studies, our initial proposal in the NPRM to raise rates 2.5 percent in order to gain parity with the Canadian GLPA now appears insufficient to ensure the funding of safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service. In 46 U.S.C. 9303(f), the statute states “The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation rates and charges for pilotage services, giving consideration to the public interest and the costs of providing the services.” We believe the public interest is best served through promotion of safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service. Sufficient revenue to fund safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage operations are considered integral to the public interest. Table 30 demonstrates the results of the revenue audits compared to our projections.
Further, the gap captured in Table 30 actually underestimates the revenue gap because the projections of the current rulemaking rely on the alterations of proprietary union contracts. Table 31 illustrates the average U.S. Registered Pilot compensation, assuming all revenue remaining after expenses is distributed as compensation.
These figures demonstrate the significant shortfall in pilot compensation compared to an estimated present value of 2011 compensation (the last figures are not in dispute) of approximately $260,000. We believe $260,000 is a fair estimate of what pilot compensation should be based on uncontested figures from previous AMOU contracts. The gap of almost $90,000 between approximate actual compensation and our estimates of where pilot compensation should stand place the pilot associations in an untenable position. We believe it is imperative to act quickly to raise the revenue needed to sustain pilot association operations and compensate pilots in a fair and reasonable manner. This gap also highlights a significant discrepancy in the actual salaries of U.S. Registered Pilots compared to the Canadian Registered Pilots of the GLPA, estimated to be approximately ($US) 250,000. We must work quickly to rebaseline the billing scheme and raise the revenue necessary to continue to sustain safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes. We believe the shortfalls in revenue are caused by an overprojection of bridge hours and to a larger extent, an inadequate billing scheme. To this end, we will adjust our proposal to raise rates in all areas by 10 percent in a concerted effort to begin closing the established gap between compensation of U.S. and Canadian Registered Pilots, as well as the gap between actual salaries and previous estimates. This percentage increase is high enough above inflation to begin closing the revenue gap without being unduly burdensome to industry. We believe sustained, steady rate increases to close the gap are more responsible than a one-time action. This replaces our initial projections of a 2.5 percent increase in all areas. We will seek to address the underlying methodology challenges in a future rulemaking.
Therefore, we rely on the discretionary authority we have under Step 7 to further adjust rates and begin closing the gap between revenues projected by the Coast Guard and those collected by the pilot associations. Table 32 compares the impact, area by area, that an average decrease of 12 percent would have, relative to the impact each area would experience if United States rates increase.
The following tables reflect our rate adjustments of 10 percent across all areas.
Tables 33 through 35 show these calculations.
In addition to the rate charges in Table 33, as we explain in the Summary section of Part VI of this preamble, we are authorizing District One to implement a temporary supplemental 10 percent charge on each source form (the “bill” for pilotage service) for the duration of the 2015 shipping season, which begins in March 2015. District One will be required to provide us with monthly status reports once this surcharge becomes effective for the duration of the 2015 shipping season. We will exclude these expenses from future rates and any surcharge surplus/deficit from the 2014 season would impact the final authorized surcharge for the 2015 season.
In addition to the rate charges in Table 34, and for the reasons we discussed in the Summary section of Part VI of this preamble, we are authorizing District Two to implement a temporary supplemental 10 percent charge on each source form for the duration of the 2015 shipping season, which begins in March 2015. District Two will be required to provide us with monthly status reports once this surcharge becomes effective for the duration of the 2015 shipping season. We will exclude these expenses from future rates.
In addition to the rate charges in Table 35, and for the reasons we discussed in the Summary section of Part VI of this preamble, we are authorizing District Three to implement a temporary supplemental 10 percent charge on each source form for the duration of the 2015 shipping season, which begins in March 2015. District Three will be required to provide us with monthly status reports once this surcharge becomes effective for the duration of the 2015 shipping season. We will exclude these expenses from future rates.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.
Executive Orders 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, direct agencies to assess the 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.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry.
The Coast Guard is required to review and adjust pilotage rates on the Great Lakes annually. See Parts III and IV of this preamble for detailed discussions of the Coast Guard's legal basis and purpose for this rulemaking and for background information on Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking. Based on our annual review for this rulemaking, we are adjusting the pilotage rates for the 2015 shipping season to generate sufficient revenue to cover allowable expenses, and to target pilot compensation and returns on pilot associations' investments. The rate adjustments in this rule will, if codified, lead to an increase in the cost per unit
In addition to the increase in payments that will be incurred by shippers in all three districts from the previous year as a result of the discretionary rate adjustments, we are authorizing temporary, supplemental surcharges to traffic across all three districts in order for the pilotage associations to recover training expenses and technology improvements that were incurred throughout the 2013 and 2014 shipping seasons. These temporary surcharges will be authorized for the duration of the 2015 shipping season, which begins in March. The additional revenue due to the temporary surcharges was calculated by multiplying the surcharge percentage by the projected revenue needed in 2015 for each district (Table 37). We estimate that these temporary surcharges will generate a combined $1,404,678 in revenue for the pilotage associations across all three districts. In District One, the 10 percent surcharge is expected to generate an additional $440,255 in revenue. In District Two, the 10 percent surcharge is expected to generate $424,443 in additional revenue. In District Three, the 10 percent surcharge is expected to generate an additional $539,979 in revenue. At the end of the 2015 shipping season, we will account for the monies the surcharges generate and make adjustments (debits/credits) to the operating expenses for the following year.
Therefore, after accounting for the implementation of the temporary surcharges on traffic across all three districts, the payments made by shippers during the 2015 shipping season are estimated to be approximately $2,681,657 more than the payments that were made in 2014.
A regulatory assessment follows.
The final rule applies the 46 CFR part 404, Appendix A, full ratemaking methodology, including the exercise of our discretion to increase Great Lakes pilotage rates, on average, approximately 10 percent overall from the current rates set in the 2014 final rule. The Appendix A methodology is discussed and applied in detail in Part VI of this preamble. Among other factors described in Part VI, it reflects audited 2012 financial data from the pilotage associations (the most recent year available for auditing), projected association expenses, and regional inflation or deflation. The last full Appendix A ratemaking was concluded in 2014 and used financial data from the 2011 base accounting year. The last annual rate review, conducted under 46 CFR part 404, Appendix C, was completed early in 2011.
The shippers affected by these rate adjustments are those owners and operators of domestic vessels operating on register (employed in foreign trade) and owners and operators of foreign vessels on a route within the Great Lakes system. These owners and operators must have pilots or pilotage service as required by 46 U.S. C. 9302. There is no minimum tonnage limit or exemption for these vessels. The statute applies only to commercial vessels and not to recreational vessels.
Owners and operators of other vessels that are not affected by this final rule, such as recreational boats and vessels operating only within the Great Lakes system, may elect to purchase pilotage services. However, this election is voluntary and does not affect our calculation of the rate and is not a part of our estimated national cost to shippers.
We used 2011–2013 vessel arrival data from the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) system to estimate the average annual number of vessels affected by the rate adjustment. Using that period, we found that approximately 114 different vessels journeyed into the Great Lakes system annually. These vessels entered the Great Lakes by transiting at least one of the three pilotage districts before leaving the Great Lakes system. These vessels often made more than one distinct stop, docking, loading, and unloading at facilities in Great Lakes ports. Of the total trips for the 114 vessels, there were approximately 353 annual U.S. port arrivals before the vessels left the Great Lakes system, based on 2011–2013 vessel data from MISLE.
The impact of the rate adjustment to shippers is estimated from the District pilotage revenues. These revenues represent the costs that shippers must pay for pilotage services. The Coast Guard sets rates so that revenues equal the estimated cost of pilotage for these services.
We estimate the additional impact (cost increases or cost decreases) of the rate adjustment in this rule to be the difference between the total projected revenue needed to cover costs in 2014, based on the 2014 rate adjustment, and the total projected revenue needed to cover costs in 2015, as set forth in this rule, plus any temporary surcharges authorized by the Coast Guard. Table 36 details projected revenue needed to cover costs in 2015 after making the discretionary adjustment to pilotage rates as discussed in Step 7 of Part V of this preamble. Table 37 summarizes the derivation for calculating the revenue expected to be generated as a result of the temporary surcharges applied to traffic in all three districts as discussed in Step 7 of Part V of this preamble. Table 38 details the additional cost increases to shippers by area and district as a result of the rate adjustments and temporary surcharges on traffic in Districts One,
After applying the discretionary rate change in this rule, the resulting difference between the projected revenue in 2014 and the projected revenue in 2015 is the annual change in payments from shippers to pilots after accounting for market conditions (
The impact of the discretionary rate adjustment on shippers varies by area and district in this final rule. The discretionary rate adjustments will lead to affected shippers operating in District One, District Two, and District Three experiencing an increase in payments of $400,232, $385,858, and $490,890, respectively, from the previous year.
In addition to the rate adjustments, temporary surcharges on traffic in District One, District Two, and District Three will be applied for the duration of the 2015 season in order for the pilotage associations to recover training expenses and technology investments incurred during the 2013 and 2014
To calculate an exact cost or savings per vessel is difficult because of the variation in vessel types, routes, port arrivals, commodity carriage, time of season, conditions during navigation, and preferences for the extent of pilotage services on designated and undesignated portions of the Great Lakes system. Some owners and operators will pay more and some would pay less, depending on the distance travelled and the number of port arrivals by their vessels. However, the increase in costs reported earlier in this rule does capture the adjustment in payments that shippers will experience from the previous year. The overall adjustment in payments, after taking into account the increase in pilotage rates and the addition of temporary surcharges will be an increase in payments by shippers of approximately $2,681,657 across all three districts.
This rule will allow the Coast Guard to meet the requirements in 46 U.S. C. 9303 to review the rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes, thus ensuring proper pilot compensation.
Alternatively, if we imposed the new rates based on the new contract data from AMOU, instead of using the discretionary rate adjustment described in Step 7, there would be an approximately 12 percent decrease in rates across the system. Instead of shippers experiencing an increase in payments of approximately $1,276,980
We reject this alternative, however, because independent audits of pilot association revenues details a nearly $2 million gap between Coast Guard revenue projections and the amount of revenues actually collected. A rate decrease would only further widen this disparity, and would also jeopardize the ability of pilotage associations to provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage service. A rate increase of 10 percent in all areas will lessen the gap between revenues projected by the Coast Guard and those collected by pilot associations, and the gap between the actual salaries of U.S. Registered Pilots and Canadian Registered Pilots of the GLPA. See our discussion of Step 7 in Part VI of this preamble for further explanation.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 people.
We expect that entities affected by the final rule will be classified under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code subsector 483-Water Transportation, which includes the following 6-digit NAICS codes for freight transportation: 483111—Deep Sea Freight Transportation, 483113—Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation, and 483211—Inland Water Freight Transportation. According to the Small Business Administration's definition, a U.S. company with these NAICS codes and employing less than 500 employees is considered a small entity.
For the final rule, we reviewed recent company size and ownership data for the period 2011 through 2013 in the Coast Guard's MISLE database, and we reviewed business revenue and size data provided by publicly available sources such as MANTA and Reference USA. We found that large, foreign-owned shipping conglomerates or their subsidiaries owned or operated all vessels engaged in foreign trade on the Great Lakes. We assume that new industry entrants would be comparable in ownership and size to these shippers.
There are three U.S. entities affected by this rule that receive revenue from pilotage services. These are the three pilot associations that provide and manage pilotage services within the Great Lakes districts. Two of the associations operate as partnerships and one operates as a corporation. These associations are designated with the same NAICS industry classification and small-entity size standards described above, but they have fewer than 500 employees; combined, they have approximately 65 total employees. We expect no adverse impact to these entities from this rule because through this rulemaking, all the pilot associations are provided with additional revenue to offset some of the projected expenses associated with the projected number of bridge hours and pilots, and to keep them on par with their Canadian counterparts.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). This rule does not change the burden in the collection currently approved by the OMB under OMB Control Number 1625–0086, Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology.
A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis is explained below.
Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish “rates and charges for pilotage services.” 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This regulation is issued pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of state law as specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a “State or political subdivision of a State may not regulate or impose any requirement on pilotage on the Great Lakes.” As a result, States or local governments are expressly prohibited from regulating within this category. Therefore, this rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272, note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A final environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the
Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR part 401 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 46 CFR 401.105 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 3507.
(a) Area 1 (Designated Waters):
(b) Area 2 (Undesignated Waters):
(a) Area 4 (Undesignated Waters):
(b) Area 5 (Designated Waters):
(a) Area 6 (Undesignated Waters):
(b) Area 7 (Designated Waters):
(c) Area 8 (Undesignated Waters):
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to delete obsolete text relating to acquisition of commercial items.
Effective February 26, 2015.
Janetta Brewer, telephone 571–372–6104.
On March 12, 2012, the DFARS was amended to implement a recommendation made by the Panel on Contracting Integrity and included in its 2009 Report to Congress concerning compliance with the DFARS documentation requirements for commercial item determinations. DFARS subpart 212.1 was revised to require the contracting officer to determine that an acquisition exceeding $1 million and using FAR part 12 procedures either meets the commercial item definition at FAR 2.101 or the criteria at FAR 12.102(g)(1). The DFARS reference to FAR 12.102(g)(1), however, is no longer necessary since the FAR criteria only apply to contracts and task orders entered on or before November 24, 2013. Accordingly, DFARS 212.102(a)(i)(A) is being revised to remove the statement “or meets the criteria at FAR 12.102(g)(1)”.
On November 1, 2004, DFARS subpart 212.70 was amended to implement section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, which authorized DoD to carry out a pilot program that permitted the use of streamlined contracting procedures for the production of items or processes begun as prototype projects under other transaction agreements. Since the authority for this program expired on September 30, 2010, the associated text at DFARS subpart 212.70 is being removed.
“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,
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 DFARS 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, 48 CFR part 212 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide needed editorial changes.
Effective February 26, 2015.
Mr. Manuel Quinones, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060. Telephone 571–372–6088; facsimile 571–372–6094.
This final rule amends the DFARS as follows:
1. Directs contracting officers to additional procedures and guidance by adding a reference to DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information PGI 218.272 at DFARS 218.272. A cross reference to DFARS 218.272 is also added at DFARS 225.7405.
2. Directs contracting officers to additional procedures and guidance by adding a reference to DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information PGI 242.7502 at DFARS 242.7502.
Government procurement.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 218, 225, and 242 are amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
When supporting a contingency operation or humanitarian or peacekeeping operation, follow the procedures at PGI 218.272 concerning the use of electronic business tools.
See 218.272 concerning the use of electronic business tools in support of a contingency operation or humanitarian or peacekeeping operation.
(g) * * *
(2) The contracting officer responsible for negotiation of a proposal generated by an accounting system with an identified deficiency shall evaluate whether the deficiency impacts the negotiations. See also PGI 242.7502(g)(2). If it does not, the contracting officer should proceed with negotiations. If it does, the contracting officer should consider other alternatives,
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Final rule.
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement the statutory domestic source restrictions on acquisition of certain naval vessel components.
Effective February 26, 2015.
Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571–372–6106.
DoD published a proposed rule in the
One respondent submitted a public comment in response to the proposed rule.
DoD reviewed the public comment in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comment is provided, as follows:
There is no change from the proposed rule to the final rule.
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 certifies that this final rule will not 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,
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, 48 CFR part 225 is amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(b) In accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, the USD(AT&L) has waived the restrictions of 10 U.S.C. 2534(a) for certain items manufactured in the United Kingdom, including air circuit breakers for naval vessels (see 225.7006) and the naval vessel components listed at 225.7010–1.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2534, do not acquire the following components of naval vessels, to the extent they are unique to marine applications, unless manufactured in the United States or Canada:
(a) Gyrocompasses.
(b) Electronic navigation chart systems.
(c) Steering controls.
(d) Pumps.
(e) Propulsion and machinery control systems.
(f) Totally enclosed lifeboats.
This restriction does not apply to—
(a) Contracts or subcontracts that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold; or
(b) Acquisition of spare or repair parts needed to support components for naval vessels manufactured outside the United States. Support includes the purchase of spare gyrocompasses, electronic navigation chart systems, steering controls, pumps, propulsion and machinery control systems, or totally enclosed lifeboats, when those from alternate sources are not interchangeable.
(a) The waiver criteria at 225.7008(a) apply to this restriction.
(b) The Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) has waived the restriction of 10 U.S.C. 2534 for certain items manufactured in the United Kingdom, including the items listed in section 225.7010–1. See 225.7008.
(a) 10 U.S.C. 2534(h) prohibits the use of contract clauses or certifications to implement this restriction.
(b) Agencies shall accomplish implementation of this restriction through use of management and oversight techniques that achieve the objectives of this section without imposing a significant management burden on the Government or the contractor involved.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; trip limit reduction.
NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight. This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect the South Atlantic vermilion snapper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 2, 2015, until 12:01 a.m., local time, July 1, 2015.
Britni LaVine, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery includes vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial quota for vermilion snapper in the South Atlantic is divided into two 6-month time periods, January through June and July through December. For the January 1 through June 30, 2015, fishing season, the commercial quota is 394,829 lb (179,091 kg), gutted weight (438,260 lb (198,791 kg), round weight), as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(4)(i)(C).
Under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii), NMFS is required to reduce the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper from 1,000 lb (454 kg), gutted weight (1,110 lb (503 kg), round weight), to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight (555 lb (252 kg), round weight), when 75 percent of the fishing season quota is reached or projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register, as implemented by the final rule for Regulatory Amendment 18 (78 FR 47574, August 6, 2013). Based on current information, NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the available commercial quota for the January 1 through June 30, 2015, fishing season for vermilion snapper will be reached by March 2, 2015. Accordingly, NMFS is reducing the commercial trip limit for vermilion snapper to 500 lb (227 kg), gutted weight (555 lb (252 kg), round weight), in or from the South Atlantic EEZ at 12:01 a.m., local time, on March 2, 2015. This 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, trip limit will remain in effect until July 1, 2015, or until the quota is reached and the commercial sector closes, whichever occurs first.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of South Atlantic vermilion snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.191(a)(6)(ii) 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. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this commercial trip limit reduction 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), because prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary, because the rule establishing the trip limit has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the trip limit reduction. They are contrary to the public interest, because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the vermilion snapper resource since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and would increase the probability that the commercial sector could exceed the quota.
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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is issuing regulations that require use of a NMFS-approved vessel monitoring system (VMS) and institute a pre-trip notification requirement for West Coast large-mesh swordfish drift gillnet (DGN) vessel owners and operators. The DGN fishery operates under the authority of the Federal Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP). Installing and operating VMS on vessels in this fishery will provide NMFS and law enforcement personnel with the ability to monitor the DGN fishery for compliance with conservation measures, efficiently deploy agents to inspect vessels, and provide the ability
This final rule is effective on March 30, 2015, except for the amendments to paragraphs (l), (o), and (p) of § 660.705 and paragraphs (f)(2) through (g)(5) of § 660.713. Those paragraphs contain collection-of-information requirements that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act. NMFS will publish a document in the
Copies of supporting documents that were prepared for this final rule, including the Regulatory Impact Review and the proposed rule, are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Amber Rhodes, NMFS, (562) 980–3231, or
The DGN fishery is managed under the HMS FMP, which was prepared by the Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801,
On September 15, 2014, NMFS published a proposed rule in the
The proposed rule incorporated additional background information on the basis for the new regulations, including recommendations of the Council and information on temporary rules (78 FR 54548, September 4, 2013, and 79 FR 29377, May 22, 2014) that, among other measures, required the use of VMS and the pre-trip notification components being implemented with this rule, as well as the status of the DGN fishery's compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act and ESA.
This final rule establishes regulations requiring DGN vessel owners and operators to use a NMFS-approved VMS and to notify NMFS prior to making a fishing trip that will use DGN gear. Installing and operating VMS on vessels in this fishery will allow NMFS and law enforcement personnel to monitor the DGN fishery for compliance with conservation measures, efficiently deploy personnel to inspect vessels, and more closely examine and compare the distribution of observed and unobserved fishing effort. The pre-trip notification will assist NMFS with timely and efficient placement of NMFS-trained observers on board DGN vessels. This final rule implements the recommendations of the Council and satisfies key terms and conditions of NMFS' 2013 ESA Section 7 Opinion. Additional information regarding this Opinion can be found in the proposed rule (79 FR 54950).
DGN vessel owners or operators will be required to notify the NMFS or the NMFS-designated observer provider at least 48 hours prior to departing on each fishing trip. The vessel owners or operators must provide their name, contact information, vessel name, port of departure, and estimated date and time of departure to the observer provider. Upon receipt of a pre-trip notification, the observer provider will notify the DGN vessel owner/operator whether their fishing trip has been selected for observer coverage. Additionally, DGN vessel owners and operators must provide the NMFS West Coast Division Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) with a declaration report before the vessel leaves port to fish with DGN gear in state or Federal waters. (See the regulatory text for pre-trip notification and declaration reporting schedules and contact information.)
Vessel owners may choose the OLE type-approved VMS unit that best fits their needs. The unit cost, physical size, available features, transmission fees, and service packages vary among the different type-approved VMS mobile transceiver units (VMS unit). Current information on OLE type-approved VMS units can be obtained by contacting: OLE, 1315 East West Hwy, Suite 3301, Silver Spring, MD 20910–3282; telephone: (888) 210–9288; fax: (301) 427–0049. Or, by contacting NMFS OLE VMS Helpdesk: telephone: (888) 219–9228; email:
The vessel owner is responsible for all costs associated with the purchase, installation, and maintenance of the VMS unit, and for all charges levied by the mobile communications service provider as necessary to ensure the transmission of automatic position reports to NMFS. Federal funds are currently available for reimbursement of type-approved VMS units—up to $3,100 or as determined by the VMS Reimbursement Program. The availability of funds for reimbursement of the cost of purchasing a VMS unit is not guaranteed; rather, funds are available on a first-come first-served basis. To be eligible to receive reimbursement, the owner must submit proof of professional installation of the VMS unit to OLE in compliance with the requirements of the VMS Reimbursement Program. More information on the VMS Reimbursement Program can be obtained by calling the NMFS OLE VMS Helpdesk: telephone: (888) 219–9228, and online:
Prior to fishing, the vessel owner, or the vessel operator on the owner's behalf, is required to send an activation report to OLE. Activation of a VMS unit is required any time the unit is installed or reinstalled, any time the mobile communications service provider has changed, and any other time as directed by NMFS. Activation involves submitting a report to NMFS via mail, facsimile or email with information about the vessel, its fishing strategy, its owner or operator, and the VMS unit, as well as receiving confirmation from NMFS that the VMS unit is transmitting
Three written public comments were submitted during the proposed rulemaking stage. One comment came in the form of an Enforcement Consultants Report to the Council during the Council's September 2014 meeting. The other comments included suggestions for additional restrictions on the DGN fleet that are beyond the scope of this action and are not addressed further. The summarized comments that pertained to this rulemaking and NMFS' responses are below.
No substantive changes have been made to this rule since the proposed rule stage. To further clarify the specific contents, reporting frequency, and process for confirmation of receipt of declaration reports, additional information was provided at § 660.713, including paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii), and paragraphs (g)(4)(ii) and (g)(4)(ii)(A).
The Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the DGN fishery for swordfish and is consistent with MSA and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification and no other information has been received that would impact this determination. As a result, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none was prepared.
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the PRA. The pre-trip notification requirement has been approved by the OMB under OMB Control Number 0648–0593. Public reporting burden for the pre-trip notification requirement is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The VMS requirement is still pending approval by OMB under OMB Control Number 0648–0498. Public reporting burden for compliance with the VMS requirements are estimated to include a one-time, 4-hour response time for installing a VMS unit and a 1-hour response time annually to maintain and repair a unit. Activation and on-off reports are estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including time to review instructions, prepare, and submit the reports. Send comments regarding burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by email to
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to 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.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801
(l) Fail to install, activate, repair, replace, carry, operate or maintain a VMS unit as required under § 660.712 and § 660.713.
(o) Fish for, catch, or harvest HMS with longline or drift gillnet gear without an operating VMS unit on board the vessel after installation of the VMS unit.
(p) Possess on board a vessel without an operating VMS unit HMS harvested with longline or drift gillnet gear after installation of the VMS unit.
(rr) Fail to notify NMFS or the NMFS-designated observer provider at least 48 hours prior to departure on a fishing trip using drift gillnet gear as required under § 660.713.
(ss) Fail to submit a declaration report to the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement prior to departure on a fishing trip using drift gillnet gear as required under § 660.713.
(f)
(2) Drift gillnet vessel owners or operators must provide the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement for the West Coast Region (OLE) with a declaration report before the vessel leaves port to fish for thresher shark/swordfish with large-mesh drift gillnet gear in state and federal waters between 0 and 200 nautical miles offshore of California, Oregon, or Washington. Declaration reports will include: The vessel name and/or identification number, and gear type.
(i) Upon receipt of a declaration report, OLE will provide a confirmation code or receipt to confirm that a valid declaration report was received for the vessel. Retention of the confirmation code or receipt to verify that a valid declaration report was filed and the declaration requirement was met is the responsibility of the vessel owner or operator.
(ii) The vessel operator must send a new declaration report before leaving port on a trip during which the fishing gear that will be used is different from the gear type most recently declared for the vessel. A declaration report will be valid until another declaration report revising the existing gear declaration is received by OLE.
(iii) OLE's declaration hotline is 1–888–585–5518. The business hours for the OLE are Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time; voice messages left on the hotline will be retrieved at the start of the next business day.
(g)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) VMS unit manufacturers or communication service providers will submit products or services to the OLE for evaluation based on the published specifications.
(ii) The OLE will publish a list of OLE type-approved VMS units and communication service providers for the DGN fishery in the
(4)
(i) Obtain an OLE type-approved VMS unit and have it installed on board your vessel in accordance with the instructions provided by the OLE. You may obtain a copy of the VMS installation and operation instructions from the Special-Agent-In-Charge (SAC).
(ii) Activate the VMS unit, submit an activation report and an initial declaration report, and receive confirmation from the OLE that the VMS transmissions are being received at least 72 hours prior to leaving port on a fishing trip for which VMS is required. Instructions for submitting an activation report may be obtained from the SAC. An activation report must again be submitted to the OLE following reinstallation of a VMS unit or change in service provider before the vessel may be used to fish in a fishery requiring the VMS.
(A)
(B)
(iii) Continuously operate and maintain the VMS unit in good working order 24 hours a day throughout the fishing year. The VMS unit must accurately transmit a signal indicating the vessel's position at least once every hour, 24 hours a day throughout the year, unless a valid exemption report, as described in paragraph (g)(4)(iv)(F) of this section, has been confirmed by the OLE. A reduced signal transmission rate, at least once every 4 hours, may be authorized by the OLE when a vessel remains in port for an extended period of time.
(iv) Submit an exemption report to be confirmed by the OLE as valid, as described at paragraph (g)(4)(iv)(F) of this section, and comply with all conditions and requirements of the VMS exemption identified in this section and specified in the exemption report for a vessel to be exempted from the requirement of continuously operating and maintaining the VMS unit 24 hours a day throughout the fishing year.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(v) When aware that transmission of automatic position reports has been interrupted, or when notified by OLE that automatic position reports are not being received, contact OLE and follow the instructions provided to you. Such instructions may include, but are not limited to, manually communicating the vessel's position to a location designated by the OLE or returning to port until the VMS unit is operable.
(vi) After a fishing trip during which interruption of automatic position reports has occurred, the vessel's owner or operator must replace or repair the VMS unit prior to the vessel's next fishing trip. Repair or reinstallation of a VMS unit or installation of a replacement unit, including any changes in communications service providers shall be in accordance with the instructions provided by the OLE.
(vii) Make the VMS units available for inspection by OLE personnel, USCG personnel, state enforcement personnel or any authorized officer.
(viii) Ensure that the VMS unit is not tampered with, disabled, destroyed, operated, or maintained improperly.
(ix) Pay all charges levied by the communication service provider as necessary to ensure continuous operation of the VMS units.
(5)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to revise the regulations pertaining to the exportation of livestock from the United States. Among other things, we propose to remove most of the requirements for export health certifications, tests, and treatments from the regulations, and instead would direct exporters to follow the requirements of the importing country regarding such processes and procedures. We propose to retain only those export health certification, testing, and treatment requirements that we consider necessary to have assurances regarding the health and welfare of livestock exported from the United States. We also propose to allow pre-export inspection of livestock to occur at facilities other than an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, under certain circumstances, and propose to replace specific standards for export inspection facilities and ocean vessels with performance standards. These changes would provide exporters and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service with more flexibility in arranging for the export of livestock from the United States while continuing to ensure the health and welfare of the livestock. Additionally, if a country is known to require an export health certificate for any animal other than livestock, including pets, or for any hatching eggs or animal germplasm, we propose to require that the animal, hatching eggs, or animal germplasm have an export health certificate to be eligible for export from the United States. This change would help ensure that all animals, hatching eggs, and animal germplasm exported from the United States meet the health requirements of the countries to which they are destined. Finally, we are proposing editorial amendments to the regulations to make them easier to understand and comply with.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 27, 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
Dr. Jack Taniewski, Director for Animal Export, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851–3300.
Under the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C. 8301
The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Pursuant to this authority, APHIS has issued the regulations in 9 CFR part 91, “Inspection and Handling of Livestock for Exportation” (“the regulations”).
The regulations contain requirements for the inspection and handling of cattle (including American bison), horses, captive cervids, sheep, goats, and swine (referred to below collectively as livestock) intended for export from the United States. Among other things:
• The livestock must be accompanied to a port of embarkation or land border port by an export health certificate.
• The export health certificate must contain test results and certifications required by the country to which the animals are destined, as well as certain test results and certifications required by APHIS, regardless of the destination country.
• If tests for brucellosis are required, the tests must be conducted in a cooperating State-Federal laboratory in accordance with the Brucellosis Uniform Methods and Rules.
• Except for livestock exported through land border ports, the livestock must be inspected within 24 hours of embarkation by an APHIS veterinarian at an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation.
• Except for livestock exported through land border ports, the livestock must be allowed to rest at least 5 hours at an export inspection facility at the port of embarkation prior to embarkation. The livestock must be
• Ports of embarkation for animals to be exported by air or sea must meet standards set out in the regulations for construction, space, equipment, access, feed, and water.
• Ocean vessels used to export livestock must meet standards specified in the regulations for construction, ventilation, space, fittings, equipment, attendants, cleaning, and disinfection.
We have not substantively amended these regulations for many years. Some provisions, such as those that require pre-export inspection of livestock at an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation and those that set forth specific construction and maintenance standards for export inspection facilities and ocean vessels, sometimes interfere with exports. Other requirements, particularly those that require certain tests and certifications for all livestock intended for export from the United States, are not always required by importing countries or necessary for us to have assurances regarding the health and welfare of the livestock at the time of export.
For these reasons, we are proposing to remove requirements that we have determined to be unnecessary or overly prescriptive from the regulations in order to provide exporters and APHIS with more options for inspecting and handling livestock intended for export. The proposed changes would continue to ensure that livestock intended for export are humanely transported and that all livestock exported from the United States meet the import health requirements of the countries to which they are destined.
Additionally, although our authority under the AHPA allows us to issue export health certificates for animals other than livestock, as well as for hatching eggs and germplasm, the regulations currently do not contain provisions for such issuance.
However, as a signatory on the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the United States has agreed to respect the measures that other countries impose on the importation of animals other than livestock, hatching eggs, or animal germplasm from the United States, when these countries demonstrate the need to impose the measures in order to protect animal health. Several countries have entered into export protocols with the United States in which they demonstrate such a need and require export health certificates to be issued in order for animals other than livestock, hatching eggs, or animal germplasm to be exported to their country.
Accordingly, we would revise part 91 so that, when an importing country is known to require an export health certificate for any animal other than livestock or for any animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes intended for export to that country, the animal or other commodity must have an export health certificate in order to be eligible for export from the United States.
Finally, in order to make the regulations easier to follow, we are proposing to group certain provisions that are currently located in disparate sections of the regulations, and to make certain other editorial changes to make the regulations easier to read.
We discuss our proposed revision to the regulations, by section, below.
The regulations in current § 91.1 contain definitions of the following terms:
In proposed § 91.1, we would omit the definitions of
We would replace
We would replace
By replacing the term
We would also revise the definitions of
We currently define
As we mentioned above, the regulations currently apply only to horses, cattle (including American bison), captive cervids, sheep, swine, and goats. As a result, the definition of
Certain provisions of the revised regulations would only pertain to horses, cattle (including American bison), captive cervids, sheep, swine, and goats, however. To differentiate between those provisions that would be generally applicable to all animals, and those that would pertain only to those species, we would refer to horses, cattle (including American bison), captive cervids, sheep, swine, and goats collectively as
Currently, we define
Finally, we would add definitions of the following terms to the regulations:
We would define
We would define
We would define
We would define
Current § 91.2 requires livestock to be exported from the United States in accordance with the regulations. We would retain this requirement. However, since the revised regulations would also pertain to the export of animals other than livestock and to animal germplasm, proposed § 91.2 would specify that such animals and animal germplasm must also be exported in accordance with the regulations.
Proposed § 91.3 would provide general requirements for the export of livestock, animals other than livestock, and animal germplasm.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of § 91.3 would provide that livestock must have an export health certificate in order to be eligible for export from the United States. We recognize that a country could elect to allow livestock to be imported into that country without an export health certificate. However, even in such instances, pursuant to our authority under the AHPA, we would need assurances that the livestock were fit to be moved for export from their premises of export at the time that movement occurred. The export health certificate would provide such assurances.
The current regulations do not contain export health certification or other export-health requirements for animals other than livestock or for animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes. However, as we mentioned above, some foreign countries have entered into export protocols with the United States for species of animals other than livestock, including dogs, cats, and aquatic animals in which these countries require export health certificates to be issued in order for the animal to be exported from the United States to their country. Likewise, some foreign countries require export health certificates for animal germplasm, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, and gametes exported from the United States. Consistent with the SPS Agreement and our authority under the AHPA, it is APHIS policy to require export health certificates for the export of such animals and germplasm from the United States to such countries.
Accordingly, proposed paragraph (a)(2) of § 91.3 would provide that, if an importing country is known to require an export health certificate for any animal other than livestock or for any animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes intended for export to that country, the animal or other commodity must have an export health certificate in order to be eligible for export from the United States.
Proposed paragraph (b) of § 91.3 would contain minimum requirements
• The species of each animal.
• The breed of each animal.
• The sex of each animal.
• The age of each animal.
• The individual identification used to identify the animals. (Identification requirements would be contained in proposed § 91.5.)
• The importing country.
• The consignor.
• The consignee.
• A certification that an accredited veterinarian inspected the livestock and found them to be fit for export.
• A signature and date by an accredited veterinarian.
• An endorsement by the APHIS veterinarian responsible for the State of origin.
These information requirements, many of which are included in the current definition of
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of § 91.3 would also require export certificates for livestock to meet any other information or issuance requirements specified by the importing country. This provision would be substantively similar to an existing provision in current § 91.3 that requires origin health certificates for livestock to include all test results, certifications, or other statements required by the country of destination.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) of § 91.3 would set forth requirements for export health certificates for animals other than livestock, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, and gametes. For such animals and commodities, we propose to require that their export health certificates meet any information requirements specified by the importing country.
As we mentioned above, we issue export health certificates for animals other than livestock and animal germplasm when such certificates are required by the importing country. For these reasons, we consider it reasonable to require that such certificates meet the information requirements specified by the importing country.
Current paragraph (a) of § 91.3 requires the origin health certificate to certify that the livestock were inspected within 30 days prior to the date of export, with certain exceptions. The Administrator may allow inspection to be done more than 30 days prior to the date of export if required or allowed by the importing country. Proposed paragraph (c) of § 91.3 would require that livestock be inspected within the timeframe required by the importing country. If the importing country does not specify a timeframe, we propose to require that the livestock be inspected within 30 days prior to the date of export. These requirements would be similar to the current requirements, but would place a greater emphasis on meeting the requirements of the importing country.
Current paragraph (c) of § 91.3 sets forth general requirements for sampling and testing for livestock intended for export. It requires species-specific samples and tests, which are currently listed in § 91.5 through § 91.9, to be taken by an inspector or accredited veterinarian in the State of origin. It further requires the samples to be taken and tests made within 30 days prior to the date of export, except when the importing country requires or allows such sampling and testing to be conducted more than 30 days prior to the date of export and the Administrator agrees to this different timeframe. It further allows tuberculin tests to be conducted 90 days prior to export. Finally, it requires tests for brucellosis to be conducted in a cooperative State-Federal laboratory in accordance with the Brucellosis Uniform Methods and Rules.
We consider substantial revisions to these testing requirements to be necessary. First, although most testing is conducted by accredited veterinarians or APHIS inspectors, on certain occasions the samples and tests are administered by APHIS employees, such as animal health technicians, who are neither inspectors nor accredited veterinarians, but who have been trained by APHIS to conduct such sampling and testing. Such individuals function as APHIS representatives, as we are proposing to define that term.
Second, while the intent of §§ 91.3 through 91.9 is to require that, if an importing country requires livestock intended for export to be tested for a program disease, the livestock are tested for the disease, and are tested in the same manner and under the same conditions as domestic livestock are tested for that disease prior to interstate movement, this intent is not readily apparent. Similarly, current § 91.3 could be construed to suggest that brucellosis is the only program disease for which approved laboratories exist; this is not the case.
Finally, consistent with other changes that we are proposing to the regulations, we believe that greater emphasis must be put on meeting the requirements of the importing country.
Accordingly, proposed paragraph (d) of § 91.3 would set forth revised testing requirements for livestock intended for export. All samples for tests of livestock that are required by the importing country would have to be taken by an APHIS representative or accredited veterinarian. The samples would have to be taken and tests made within the timeframe allowed by the importing country, and, if specified, at the location required by the importing country. Consistent with the current regulations, if the importing country does not specify a timeframe, the samples would have to be taken and tests made within 30 days prior to the date of export, except that tuberculin tests could be conducted within 90 days prior to the date of export. All tests for program diseases would have to be made in laboratories and using methods approved by the Administrator for those diseases. The Program Handbook would provide access to a list of approved laboratories; approved methods would be those specified or otherwise incorporated within the domestic regulations in subchapter C of 9 CFR chapter I.
These proposed requirements, in conjunction with our proposed general requirement that all certification requirements of the importing country be met, would eliminate the need to specify species-specific testing requirements in part 91. Thus we would not retain the provisions contained in current §§ 91.5 through 91.9.
Proposed paragraph (e) of § 91.3 would set forth conditions for movement from the premises of export for livestock, animals other than livestock, and animal germplasm with an export health certificate.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1) of § 91.3 would set forth movement requirements for livestock moving from the premises of export under an export health certificate. It would require that an export health certificate be issued and endorsed before the livestock move from the premises of export. Additionally, except when the certificate has been issued and endorsed electronically, the original signed export health certificate would have to accompany the livestock for the entire duration of movement from the premises of export to the port of embarkation or land border port.
Proposed paragraph (e)(2) of § 91.3 would set forth movement requirements for animals other than livestock and animal germplasm moving from a
When presented for endorsement, the health certificate would have to be accompanied by reports for all laboratory tests specifically identified on the certificate. To preclude tampering, we would require either the original reports prepared by the laboratory that performed the tests to accompany the certificate or a copy of the reports that is annotated by the laboratory to indicate how the originals may be obtained.
Finally, except when an export health certificate has been issued and endorsed electronically, the original signed export health certificate would have to accompany the animals or animal germplasm to the port of embarkation or land border port.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1) of § 91.3 would provide that, unless specified by the importing country, an export health certificate for livestock is valid for 30 days from the date of issuance, provided that the inspection and tests results under paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 91.3 are still valid. Similarly, proposed paragraph (f)(2) of § 91.3 would provide that, unless specified by the importing country, an export health certificate for animals other than livestock, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes is valid for 30 days from the date of issuance.
We are proposing to prohibit the export of any animal, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes under Federal, State, or local government quarantine or movement restrictions for animal health reasons unless the importing country issues an import permit or other written instruction allowing that animal or other commodity to enter its country and APHIS concurs with the export of the animal, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes. This restriction, together with any export health certifications required by an importing country, would ensure that animals, hatching eggs, and animal germplasm exported from the United States meet the health requirements of importing countries and are free from serious diseases.
Proposed § 91.5 would contain identification requirements for livestock intended for export. With one exception, we would require such livestock to be identified in accordance with 9 CFR part 86. That part contains national identification standards for livestock moving in interstate commerce. We consider this requirement to be necessary in order to align our export requirements with our domestic regulations, and to facilitate the interstate movement of animals intended for export from their premises of export to an export inspection facility, port of embarkation, or land border port.
We would also require the livestock to bear any additional form of identification required by the importing country.
Finally, while part 86 requires that, if a horse is identified by an individual animal tattoo, the horse must be accompanied by a written description of the horse, we would allow horses intended for export to be identified by individual animal tattoos alone, if allowed by the importing country. The United States has long-standing export protocols with several countries that allow horses to be identified solely by an animal tattoo, and we have not encountered problems with the orderly export of horses to those countries that would suggest the need to modify the protocols to specify an alternate means of identification.
Current paragraph (d) of § 91.3 requires export health certificates to certify that the means of conveyance or container used to move livestock from their premises of export has been cleaned and disinfected since last used for animals with a disinfectant approved under § 71.10 of 9 CFR prior to loading, or to certify that the carrier or container has not previously been used in transporting animals. Similarly, current paragraph (e) of § 91.3 requires that facilities where animals are unloaded during movement to ports of embarkation or border ports be cleaned and disinfected with a disinfectant approved under § 71.10 before the animals are unloaded into that facility.
Section 71.10 lists disinfectants permitted for use on means of conveyance, containers, and facilities associated with the movement of livestock in commerce. However, the list of permitted disinfectants in § 71.10 has not been updated in many years. Additionally, § 71.10 does not provide for a mechanism to add or remove disinfectants from the list, as warranted.
Therefore, while proposed § 91.6 would substantively retain the regulatory provisions currently located in paragraphs (d) and (e) of § 91.3, it would no longer require use of a disinfectant listed in § 71.10. Instead, disinfectants approved by the Administrator for the purposes of fulfilling these regulatory requirements would be listed online, at a Web address provided in the Program Handbook.
We would also provide a mechanism for additional disinfectants to be added to the list of approved disinfectants. The Administrator would approve a disinfectant upon determining that the disinfectant is effective against pathogens that may be spread by the animals intended for export. Additionally, if the disinfectant is a chemical disinfectant, it would have to be registered or exempted for the specified use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 135
There would also be a mechanism for removing disinfectants from the list of approved disinfectants. The Administrator would remove a disinfectant from the list if it no longer meets the conditions for approval specified above.
Currently, paragraph (a) of § 91.15 requires animals offered for exportation to any country other than Mexico or Canada to be inspected by an APHIS veterinarian within 24 hours of embarkation of the animals at an export inspection facility associated with a port designated as a port of embarkation by the Administrator. Current paragraph (b) of § 91.17 requires that owners, masters, or operators of ocean vessels must refuse for transportation any livestock that are unfit to withstand the rigors of such transportation. This paragraph also
The paragraphs are intended to work in tandem to describe APHIS' usual processes regarding pre-export inspection of livestock destined for export aboard an ocean vessel: The animals are moved to an export inspection facility and an APHIS veterinarian examines the livestock to determine whether they are fit to travel. If any of the livestock are deemed unfit to travel, the veterinarian requires them to be segregated from the rest of the livestock intended for export, and prohibits them from being loaded onto the ocean vessel at the point of embarkation.
This intent, however, is not readily apparent. Nor do the current regulations in part 91 specify that APHIS has in place parallel processes for livestock intended for export via aircraft. Finally, exporters have from time to time requested the criteria that lead a veterinarian to determine an animal is unfit for travel.
To clarify both the nature and intent of the pre-export inspection, proposed paragraph (a) of § 91.7 would require all livestock intended for export by air or sea to receive a visual health inspection from an APHIS veterinarian within 48 hours prior to embarkation. (We discuss why we are proposing to increase the allowed duration between this inspection and the embarkation of the animals from 24 to 48 hours later in this document). Paragraph (a) would also provide that the purpose of the inspection is to determine whether the livestock are sound, healthy, and fit to travel. The paragraph would further state that an APHIS veterinarian will reject for export any livestock that he or she finds to be unfit to travel.
The paragraph would specify that it is the responsibility of the owner of the animals or his or her agent to make arrangements for any livestock found unfit to travel. The purpose of this requirement, which is not found in the current regulations, would be to give notice to owners and their agents that it is their responsibility to take appropriate, effective, and humane care of animals that are judged unfit to travel.
Finally, proposed paragraph (a) of § 91.7 would provide a list of conditions that make an animal unfit to travel. The list is not intended to be exhaustive or all-inclusive, but would cover the most common situations that we encounter. The list would include:
• Livestock that are sick, injured, weak, disabled, or fatigued.
• Livestock that are unable to stand unaided or bear weight on each leg.
• Livestock that are blind in both eyes.
• Livestock that cannot be moved without causing additional suffering.
• Newborn livestock with an unhealed navel.
• Livestock that have given birth within the previous 48 hours and are traveling without their offspring.
• Pregnant livestock that would be in the final 10 percent of their gestation period at the planned time of unloading in the importing country.
• Livestock with unhealed wounds from recent surgical procedures, such as dehorning.
As we mentioned earlier in this document, the regulations currently require pre-export inspection to occur at an export inspection facility associated with a port that has been designated as a port of embarkation by the Administrator.
Currently, many countries require livestock intended for export to be kept isolated from other animals for a period of time immediately prior to movement for export. This isolation usually occurs at the premises of export, although, in certain instances, it occurs at another facility specifically designed for isolation of livestock. After the period of isolation ends, if the livestock will be exported by air or sea, they are shipped from the export isolation facility to an export inspection facility at a designated port of embarkation for pre-export inspection.
In recent years, APHIS has received several requests from exporters to allow pre-export inspection of livestock at export isolation facilities. These requests have usually been made when the export isolation facility was closer to the nearest designated port of embarkation than it was to the export inspection facility, or when the exporter expressed concern that moving the livestock to the export inspection facility would cause undue hardship to the animals.
Similarly, from time to time, we also have received requests from exporters to allow pre-export inspection of livestock at an export inspection facility other than the facility associated with the port of embarkation for the livestock. These usually have occurred when the export inspection facility requested by the exporter can more easily accommodate the lot of animals to be inspected, or has additional resources or personnel to conduct inspections.
As a result, proposed paragraph (b) of § 91.7 would provide that an APHIS veterinarian must conduct pre-export inspection at either an export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, or, when authorized by the Administrator, at an export isolation facility or another export inspection facility. The conditions under which the Administrator would authorize inspection of the livestock at an export isolation facility or an export inspection facility not associated with the port of embarkation would be described in paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 91.7.
Proposed paragraph (b) of § 91.7 would also provide that, unless APHIS has authorized otherwise, any sorting, grouping, identification, or other handling of the livestock by the exporter must be done before the inspection. It would further provide that the APHIS veterinarian may also conduct clinical examination of any of the livestock during or after this inspection if he or she deems it necessary in order to determine the animal's health. Any testing or treatment related to this clinical examination would have to be performed by an APHIS veterinarian or an accredited veterinarian. (In this context, testing refers to discretionary tests performed on animals exhibiting signs or symptoms of illness, not to tests required by APHIS or the importing country.) Finally, the paragraph would specify that if the facility used to conduct the inspection is a facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, it must be located within 28 hours driving distance under normal driving conditions from the port of embarkation. While we have determined that there are certain instances where it makes sense to authorize pre-export inspection of livestock at export isolation facilities or export inspection facilities other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, none of these instances would suggest authorizing inspections at an export isolation facility or export inspection facility located more than 28 hours driving distance from the port of embarkation. We are proposing a maximum driving distance of 28 hours because, pursuant to the 28 hour law (49 U.S.C. 80502), the maximum time that livestock may be transported in interstate commerce without rest, feed, and water is 28 hours.
To help ensure that livestock moved from a facility located a significant distance from the port of embarkation are well-rested and fit for travel, we would require livestock to be afforded at least 48 hours rest, with sufficient feed and water during that time period, prior to movement from the facility. Inspection of the livestock would occur during this rest period, which could also be concurrent with any isolation period required by the exporting country.
As we mentioned above, proposed paragraph (c) of § 91.7 would contain conditions under which the Administrator would authorize pre-export inspection of the livestock at an export isolation facility, rather than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would state that the Administrator may allow pre-export inspection of livestock to be conducted at an export isolation facility, rather than at an export inspection facility, when the exporter can show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the livestock would suffer undue hardship if they had to be inspected at the export inspection facility, when the distance from the export isolation facility to the port of embarkation is significantly less than the distance from the export isolation facility to the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, when inspection at the export isolation facility would be a more efficient use of APHIS resources, or for other reasons acceptable to the Administrator. In other words, generally speaking, we would authorize pre-export inspection of livestock at an export isolation facility when we determine that it would further our goal under the AHPA to ensure the health and humane treatment of animals exported from the United States, or when it would be more practical for the parties involved in the inspection to have it at the export isolation facility as long as the livestock would not suffer any undue hardship.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) of § 91.7 would specify that the Administrator's approval of an export isolation facility as the location where pre-export inspection takes place is contingent upon APHIS having personnel available to provide services at that location. It would further specify that approval is also contingent upon the Administrator determining that the facility has space, lighting, and humane means of handling livestock sufficient for the APHIS personnel to safely conduct required inspections.
The Program Handbook would provide guidance for isolation facilities regarding ways to meet these performance standards. Isolation facility owners or operators who follow the guidance set forth in the Program Handbook would be assured of APHIS approval of their facilities as locations for pre-export inspection. Owners and operators could submit alternate plans for meeting the performance standards to APHIS for evaluation and approval. In order for us to approve these alternate plans, however, they would have to be at least as effective in meeting the performance standards as those described in the Program Handbook. We would have to approve these alternate plans before the facility could be used for purposes of proposed § 91.7.
Proposed paragraph (d) of § 91.7 would contain conditions under which the Administrator would authorize inspection of livestock at an export inspection facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation. It would state that the Administrator may allow pre-export inspection of livestock to be conducted at an export inspection facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation when the exporter can show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the livestock would suffer undue hardship if they had to be inspected at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, when inspection at this different export inspection facility would be a more efficient use of APHIS resources, or for other reasons acceptable to the Administrator.
These conditions would be very similar to the conditions under which we would allow pre-export inspection at an export isolation facility. However, while we can foresee instances when an export isolation facility may be closer to the port of embarkation from which the livestock will be shipped than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, we cannot foresee instances when the export inspection facility associated with a different port would be closer to the port of embarkation than the export inspection facility associated with that port.
If this rule is finalized, we anticipate approving several export isolation facilities and authorizing pre-export inspection of livestock at those facilities pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of § 91.7. We also anticipate authorizing pre-export inspection of livestock at export inspection facilities other than those associated with the port of embarkation pursuant to paragraph (d) of § 91.7 from time to time.
If such authorization occurs, there could be certain instances when it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an animal to be inspected within 24 hours prior to embarkation. Even when pre-export inspection of livestock is conducted at an export inspection facility located at the port of embarkation, it can take more than 24 hours to load a large lot of animals safely into an ocean vessel. If pre-export inspection were to occur at an export isolation facility or an export inspection facility other than the facility associated with the port of embarkation, the time spent en route to the port of embarkation would count towards the 24 hour period. This could result in hastened loading of the animals and increased likelihood of their injury or distress. For these reasons, as we mentioned above, we are proposing to allow pre-export inspections to occur up to 48 hours prior to embarkation. Allowing the inspection to occur up to 48 hours in advance would provide additional time for thorough inspections and orderly loading of the livestock, while still keeping the final inspection close to the time of departure.
That being said, we recognize that some countries have import requirements that specify that livestock must be inspected within a shorter period of time prior to export. In such instances, the inspection would have to take place within the timeframe specified by the importing country.
Paragraph (e) of § 91.7 would provide that the APHIS veterinarian will maintain an inspection record that includes the date and place of the pre-export inspection, species and number of animals inspected, the number of animals rejected, a description of those animals, and the reasons for rejection. In the event of a dispute regarding whether a particular animal was considered fit for travel during pre-export inspection, we would have recourse to these records to help resolve the dispute.
For similar reasons, proposed paragraph (f) of § 91.7 would provide that, at the request of the importing country or an exporter, the APHIS veterinarian who inspects the livestock will issue a certificate of inspection for livestock he or she finds to be sound, healthy, and fit for travel.
Currently, paragraph (c) of § 91.15 requires all livestock intended for export from the United States by sea or air to be allowed a period of at least 5 hours for rest at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, with adequate feed and water available, before movement to an ocean vessel or aircraft for loading for export. The paragraph allows this rest period to occur during pre-export inspection, and provides that feed and water is not required if the animals were transported to the export inspection facility in a carrier in which adequate feed and water was provided and if sufficient evidence is presented to an APHIS veterinarian that the animals, if under 30 days of age, will arrive in the import country within 24 hours after they were last fed and watered in the United States, or in the case of other
Proposed § 91.8 would revise these requirements. We are proposing to eliminate any exemptions from the rest, feed, and water requirement for livestock intended for export by sea or air. We are proposing to do so because, once an animal leaves the territorial limits of the United States, it is no longer subject to our oversight, and because it is not uncommon for travel to a foreign region to take significantly longer than expected because of adverse climatic conditions and other reasons.
We are, however, proposing to reduce the rest period that must be afforded to livestock intended for export from 5 hours to 2 hours. In our experience, livestock moved for export are usually not taxed by such movement to the extent that would warrant a 5 hour rest period.
However, they do tend to stiffen as a result of such movement. Based on our experience, it takes the animals 2 hours to become limber once again and prepared for the rigors of sea or air travel.
Out of recognition that there could be circumstances where 2 hours would be an insufficient period of time for such rest, however, we would allow an inspector to extend the duration of the rest period up to 5 hours, at his or her discretion and based on a determination that more rest is necessary in order to have assurances that the animals are fit to travel prior to loading.
Finally, we are proposing to remove the provision from the current regulations allowing this rest period to be concurrent with pre-export inspection. Based on our experience, it is difficult for an animal to rest during pre-export inspection. However, if pre-export inspection has occurred at a facility other than the export inspection facility associated at the port of embarkation, we are proposing to require that the livestock be visually observed at the end of the rest period for fitness to travel.
In accordance with current paragraph (a) of § 91.14, all livestock intended for export from the United States by air or sea must be exported through designated ports of embarkation. As provided in § 91.14(a) and (b), the Administrator will not designate a port of embarkation for livestock—even temporarily—unless the port has an approved export inspection facility permanently associated with it.
We are proposing to allow the Administrator to temporarily approve ports without export inspection facilities under certain circumstances. Specifically, proposed § 91.9 would provide that such ports could be approved on a temporary basis for a specific shipment of livestock when pre-export inspection of that shipment has occurred at an export isolation facility or an export inspection facility not associated with the port of embarkation, as provided in proposed § 91.7. This change would allow temporary use of ports that do not have export inspection facilities permanently associated with them for specific shipments of livestock. Unlike ports of embarkation with export inspection facilities permanently associated with them, which would be listed in the Program Handbook, these ports would not be listed in the Program Handbook. Their use would be limited to the specific shipment(s) for which they were approved by the Administrator.
Currently, § 91.14 sets out standards that facilities have to meet in order to be approved as export inspection facilities. The standards are often very prescriptive. For example, paragraph (c)(10), lighting, states that: “The facility shall be equipped with artificial lighting to provide not less than 70 foot candle power in the inspection area and not less than 40 foot candle power in the remainder of the facility.”
Proposed § 91.10 would remove the prescriptive standards for export inspection facilities that are currently in § 91.14 from the regulations. Instead, proposed § 91.10 would require the export inspection facilities to be constructed, equipped, and managed in a manner that: (1) Prevents transmission of disease to and from livestock in the facilities; (2) provides for the safe and humane handling and restraint of livestock; and (3) provides sufficient offices, space, and lighting for APHIS veterinarians to safely conduct required health inspections of livestock and related business.
The Program Handbook that accompanies this proposed rule provides guidance on ways to comply with these requirements. This guidance is substantively similar to the requirements currently in the regulations in § 91.14. Owners and operators of facilities that follow the guidance provided in the Program Handbook are assured of meeting our proposed requirements.
That said, while the Program Handbook provides one way of meeting the requirements in proposed § 91.10, we recognize that there could also be other ways of meeting the requirements. To that end, owners and operators could submit alternative plans for meeting the requirements to APHIS for our evaluation and approval. Any alternatives submitted would have to be at least as effective in meeting the requirements as the methods described in the Program Handbook in order to be approved. APHIS approval would be required before alternatives could be used for the purpose described in the regulations.
We would retain in proposed § 91.10(b) the requirements currently in the regulations in § 91.14(c)(6) and (c)(9) that facilities allow APHIS representatives access to all parts of the facility, and that applications for approval of an export inspection facility be accompanied by a certification that the facility meets all applicable environmental laws and regulations. However, we would limit the current scope of § 91.14(c)(6) somewhat in proposed § 91.10(b)(2). While we currently require facilities to provide access to all parts of the facility at all times for the purpose of assessing compliance with the regulations, we only exercise this authority during the facility's business hours, that is, while the facility is in operation. To reflect this, we would require access to the facility during the facility's business hours. Additionally, while the current requirement does not specify why APHIS needs such broad access to the facility, our proposed requirement would clarify that the access is needed in order for us to evaluate whether the facility is in compliance with the requirements of the regulations for the purposes of approval or a subsequent audit.
We also propose to substantively retain in proposed paragraph (c) of § 91.10 the provisions currently in the regulations in § 91.14(d) regarding approval and denial or revocation of approval of export inspection facilities. We do, however, propose to add two conditions that would trigger the need for reapproval of an export inspection facility that we have previously approved: Change of ownership of the facility or significant damage or structural changes to the facility. In these instances, we would need assurances that the facility continues to meet the standards under which it was approved in light of these changes.
As we mentioned earlier in this document, many countries currently require livestock intended for export to be kept isolated from other animals for a period of time immediately prior to movement for export. Often, the
We are proposing to add to the regulations requirements pertaining to APHIS approval of export isolation facilities. Specifically, proposed § 91.11 requires that, if an importing country requires livestock to undergo USDA-approved export isolation, APHIS must approve the export isolation facility used for the livestock prior to each isolation. APHIS would approve the facility only if the Administrator determines, upon APHIS inspection of the facility, that the facility meets the standards identified by the importing country. If the importing country does not identify specific standards, APHIS would approve the facility only if the Administrator determines, upon inspection of the facility, that the facility has adequate measures in place to protect the livestock in the facility from exposure to animals of different health status and fomites in order to prevent transmission of disease of livestock during the isolation period. Additionally, export isolation conducted at the facility would have to be supervised by an accredited veterinarian or, if requested by the importing country, by an APHIS veterinarian.
The Program Handbook that accompanies this proposed rule provides guidance on measures that a facility can implement in order to comply with the proposed requirement that the facility have adequate measures in place to protect livestock at the facility from exposure to animals of different disease status during the isolation period. Owners and operators that follow the guidance provided in the Program Handbook are assured of meeting this proposed requirement.
That said, while the Program Handbook provides one way of adequately meeting the requirement, we recognize that there could also be other ways of adequately meeting the requirement. To that end, owners and operators could submit alternate measures to APHIS for evaluation and approval. Alternatives would have to be at least as effective in meeting the requirement as those described in the Program Handbook in order to be approved. Alternatives would have to be approved by APHIS before being used for purposes of meeting the regulations.
Current subpart D of part 91 (§§ 91.17–91.30) applies to the ocean vessels on which livestock are exported from the United States, and sets forth requirements that the vessels must meet with regard to construction, ventilation, space, fittings, equipment, and attendants. In a similar manner to the standards for export inspection facilities that are currently in the regulations, these standards are often very detailed and prescriptive. For example, current § 91.23 requires ramps connecting one deck of an ocean vessel to another to “have a clear width of 3 feet and a clear height of not less than 6 feet 6 inches. The incline of the ramps shall not exceed 1:2 (26
These requirements are based on performance standards that are sometimes articulated, but more often implied, in the current regulations. At the time the regulations were issued, we considered the requirements to be the only means of meeting those performance standards. However, since that time, alternate means of meeting certain of the standards have arisen. Accordingly, proposed § 91.12 would require ocean vessels used to transport livestock intended for export to be designed, constructed, and managed to reasonably assure the livestock are protected from injury and remain healthy during loading and transport to the importing country.
To meet this overall performance standard for ocean vessels, we propose the following requirements for ocean vessels:
•
We recognize that a number of these requirements are themselves performance-based, and potentially allow for a variety of means or methods in order to meet them. To that end, we provide guidance in the Program Handbook regarding means that may be used to meet the requirements. Owners and operators of ocean vessels who follow the guidance provided in the Program Handbook would be assured of meeting these and other performance-based requirements regarding ocean vessels. Owners and operators could submit alternate means and methods for meeting the requirements to APHIS for evaluation and approval. All alternate means and methods would have to be approved by APHIS before being used for purposes of complying with the regulations.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
These performance standards have the same goal of ensuring the humane transport of livestock as stated in current § 91.17 and, with the exception of a few proposed new standards, discussed immediately below, cover the same aspects of ocean vessels as addressed by current § 91.17 and §§ 91.20 through 91.30.
The proposed requirement that livestock must be positioned during transport so that an animal handler or other responsible person can observe each animal regularly and clearly to ensure the livestock's safety and welfare is new. This is needed, since, if animals are positioned in a manner that consistently obscures them from view, their handler or responsible person may not be able to detect signs or symptoms of distress or illness in a timely manner. For a similar reason, we are requiring ocean vessels to have sufficient illumination to allow clear observation of the animals during loading, unloading, and transport.
The proposed requirement for animal waste systems is also new. This is necessary, along with adequate ventilation, to ensure livestock are not harmed by build-up of waste in transport spaces. There is a similar rationale for the proposed new requirement that the vessel be designed and constructed to allow thorough cleaning and disinfection and to prevent feces and urine from livestock on upper levels from soiling livestock on lower levels or their feed or water, as well as for the requirement that water and feeding systems be designed to minimize the soiling of pens.
The proposed requirements that ventilation be effective when the vessel is stationary as well as when it is moving, and that it be turned on when the first animal is loaded, are also new. As we mentioned earlier in this document, it can take a day or longer to load and unload a large shipment of livestock destined for export, and these requirements would ensure that the livestock have adequate fresh air during loading and unloading.
Additionally, we are proposing that the vessel have adequate stability, taking into consideration the weight and distribution of the livestock and fodder, and effects of high winds and seas. One of the factors that APHIS needs to consider in approving a vessel for the transport of livestock is stability, particularly as the vessel's stability may be affected by the way feed and livestock will be arranged on the vessel. A vessel arranged to carry large animals on upper decks and small animals on lower decks, for instance, would be top heavy and more prone to capsize, resulting in likely loss of life. If APHIS has questions about a vessel's stability for a particular voyage, independently verified stability calculations would help resolve them, so APHIS would request such calculations as needed.
Lastly, we are proposing that the vessel meet any other condition the Administrator determines is necessary for approval, as dictated by specific circumstances and communicated to the owner or operator of the vessel, to protect the livestock and keep them healthy during loading, unloading, and transport to the importing country. We propose to include this provision in the event that unforeseen circumstances make it necessary to require additional safeguards to protect the health of the livestock.
In many instances, ocean vessels that transport livestock for export from the United States are constructed specifically for that purpose. On occasion, however, livestock are transported in shipping containers on ocean vessels that are not constructed specifically to transport livestock. In those instances, while some of the above
Accordingly, proposed § 91.12 would provide that an inspector may exempt an ocean vessel that uses shipping containers to transport livestock to an importing country from any of the above requirements that he or she specifies, if the inspector determines that the containers themselves are designed, constructed, and managed in a manner to reasonably assure the livestock are protected from injury and remain healthy during loading, unloading, and transport to the importing country. The Program Handbook provides guidance regarding the considerations that may lead an inspector to exempt a vessel from a specific requirement.
Inspection of vessels would occur in a manner very similar to the existing requirements. Currently, § 91.19, headed “Inspection of ocean vessels prior to loading,” directs owners or masters of ocean vessels intended for use in exporting livestock to present the vessel to an inspector at a U.S. port of embarkation or, in some cases, at a foreign port, for an inspection to determine if the fittings aboard the vessel comply with the regulations. We propose to require inspection of an ocean vessel to determine whether it meets the above standards for ocean vessels only prior to initial use to transport any livestock from the United States. If we determine that the ocean vessel meets the standards, we would certify the vessel to transport livestock from the United States. (As an exception, if a vessel that would use shipping containers to transport livestock has been granted an exemption from certain requirements pursuant to proposed paragraph (e) of § 91.12, we would not require the vessel to meet those particular requirements in order to be certified or recertified.) This initial certification would specify the species of livestock for which the vessel is approved.
Thereafter, in most instances, the vessel would only need to be recertified every 3 years. The only other occasions when the vessel would need to be recertified would be when circumstances dictate that a recertification occur before the vessel is again used to transport livestock. These circumstances would be when significant changes are made to the vessel, including to livestock transport spaces or life support systems; when there is a failure of any major life support system; when species of livestock not covered by the existing certification are to be transported; and when the owner or operator of the ocean vessel changes.
To aid us in determining whether the vessel meets the above standards and can be certified to transport livestock from the United States, we would request the following information prior to the initial certification inspection of the vessel (as well as prior to subsequent inspections for recertification, upon our request):
• General information about the vessel, including the year built, length and breadth, vessel name history, port of registry, call sign, maximum and average speed, fresh water tank capacity and fresh water generation rate, and feed silo capacity (if the vessel has a silo).
• A notarized statement from an engineer concerning the rate of air exchange in each compartment of the vessel.
• The species of livestock that the vessel would transport.
• Scale drawings that provide details of the design, materials, and methods of construction and arrangement of fittings for the containment and movement of livestock; provisions for the storage and distribution of feed and water; drainage arrangements; primary and secondary sources of power; and lighting.
• A photograph of the rails and gates of any pens.
• A description of the flooring surface on livestock decks.
• The following measurements: Width of the ramps; the clear height from the ramps to the lowest overhead structures; the incline between the ramps and the horizontal plane; the distance between footlocks on the ramps; the height of side fencing on the ramps; the height of the vessel's side doors through which livestock are loaded; the width of alleyways running fore and aft between livestock pens; and the distance from the floor of the livestock pens to the beams of lowest structures overhead.
We recognize that, if a vessel intends to use shipping containers to transport livestock to an importing country, some of this information may not be applicable. The Program Handbook provides guidance for owners and operators of ocean vessels regarding how to indicate this non-applicability on their submission in a manner that is clear to APHIS, and that triggers an evaluation of the shipping containers themselves pursuant to proposed paragraph (e) of § 91.12.
We propose to modify the current requirement for providing feed and water to livestock aboard ocean vessels. The regulations currently require ocean vessels to provide livestock with feed and water immediately after the livestock are loaded onto the vessel unless an APHIS representative determines that all of the livestock are 30 days of age or older and the vessel will arrive in the country of destination within 36 hours after the livestock were last fed and watered within the United States, or, if any of the livestock in the shipment are younger than 30 days, that the vessel will arrive in the country of destination within 24 hours after the livestock were last fed and watered within the United States.
We issued these provisions on the presupposition that 36 hours is the maximum amount of time that livestock 30 days of age or older can go without feed and water before suffering duress, and 24 hours is the maximum amount of time that livestock younger than 30 days can go without feed and water before suffering duress.
We have since determined that, in certain instances, with adequate food, water, and rest beforehand, livestock can go a longer period without food and water before suffering duress. On the other hand, we have also encountered several occasions since the regulations were issued where allowing livestock aboard an ocean vessel to go 36 hours without food and water adversely impacted the well-being of the animals. These situations usually arose when the ocean vessel carrying the livestock was subject to particularly adverse climatic conditions, such as high winds, heavy seas, or driving precipitation; the livestock were unaccustomed to eating and drinking while under duress; and the amount of feed and water aboard the vessel did not take into sufficient consideration the livestock's species, body weight, and eating and watering tendencies.
As a result, instead of providing a maximum time period at sea that livestock may go without feed and water, proposed paragraph (c) of § 91.12 would require the ocean vessel to provide sufficient feed and water to the livestock aboard the vessel, taking into consideration the livestock's species, body weight, the expected duration of the voyage, and the likelihood of adverse climatic conditions during
We propose to retain the current requirements in § 91.18 for cleaning and disinfection of ocean vessels, with some clarifications. Current § 91.18 requires that all fittings, utensils, and equipment, unless new, to be used in the loading, stowing, or handling of animals aboard ocean vessels be cleaned and disinfected under the supervision of an inspector before being used for, or in conjunction with, the transportation of any animals from any U.S. port. In proposed paragraph (b) of § 91.12, we propose to require cleaning and disinfection of any vessel intended for use in exporting livestock, and all fittings, utensils, containers, and equipment (unless new) used for loading, stowing, or other handling of livestock aboard the vessel, and provide guidance regarding which surfaces need to be cleaned in the Program Handbook. Our intent is to ensure that all surfaces where livestock are kept are cleaned and disinfected prior to loading, as well as any other surface where the crew walks in the same footwear that is worn in the livestock cargo areas. Likewise, all rails, gates, water troughs, and other equipment and utensils used for livestock would have to be cleaned and disinfected prior to the loading of the livestock.
Additionally, we propose that this cleaning and disinfection be done to the satisfaction of an APHIS representative, rather than under the supervision of an APHIS inspector. We also propose to remove the list of approved disinfectants from the regulations and to instead use the Program Handbook to provide access to the list, which we would maintain online. Similar to other provisions regarding approval of disinfectants in this proposed rule, the Administrator would approve a disinfectant for use to disinfect ocean vessels upon determining that the disinfectant is effective against pathogens that may be spread by the animals and, if the disinfectant is a chemical disinfectant, that it is registered or exempted for the specified use by the EPA. Proposed paragraph (b) of § 91.12 would also contain provisions for approving additional disinfectants, as well as withdrawing approval.
We would also add a new requirement that all ocean vessels, upon docking at a U.S. port to load livestock, have disinfectant foot baths at entryways where persons board and exit the ship, and require such baths before allowing any person to disembark. Many countries have diseases of livestock that are not known to exist in the United States or that are not widely prevalent, and that can be spread by soil and other ground contaminants. This requirement would mitigate against the introduction of such diseases through such fomites.
We would continue to inspect ocean vessels prior to each voyage to ensure that the vessel has been properly cleaned and disinfected. The inspection would also be to ensure that there is sufficient food and water for the voyage, and continues to meet the standards for ocean vessels.
To ensure that we have sufficient notice and information to conduct the inspection in a timely manner, we propose to require that the owner or operator provide us with the following information at least 72 hours before the vessel will be available for inspection:
• The name of the ocean vessel.
• The port, date, and time the ocean vessel will be available for inspection, and the estimated time that loading will begin.
• A description of the livestock to be transported, including the type, number, and estimated average weight of the livestock.
• Stability data for the ship with the livestock on board.
• The port of discharge.
• The route and expected length of the voyage.
Finally, we are proposing to require that the owner or operator of an ocean vessel used to export livestock from the United States, including vessels that use shipping containers, submit a written report to APHIS within 5 business days after completing the voyage. This report would include the name of the ocean vessel, the name and address of all exporters of livestock transported on the vessel, the port of embarkation, the dates of the voyage, the port where the livestock were discharged, the number of each species of livestock loaded, and the number of each species that died and an explanation for those mortalities. Additionally, the report would have to document any failure of any major life support system for the livestock, including, but not limited to, systems for providing feed and water, ventilation systems, and livestock waste management systems. Any such failure would have to be documented, regardless of the duration or whether the failure resulted in any harm to the livestock. Additionally, if an ocean vessel used to export livestock experiences such a failure of a major life support system for livestock during the voyage, we propose to require that the owner or operator of the vessel would have to notify APHIS immediately by telephone, facsimile, or other electronic means. Contact numbers and addresses would be provided in the Program Handbook.
The report itself would have to include the name and contact information of the person who prepared the report, and would have to be submitted to APHIS by facsimile or email. Contact numbers and addresses for the report itself, as well as an optional template for the report, would also be provided in the Program Handbook.
There currently are no requirements for owners or operators of ocean vessels to report livestock deaths or serious system failures on ocean vessels that could affect the health of any livestock transported. Having this information would allow APHIS to better determine whether a particular vessel meets our performance standards or whether any of our guidance for meeting performance standards should be adjusted. Requiring that APHIS be notified immediately of any major system failures would alert APHIS to the potential need for additional food or other resources for the livestock, or a potential stop at another port.
APHIS would also be able to notify animal health officials in the importing country about any expected delays or animal health issues they may have to deal with as a result of system failures, including mortalities. In the absence of these requirements, APHIS may not learn of problems affecting animals during a voyage until those problems are reported by animal health officials in the importing country, or may have to scramble to make last minute arrangements in the event of a problem. We propose that failure to provide timely reports as required could result in us disapproving future livestock shipments by the owner or operator or revoking the vessel's certification to transport livestock for export.
We are proposing to substantially retain the requirements in current § 91.41 for cleaning and disinfection of aircraft. We are, however, proposing to remove specific approved disinfectants from the regulations, and instead, to list approved disinfectants in the Program Handbook. The requirements for cleaning and disinfection of aircraft are in paragraphs (a) through (d) of proposed § 91.13.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of § 91.13 provides that the Administrator will approve a disinfectant for the purposes of that section upon determining that the disinfectant is effective against pathogens that may be spread by the animals and, if the disinfectant is a
Proposed paragraphs (b) through (d) would retain, with non-substantive editorial revisions, the other existing requirements in the regulations governing cleaning and disinfection of aircraft.
Finally, we are also proposing two new requirements for livestock exported from the United States via aircraft, which would be contained in paragraph (e) of § 91.13. We are proposing that any cargo containers used to ship the livestock would have to be designed and constructed of a material of sufficient strength to securely contain the animals, as determined by APHIS. We are doing so because, in the absence of such requirements, exporters have sometimes constructed containers out of materials, such as plywood, that are not adequate to prevent the livestock from escaping during transit. We are also proposing that the containers must provide sufficient space for the species being transported given the duration of the trip, as determined by APHIS, in order to prevent overcrowding of animals.
Finally, we propose to retain the provision in current § 91.4 by which the Administrator may, upon request in specific cases, permit the export of livestock not otherwise provided for in part 91 under such conditions as the Administrator may prescribe in each specific case to prevent the spread of livestock diseases and to ensure the humane treatment of the animals during transport to the importing country. This flexibility ensures that the Administrator can make appropriate exceptions in unforeseen or unusual situations.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend 9 CFR part 91, which contains requirements for the inspection and handling of live animals (cattle, horses, captive cervids, sheep, goats, and swine) to be exported from the United States. Among other things, the proposed rule would remove some prescriptive requirements applicable to livestock, either completely or by replacing them with performance standards, and would make other adjustments in inspection and handling requirements to assist exporters. These changes would provide APHIS and exporters more flexibility in arranging for the export of livestock from the United States while continuing to ensure the animals' health and welfare.
The proposed rule would also add requirements for individual identification of livestock intended for export, use of methods and laboratories approved by APHIS when livestock must be tested for certain diseases, and obtaining export health certificates for non-livestock animals, hatching eggs, and animal germplasm when such certificates are required by the importing country. These changes would help ensure that all live animals, hatching eggs, and animal germplasm exported from the United States meet the health requirements of the countries to which they are destined.
Entities directly affected by this rule would include exporters of live animals, hatching eggs, and animal germplasm. While we do not know the size distribution of these exporters, we expect that the majority are small by Small Business Administration standards, given the prevalence of small entities among livestock producers. Operators of export inspection facilities, export isolation facilities, aircraft, and ocean vessels would also be directly affected. These industries are also largely composed of small businesses. The provisions of the proposed rule would facilitate the export process for affected parties.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Revising our regulations governing the export of live animals from the United States will require information collection activities, including the issuance of export health certificates, official identification of exported animals, and reports filed by the owners or operators of ocean vessels that export livestock.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2727.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2727.
Animal diseases, Animal welfare, Exports, Livestock, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to revise 9 CFR part 91 to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 19 U.S.C. 1644a(c); 21 U.S.C. 136, 136a, and 618; 46 U.S.C. 3901 and 3902; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
As used in this part, the following terms will have the meanings set forth in this section:
You may not export any animal or animal germplasm from the United States except in compliance with this part.
(a)
(2) If an importing country is known to require an export health certificate for any animal other than livestock or for any animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes intended for export to that
(b)
(i) The species of each animal.
(ii) The breed of each animal.
(iii) The sex of each animal.
(iv) The age of each animal.
(v) The individual identification of the animals as required by § 91.5.
(vi) The importing country.
(vii) The consignor.
(viii) The consignee.
(ix) A certification that an accredited veterinarian inspected the livestock and found them to be fit for export.
(x) A signature and date by an accredited veterinarian.
(xi) An endorsement by the APHIS veterinarian responsible for the State of origin.
(2)
(3)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(2)
(f)
(2)
No animal, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes under Federal, State, or local government quarantine or movement restrictions for animal health reasons may be exported from the United States unless the importing country issues an import permit or other written instruction allowing entry of the animal, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes, and APHIS concurs with the export of the animal, animal semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, or gametes.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, livestock that are intended for export must be identified in accordance with part 86 of this chapter. If the importing country requires an additional form of identification, the livestock must also bear that form of identification.
(b) Horses may be identified by an individual animal tattoo alone, without an accompanying description of the horse, if allowed by the importing country.
(a) All export health certificates for livestock must be accompanied by a statement issued by an APHIS representative and/or accredited veterinarian that the means of conveyance or container in which the livestock will be transported from the premises of export has been cleaned and disinfected prior to loading the livestock with a disinfectant approved by the Administrator for purposes of this section or by a statement that the means of conveyance or container was not previously used to transport animals.
(b) Livestock moved for export may be unloaded only into a facility which has been cleaned and disinfected in the presence of an APHIS representative or an accredited veterinarian prior to such unloading with a disinfectant approved by the Administrator for purposes of this section. A statement certifying to such action must be attached to the export health certificate by the APHIS
(c)
(a) All livestock intended for export by air or sea must receive a visual health inspection from an APHIS veterinarian within 48 hours prior to embarkation, unless the importing country specifies otherwise. The purpose of the inspection is to determine whether the livestock are sound, healthy, and fit to travel. The APHIS veterinarian will reject for export any livestock that he or she finds unfit to travel. The owner of the animals or the owner's agent must make arrangements for any livestock found unfit to travel. Livestock that are unfit to travel include, but are not limited to:
(1) Livestock that are sick, injured, weak, disabled, or fatigued;
(2) Livestock that are unable to stand unaided or bear weight on each leg;
(3) Livestock that are blind in both eyes;
(4) Livestock that cannot be moved without causing additional suffering;
(5) Newborn livestock with an unhealed navel;
(6) Livestock that have given birth within the previous 48 hours and are traveling without their offspring;
(7) Pregnant livestock that would be in the final 10 percent of their gestation period at the planned time of unloading in the importing country; and
(8) Livestock with unhealed wounds from recent surgical procedures, such as dehorning.
(b) The APHIS veterinarian must conduct the inspection at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation of the livestock; at an export isolation facility approved in accordance with § 91.11, when authorized by the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section; or at an export inspection facility other than the facility associated with the port of embarkation, when authorized by the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section. Unless APHIS has authorized otherwise, any sorting, grouping, identification, or other handling of the livestock by the exporter must be done before this inspection. The APHIS veterinarian may also conduct clinical examination of any livestock during or after this inspection if he or she deems it necessary in order to determine the animal's health. Any testing or treatment related to this clinical examination must be performed by an APHIS veterinarian or an accredited veterinarian. Finally, if the facility used to conduct the inspection is a facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, it must be located within 28 hours driving distance under normal driving conditions from the port of embarkation, and livestock must be afforded at least 48 hours rest, with sufficient feed and water during that time period, prior to movement from the facility.
(c)
(1) The Administrator may allow pre-export inspection of livestock to be conducted at an export isolation facility, rather than at an export inspection facility, when the exporter can show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the livestock would suffer undue hardship if they had to be inspected at the export inspection facility, when the distance from the export isolation facility to the port of embarkation is significantly less than the distance from the export isolation facility to the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, when inspection at the export isolation facility would be a more efficient use of APHIS resources, or for other reasons acceptable to the Administrator.
(2) The Administrator's approval is contingent upon APHIS having personnel available to provide services at that location. Approval is also contingent upon the Administrator determining that the facility has space, lighting, and humane means of handling livestock sufficient for the APHIS personnel to safely conduct required inspections. The Program Handbook contains guidance on ways to meet these requirements. Owners and operators may submit alternative plans for meeting the requirements to APHIS for evaluation and approval. Alternatives must be at least as effective in meeting the requirements as those described in the Program Handbook in order to be approved. Alternate plans must be approved by APHIS before the facility may be used for purposes of this section.
(d) The Administrator may allow pre-export inspection of livestock to be conducted at an export inspection facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation when the exporter can show to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the livestock would suffer undue hardship if they had to be inspected at the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, when inspection at this different export inspection facility would be a more efficient use of APHIS resources, or for other reasons acceptable to the Administrator.
(e) The APHIS veterinarian will maintain an inspection record that includes the date and place of the pre-export inspection, species and number of animals inspected, the number of animals rejected, a description of those animals, and the reasons for rejection.
(f) If requested by the importing country or an exporter, the APHIS veterinarian who inspects the livestock will issue a certificate of inspection for livestock he or she finds to be sound, healthy, and fit to travel.
All livestock intended for export by air or sea must be allowed a period of at least 2 hours rest prior to being loaded onto an ocean vessel or aircraft for export. Adequate food and water must be available to the livestock during the rest period. An inspector may extend the required rest period up to 5 hours, at his or her discretion and based on a determination that more rest is needed in order for the inspector to have assurances that the animals are fit to travel prior to loading. Finally, if livestock have been inspected for export at a facility other than the export inspection facility associated with the port of embarkation, they must be visually observed at the end of this rest period for fitness to travel.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, livestock exported by air or sea may be exported only through ports designated as ports of embarkation by the Administrator. Any port that has an export inspection facility that meets the requirements of § 91.10 permanently associated with it is designated as a port of embarkation. The Program Handbook contains a list of designated ports of embarkation. A list may also be
(b) The Administrator may approve other ports for the exportation of livestock on a temporary basis with the concurrence of the port director. The Administrator will grant such temporary approvals only for a specific shipment of livestock, and only if pre-export inspection of that shipment has occurred at an export isolation facility or an export inspection facility not associated with the port of embarkation, as provided in § 91.7.
(c) Temporarily approved ports of embarkation will not be added to the list of designated ports of embarkation and are only approved for the time period and shipment conditions specified by APHIS at the time of approval.
(a) Export inspection facilities must be approved by the Administrator before they may be used for any livestock intended for export. The Administrator will approve an export inspection facility upon determining that it meets the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section. This approval remains in effect unless it is revoked in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, or unless any of the following occur, in which case reapproval must be sought:
(1) The owner of the facility changes.
(2) Significant damage to the facility occurs or significant structural changes are made to the facility.
(b)(1) Export inspection facilities must be constructed, equipped, and managed in a manner that prevents transmission of disease to and from livestock in the facilities, provides for the safe and humane handling and restraint of livestock, and provides sufficient offices, space, and lighting for APHIS veterinarians to safely conduct required health inspections of livestock and related business. The Program Handbook contains guidance on ways to meet these requirements. Owners and operators may submit alternative plans for meeting the requirements to APHIS for evaluation and approval; the address to which to submit such alternatives is contained in the Program Handbook. Alternatives must be at least as effective in meeting the requirements as the methods described in the Program Handbook in order to be approved. Alternatives must be approved by APHIS before being used for purposes of this section.
(2) For the purposes of approval or a subsequent audit, APHIS representatives must have access to all areas of the facility during the facility's business hours to evaluate compliance with the requirements of this section.
(3) The application for approval of an export inspection facility must be accompanied by a certification from the authorities having jurisdiction over environmental affairs in the locality of the facility. The certification must state that the facility complies with any applicable requirements of the State and local governments, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding disposal of animal wastes.
(c) The Administrator will deny or revoke approval of an export inspection facility for failure to meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) APHIS will conduct site inspections of approved export inspection facilities at least once a year for continued compliance with the standards. If a facility fails to pass the inspection, the Administrator may revoke its approval. If the Administrator revokes approval for a facility that serves a designated port of embarkation, the Administrator may also remove that port from the list of designated ports of embarkation.
(2) APHIS will provide written notice of any proposed denial or revocation to the operator of the facility, who will be given an opportunity to present his or her views on the issues before a final decision is made. The notice will list any deficiencies in detail. APHIS will provide notice of pending revocations at least 60 days before the revocation is scheduled to take effect, but may suspend facility operations before that date and before any consideration of objections by the facility operator if the Administrator determines the suspension is necessary to protect animal health or public health, interest, or safety. The operator of any facility whose approval is denied or revoked may request another inspection after remedying the deficiencies.
(a) If an importing country requires livestock to undergo pre-export isolation approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, APHIS must approve the export isolation facility to be used for the livestock prior to each isolation. APHIS will approve a facility only if the Administrator determines, upon APHIS inspection of the facility, that the facility meets standards identified by the importing country. If the importing country does not identify specific standards, APHIS will approve the export isolation facility only if the Administrator determines, upon APHIS inspection of the facility, that the facility has adequate measures in place to protect the livestock at the facility from exposure to animals of different health status and fomites in order to prevent transmission of diseases of livestock during the isolation period. The Program Handbook contains guidance on measures acceptable to APHIS. Owners and operators may submit alternative measures to APHIS for evaluation and approval; the address to which to submit such an alternative is contained in the Program Handbook. Alternatives must be at least as effective in meeting the requirement as those described in the Program Handbook in order to be approved. Alternatives must be approved by APHIS before being used for purposes of this section.
(b) Isolation must be under the supervision of an accredited veterinarian or, if requested by the importing country, by an APHIS veterinarian.
(a)
(i) General information about the vessel, including year built, length and breadth, vessel name history, port of registry, call sign, maximum and average speed, fresh water tank capacity and fresh water generation rate, and feed silo capacity (if the vessel has a silo);
(ii) A notarized statement from an engineer concerning the rate of air exchange in each compartment of the vessel;
(iii) The species of livestock that the vessel would transport;
(iv) Scale drawings that provide details of the design, materials, and methods of construction and arrangement of fittings for the containment and movement of livestock; provisions for the storage and distribution of feed and water; drainage arrangements; primary and secondary sources of power; and lighting;
(v) A photograph of the rails and gates of any pens;
(vi) A description of the flooring surface on the livestock decks; and
(vii) The following measurements: Width of the ramps; the clear height from the ramps to the lowest overhead structures; the incline between the ramps and the horizontal plane; the distance between footlocks on the ramps; the height of side fencing on the ramps; the height of the vessel's side doors through which livestock are loaded; the width of alleyways running fore and aft between livestock pens; and the distance from the floor of the livestock pens to the beams or lowest structures overhead.
(2)
(i) The name of the ocean vessel;
(ii) The port, date, and time the ocean vessel will be available for inspection, and estimated time that loading will begin;
(iii) A description of the livestock to be transported, including the type, number, and estimated average weight of the livestock;
(iv) Stability data for the ocean vessel with livestock on board;
(v) The port of discharge; and
(vi) The route and expected length of the voyage.
(3) The information in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(vi) must be provided at least 72 hours before the vessel will be available for inspection.
(b)
(2) The Administrator will approve a disinfectant for the purposes of this paragraph upon determining that the disinfectant is effective against pathogens that may be spread by the animals and, if the disinfectant is a chemical disinfectant, that it is registered or exempted for the specified use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Program Handbook provides access to a list of disinfectants approved by the Administrator. Other disinfectants may also be approved by the Administrator in accordance with this paragraph. The Administrator will withdraw approval of a disinfectant, and remove it from the list of approved disinfectants in the Program Handbook, if the disinfectant no longer meets the conditions for approval in this section.
(3) All ocean vessels, upon docking at a U.S. port to load livestock, must have disinfectant foot baths at entryways where persons board and exit the ocean vessel, and require such baths before allowing any person to disembark.
(c)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(e)
(f)
(2) If an ocean vessel used to export livestock experiences any failure of a major life support system for livestock during the voyage, the owner or operator of the ocean vessel must notify APHIS immediately by telephone, facsimile, or other electronic means. Contact numbers and addresses are provided in the Program Handbook.
(3) Failure to provide timely reports as required by this section may result in APHIS disapproving future livestock shipments by the responsible owner or operator or revoking the vessel's certification under paragraph (a) of this section to carry livestock.
(a) Prior to loading livestock aboard aircraft, the stowage area of the aircraft and any loading ramps, fittings, and equipment to be used in loading the animals must be cleaned and then disinfected with a disinfectant approved by the Administrator, to the satisfaction of an APHIS representative, unless the representative determines that the aircraft has already been cleaned and disinfected to his or her satisfaction.
(1) The Administrator will approve a disinfectant for the purposes of this section upon determining that the disinfectant is effective against pathogens that may be spread by the animals and, if the disinfectant is a chemical disinfectant, that it is registered or exempted for the specified use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) The Program Handbook provides access to a list of disinfectants approved by the Administrator for use as required
(3) The Administrator will withdraw approval of a disinfectant, and remove it from the list of approved disinfectants in the Program Handbook, if the disinfectant no longer meets the conditions for approval in this section.
(b) The time at which the cleaning and disinfection are to be performed must be approved by the APHIS representative, who will give approval only if he or she determines that the cleaning and disinfection will be effective up to the projected time the livestock will be loaded. If the livestock are not loaded by the projected time, the APHIS representative will determine whether further cleaning and disinfection are necessary.
(c) The cleaning must remove all garbage, soil, manure, plant materials, insects, paper, and other debris from the stowage area. The disinfectant solution must be applied with a device that creates an aerosol or mist that covers 100 percent of the surfaces in the stowage area, except for any loaded cargo and deck surface under it that, in the opinion of the APHIS representative, do not contain material, such as garbage, soil, manure, plant materials, insects, waste paper, or debris, that may harbor animal disease pathogens.
(d) After cleaning and disinfection is performed, the APHIS representative will sign and deliver to the captain of the aircraft or other responsible official of the airline involved a document stating that the aircraft has been properly cleaned and disinfected, and stating further the date, the carrier, the flight number, and the name of the airport and the city and state in which it is located. If an aircraft is cleaned and disinfected at one airport, then flies to a subsequent airport, with or without stops en route, to load animals for export, an APHIS representative at the subsequent airport will determine, based on examination of the cleaning and disinfection documents, whether the previous cleaning and disinfection is adequate or whether to order a new cleaning and disinfection. If the aircraft has loaded any cargo in addition to animals, the APHIS representative at the subsequent airport will determine whether to order a new cleaning and disinfection, based on both examination of the cleaning and disinfection documents and on the inspection of the stowage area for materials, such as garbage, soil, manure, plant materials, insects, waste paper, or debris, that may harbor animal disease pathogens.
(e) Cargo containers used to ship livestock must be designed and constructed of a material of sufficient strength to securely contain the animals and must provide sufficient space for the species being transported given the duration of the trip, as determined by APHIS.
The Administrator may, upon request in specific cases, permit the exportation of livestock not otherwise provided for in this part under such conditions as he or she may prescribe in each specific case to prevent the spread of livestock diseases and to ensure the humane treatment of the animals during transport to the importing country.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Proposed rule; request for public comment.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) is proposing to amend Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act, and the official interpretation to that regulation. The proposal would temporarily suspend card issuers' obligations to submit credit card agreements to the Bureau for a period of one year (
Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB–2015–0006 or RIN 3170–AA50, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included. Comments generally will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
Thomas L. Devlin, Counsel, or Kristine M. Andreassen, Senior Counsel, Office of Regulations, at (202) 435–7700.
The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), in section 122(d), requires creditors to post agreements for open-end consumer credit card plans on the creditors' Web sites and to submit those agreements to the Bureau. 15 U.S.C. 1632(d). These provisions are implemented in § 1026.58 of Regulation Z.
In 2009, Congress enhanced protections for credit cards in the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act), which it enacted to “establish fair and transparent practices related to the extension of credit” in the credit card market.
Specifically, TILA section 122(d)(1) requires each creditor to post its credit card agreements on its own Web site, and section 122(d)(2) requires the creditor to provide its agreements to the Bureau (formerly the Board). TILA section 122(d)(3) requires the Bureau (formerly the Board) to establish and maintain on its publicly available Web site a central repository of the agreements it receives under section 122(d)(2). The Board implemented these provisions in 12 CFR 226.58. With the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), authority to implement TILA transferred to the Bureau
While TILA section 122(d) requires that creditors provide agreements to the Bureau, it does not specify the frequency or timing for these submissions. The implementing regulations in Regulation Z provide that submission of currently-offered agreements must be made quarterly.
Under the current process, which has been used by the Bureau since its inception, card issuers submit agreements and agreement information to the Bureau manually via email. The Bureau believes this process may be unnecessarily cumbersome for issuers and may make issuers' own internal tracking of previously submitted agreements difficult. In addition, the current process for Bureau staff to manually review, catalog, and upload new or revised agreements to the Bureau's Web site, and to remove outdated agreements, can extend for several months after the quarterly submission deadline.
In order to reduce the burden on card issuers of continuing to use manual submission methods while the Bureau works to design, test, and implement a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system, the Bureau is proposing to temporarily suspend issuers' obligations to submit credit card agreements to the Bureau for a period of one year (
The Bureau recognizes that its proposed temporary suspension of the requirement that card issuers submit credit card agreements to the Bureau would temporarily reduce the access consumers, other external parties, and the Bureau itself would have to a single repository of the agreements that would have been submitted during this one-year period. However, the Bureau believes that this temporary reduction would not impose significant costs on consumers, other external parties, or the Bureau itself for at least two key reasons. First, the Bureau is not proposing to modify the requirement that card issuers post currently-offered agreements on their own Web sites in a manner that is prominent and readily accessible by the public (§ 1026.58(d)) or that card issuers make all open agreements available on their Web sites or to cardholders upon request (§ 1026.58(e)).
Second, the Bureau intends to manually compile credit card agreements from certain large card issuers' Web sites as of approximately September 2015. Given the longstanding concentration in the credit card market, the Bureau believes that uploading agreements obtained from a relatively small number of issuers' Web sites to the Bureau's own Web site is sufficient to provide the agreement terms available to the overwhelming majority of credit card consumers in the U.S. as of the mid-point of the proposed suspension period.
Overall, the Bureau anticipates that the marginal costs to consumers and other external parties from interrupted access during the suspension period will be outweighed by the anticipated benefits of increased usability of the agreements and expedited availability of agreements on the Bureau's Web site after the Bureau implements a more streamlined and automated submission system. The Bureau intends to explore potential functionality for the new system that would improve external parties' ability to use the information efficiently and effectively, such as through improved reporting capabilities. In addition, by streamlining the submission process, the Bureau intends for the new system to also reduce burden on card issuers.
TILA section 105(a) authorizes the Bureau to prescribe regulations to carry
The Bureau proposes to exercise its rulemaking authority pursuant to TILA sections 105(a) and 122(d)(5) to, in effect, change the period for creditors' submission of agreements to the Bureau from quarterly to annually, for a period of one year. The Bureau also proposes to exercise its exception authority under TILA sections 105(a) and 122(d)(5) to temporarily suspend the agreement submission requirements in § 1026.58(c), as it believes the burden to issuers of continuing to submit agreements under the current cumbersome, manual process while the Bureau works to develop a more streamlined and automated electronic submission system outweighs the benefits of transparency to consumers and other external parties of access to those agreements via the Bureau's Web site during the proposed suspension period. Further, the Bureau believes that a temporary suspension would effectuate the purposes of TILA and facilitate compliance therewith.
The Bureau is proposing, in § 1026.58(g)(1), to temporarily suspend the quarterly credit card agreement submission requirement in § 1026.58(c) for submissions that would otherwise be due to the Bureau by the first business day on or after April 30, 2015; July 31, 2015; October 31, 2015; and January 31, 2016. Proposed comment 58(g)–1 would further clarify this provision.
Proposed comment 58(g)–2 would explain that, beginning with the submission due on the first business day on or after April 30, 2016, card issuers shall resume submitting credit card agreements on a quarterly basis to the Bureau pursuant to § 1026.58(c). A card issuer shall submit agreements for the prior calendar quarter (that is, the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2016), as required by § 1026.58(c)(1)(ii) through (iv) and (c)(3) through (7), to the Bureau no later than the first business day on or after April 30, 2016.
Proposed comment 58(g)–2.i would explain what must be included in the submission due on the first business day on or after April 30, 2016, as required by § 1026.58(c)(1)(i) through (iv) and (c)(3) through (7). Proposed comment 58(g)–2.ii would explain that, in lieu of providing new and amended agreements, and notice of withdrawn agreements, for the April 30, 2016 submission, § 1026.58(c)(1) and comment 58(c)(1)–3 permit a card issuer to submit to the Bureau a complete, updated set of the credit card agreements the card issuer offered to the public as of the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2016.
Section 1026.58(d) requires a card issuer to post and maintain on its publicly available Web site the credit card agreements that the issuer is required to submit to the Bureau under § 1026.58(c). Proposed § 1026.58(g)(2) would provide that the suspended submission requirement in proposed § 1026.58(g)(1) would not affect card issuers' obligations to post agreements on their own Web sites as required by § 1026.58(d) during the temporary suspension period. Proposed comment 58(g)–3 would further explain this provision and provide several examples.
The Bureau solicits comment on its proposal to temporarily suspend the obligation card issuers would otherwise have under § 1026.58(c) to submit credit card agreements to the Bureau for the four quarterly submissions that would otherwise be due to the Bureau by the first business day on or after April 30, 2015; July 31, 2015; October 31, 2015; and January 31, 2016.
For the quarterly submission due on the first business day on or after April 30, 2016, card issuers must follow any technical specifications for submission that the Bureau releases. The Bureau shall provide advance notice to card issuers of such technical specifications. The Bureau is not seeking comment on possible technical specifications for the credit card agreement submission process.
The Bureau notes that annual submission of college credit card agreements and related data pursuant to § 1026.57(d) and the biannual submission of credit card pricing and availability information pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1646(b) are not affected by this proposal. At present, the Bureau intends to continue using existing systems and processes to receive those submissions, which are less frequent and involve fewer issuers. At the time the Bureau implements a more streamlined and automated electronic system for submission of quarterly credit card agreements, however, the Bureau expects to review that system's potential suitability for other submissions.
The Bureau proposes that the changes proposed herein take effect immediately upon publication of a final rule in the
The Bureau seeks comment on whether its proposed changes should take effect immediately upon publication of a final rule in the
In developing the proposed rule, the Bureau has considered potential benefits, costs, and impacts.
Pursuant to TILA section 122(d)(3), the Bureau maintains on its public Web site a repository of the consumer credit card agreements that card issuers submit pursuant to § 1026.58(c). The electronic folders in the repository are organized by quarter, back to the third quarter of 2011, reflecting the transfer of authority to implement TILA from the Board to the Bureau pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. For each quarter, the repository contains a copy of each agreement, in PDF format, that was available to consumers as of the end of that quarter. The repository also contains, for each quarter, a spreadsheet that provides certain identifying information about each agreement and the issuer thereof.
Proposed § 1026.58(g) would temporarily suspend the requirement in § 1026.58(c) for card issuers to submit credit card agreements to the Bureau. Under the proposed rule, card issuers would not be required to make quarterly submissions to the Bureau for the submissions that would otherwise be due by the first business day on or after April 30, 2015; July 31, 2015; October 31, 2015; and January 31, 2016. Consequently, the Bureau would not provide these agreements on its Web site. As discussed previously, however, the Bureau intends to manually compile credit card agreements from certain large card issuer Web sites as of approximately September 2015 and to post those agreements on its Web site. Card issuers would resume submitting agreements on a quarterly basis to the Bureau beginning with the submission due by the first business day on or after April 30, 2016. The Bureau is not proposing to modify the requirement that card issuers post currently-offered agreements on their own Web sites in a manner that is prominent and readily accessible by the public (§ 1026.58(d)) or that card issuers make all open agreements available on their Web sites or to cardholders upon request (§ 1026.58(e)).
The Bureau is not aware of any significant costs to consumers that might arise from the temporary suspension of the quarterly submission requirement and the absence of these agreements on the Bureau's Web site. While the Bureau's Web site can assist consumers in comparing credit card agreements when shopping for a new card, the Bureau believes that most consumers are not likely to use the repository to identify desirable credit cards, in part because they would not know if they qualified for the cards they identified. The Bureau believes that consumers are more likely to identify a number of cards for which they qualify before comparing the terms and conditions for those cards. These terms and conditions will remain readily available to consumers on the issuers' Web sites. Similarly, a consumer who wanted to replace a lost agreement would likely find it easier to contact the issuer than to search the repository because the agreement might no longer be available to new cardholders, in which case the consumer would need to search across multiple quarters to find the agreement, and even then might lack confidence that she had found the version of the agreement that applied to her.
On the other hand, the Bureau recognizes that consumers who would qualify for almost any card on the market and who want to learn about the features of a large number of products might find the repository useful. The proposed rule might increase the cost to these consumers of searching for desirable credit cards. The Bureau believes that this cost would be small, however, given that the Bureau is suspending the submission requirement for just four quarters. The Bureau requests comment on this point. Similarly, the Bureau recognizes the possibility that entities may use the information in the repository to develop more competitive products or extract information that they could sell or otherwise provide to consumers or third parties. However, the Bureau believes that this is unlikely given that the agreements, while generally in searchable PDF format, do not contain uniform data or text fields that would provide the same type of information in fixed locations across files. The Bureau requests comment on this point as well.
The Bureau believes that the proposal would provide issuers with a minor but tangible benefit. For the third quarter of 2014, 446 issuers had 1,833 agreements in the Bureau's database. While 169 issuers had just one agreement, the median number of agreements per issuer was two and the average was four. Four issuers had over 50 agreements. In the third quarter alone, 103 issuers submitted 429 agreements; the median and mean were again two and four, respectively. Three issuers submitted over 25 agreements. All issuers would be able to suspend their submissions for four quarters, which would remove some compliance burden. The Bureau believes that the burden is small on average, although it may be higher for the entities that provide a large number of agreements.
As noted above, the Bureau recognizes the possibility that entities could use the information in the repository to develop more competitive products or extract information that they could sell or otherwise provide to consumers or third parties. However, as mentioned above, the Bureau believes that this is unlikely given the difficulties in using files in PDF format for this purpose. To the extent that entities are inclined to use the files in the repository to extract information, the Bureau believes that manual collection of the credit card agreements from certain large card issuer Web sites as of approximately September 2015 and posting those agreements on the Bureau Web site will mitigate the impact of the proposed rule on these entities.
As an alternative, the Bureau considered coupling the temporary suspension with a requirement to provide the Bureau, after the suspension expired, with the agreements that they would have been required to submit if not for the suspension. Compared to the proposed rule, this alternative would have imposed smaller costs on consumers and provided smaller benefits to issuers. Since the costs to consumers under the proposed rule are small to begin with, the Bureau believes that the proposed rule is superior to the alternative. The Bureau requests comment on this point.
The majority of banks and credit unions that provide agreements under § 1026.58(c) have no more than $10 billion in assets. Thus, the majority of banks and credit unions that would benefit from the proposed rule have no more than $10 billion in assets. On the other hand, larger banks and credit
The Bureau does not believe that there will be an adverse impact on access to credit, or any other consumer financial products or services, resulting from the proposed rule. The proposed rule imposes no direct requirements on consumer financial products or services or providers of consumer financial products or services or on the eligibility of consumers for consumer financial products or services. As discussed above, the proposed rule imposes at most a minor additional cost on certain consumers searching for a credit card.
As noted above, the Bureau recognizes the possibility that entities could use the information in the repository to develop more competitive products or extract information that they could sell or otherwise provide to consumers or third parties. However, the Bureau believes that this is unlikely given the difficulties in using files in PDF format for this purpose and the fact that the suspension would last for just four quarters. Thus, the proposed rule should not inhibit activities that would improve access to credit such as the development of more competitive credit products or products that would reduce search costs.
The Bureau does not believe that the proposed rule would have a unique impact on consumers in rural areas.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small nonprofit organizations. The RFA defines a “small business” as a business that meets the size standard developed by the Small Business Administration pursuant to the Small Business Act.
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau also is subject to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult with small business representatives prior to proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.
An IRFA is not required here because the proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau does not expect the proposal to impose costs on small entities. As discussed above, the Bureau believes that the proposed rule would cause a small reduction in costs on all issuers, including small entity issuers, who would otherwise be required to submit agreements to the Bureau.
Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this proposal, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Bureau is currently seeking a new OMB control number for the information collection in § 1026.58(c).
The Bureau welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal for purposes of the PRA. Comments should be submitted as outlined in the
Advertising, Consumer protection, Credit, Credit unions, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth in lending.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau proposes to amend 12 CFR part 1026, as follows:
12 U.S.C. 2601, 2603–2605, 2607, 2609, 2617, 5511, 5512, 5532, 5581; 15 U.S.C. 1601
(g)
(2)
1.
2.
i. Specifically, the submission due on the first business day on or after April 30, 2016 shall contain, as applicable:
A. Identifying information about the card issuer and the agreements submitted, including the issuer's name, address, and identifying number (such as an RSSD ID number or tax identification number), pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(i);
B. The credit card agreements that the card issuer offered to the public as of the last business day of the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2016 that the card issuer had not previously submitted to the Bureau as of the first business day on or after January 31, 2015, pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(ii);
C. Any credit card agreement previously submitted to the Bureau that was amended since the last business day of the calendar quarter ending December 31, 2014 and that the card issuer offered to the public as of the last business day of the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2016, pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(iii) and (c)(3); and
D. Notification regarding any credit card agreement previously submitted to the Bureau that the issuer is withdrawing, pursuant to § 1026.58(c)(1)(iv) and (c)(4) through (7).
ii. In lieu of the submission described in comment 58(g)–2.i.B through D, § 1026.58(c)(1) permits a card issuer to submit to the Bureau a complete, updated set of the credit card agreements the card issuer offered to the public as of the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2016.
3.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Gulfstream Model GVII–G500 (GVII series) airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes.
This design feature is associated with side-stick controllers that require limited pilot force because they are operated by one hand only. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before April 13, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2014–1079 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Todd Martin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1178; facsimile 425–227–1320.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposed special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII–G500 airplane.
The Model GVII series airplanes are large-cabin business jets capable of accommodating up to 19 passengers. The GVII series will certify a base configuration GVII–G500, which
The GVII–G500 has a wingspan of 87 ft and a length of 91 ft. Maximum takeoff weight is 76,850 lbs. Maximum takeoff thrust is 15,135 lbs, maximum range is 5,000 nautical miles (nm), and maximum operating altitude is 51,000 ft.
The Model GVII series airplanes are equipped with two side-stick controllers instead of the conventional control columns and wheels. This side-stick controller is designed for one-hand operation. The requirement of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.397(c), which defines limit pilot forces and torques for conventional wheel or stick controls, is not adequate for a side-stick controller. Special conditions are necessary to specify the appropriate loading conditions for this controller design.
Under 14 CFR 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII–G500 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25–1 through 25–137.
The certification of the GVII–G500 airplane is 14 CFR part 25, effective February 1, 1965, including Amendments 25–1 through 25–137; 14 CFR part 34, as amended by Amendments 34–1 through the most current amendment at the time of design approval; and 14 CFR part 36, Amendment 36–29. In addition, the certification basis includes special conditions and equivalent-safety findings related to the flight-control system.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and proposed special conditions, the Model GVII series airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2) for new type certificates, and § 21.101 for amended type certificates.
The Gulfstream Model GVII series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
A side-stick controller for one-hand operation requiring wrist motion only, not arms.
Current regulations reference pilot-effort loads for the flight deck pitch-and-roll controls that are based on two-handed effort. Special conditions are being proposed for Gulfstream GVII series airplanes based on similar airplane programs that include side-stick controllers. These proposed special conditions are also appropriate for the Model GVII series airplane's side-stick controller.
These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these proposed special conditions apply to Gulfstream Model GVII series airplanes. Should Gulfstream apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these proposed special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Gulfstream Model GVII series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these proposed special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions in lieu of § 25.397(c):
For the Gulfstream Model GVII series airplanes equipped with side-stick controls designed for forces to be applied by one wrist and not arms, the limit pilot forces are as follows.
1. For all components between and including the side-stick control-assembly handle and its control stops:
2. For all other components of the side-stick control assembly, but excluding the internal components of the electrical sensor assemblies, to avoid damage to the control system as the result of an in-flight jam:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain GROB–WERKE Models G115EG and G120A airplanes that would supersede AD 2014–26–04. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 13, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Grob Aircraft AG, Customer Service, Lettenbachstrasse 9, D–86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany, telephone: + 49 (0) 8268–998–105; fax: + 49 (0) 8268–998–200; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4123; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On December 22, 2014, we issued AD 2014–26–04, Amendment 39–18055 (80 FR 155, January 5, 2015). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain GROB–WERKE Models G115EG and G120A airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.
AD 2014–26–04, Amendment 39–18055 (80 FR 155, January 5, 2015), was considered an interim action. Since we issued AD 2014–26–04, GROB Aircraft developed a modification to avoid loss of electrical power in case of electrical shortage in the starter solenoid.
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2015–0010R1, dated February 4, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
An operator of a G 115E aeroplane experienced a total loss of electrical power in flight. The investigation found that a defective starter solenoid had caused an internal short circuit which resulted in breakdown of the system voltage.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, GROB Aircraft AG issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) MSB1078–196 for G 115 aeroplanes and MSB 1121–144 for G 120 aeroplanes to provide instructions for inspection and corrective action. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014–0212 to require a one-time inspection of the starter solenoid and, depending on findings, replacement of the starter. In addition, for G 115E aeroplanes, installation of a placard was required.
More recently, GROB Aircraft AG developed a modification to avoid loss of electrical power in case of electrical shortage in the starter solenoid, which was published in revised GROB MSB1078–196/1 and MSB1121–144/1.
Prompted by this development, EASA issued AD 2015–0010, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2014–0212, which was superseded, and required installation of a starter relay.
Since that AD was issued, operator comments have indicated the existence of a logistical problem, resulting in the unnecessary grounding of aeroplanes.
For the reason described above, this AD is revised to amend paragraph (3), extending the compliance time for modification.
GROB Aircraft has issued Service Bulletin No. MSB1078–196/1, dated December 1, 2014, and Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144/3, dated February 20, 2015. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The GROB Aircraft service bulletins describe procedures for inspecting the starter solenoid, replacing damaged starters, and installing a starter relay. This service information is reasonably available; see
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 6 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic starter inspection requirement of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed inspection on
In addition, we estimate that any necessary starter replacements would take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $600, for a cost of $940 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need this replacement.
We also estimate that it would take about 20 work-hours per product to comply with the starter relay installation requirement of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,000 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed installation on U.S. operators to be $16,200, or $2,700 per product
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by April 13, 2015.
This AD supersedes AD 2014–26–04, Amendment 39–18055 (80 FR 155, January 5, 2015) (“AD 2014–26–04”).
This AD applies to GROB–WERKE Model G115EG airplanes, all serial numbers through 82323/E, and Model G120A airplanes, all serial numbers through 85063, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 80: Starting.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct defective starter solenoids, which could cause an internal short circuit and could result in reduced control. We are superseding AD 2014–26–04 requiring installation of a starter relay that will prevent loss of electrical power in case of electrical shortage in the starter solenoid.
Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:
(1) Within the next 30 days after February 9, 2015 (the effective date retained from AD 2014–26–04), inspect the starter following Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions in GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1078–196, dated July 14, 2014; GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1078–196/1, dated December 1, 2014; GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144, dated July 14, 2014; GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144/1, dated January 12, 2015; GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144/2, dated February 5, 2015; or GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144/3, dated February 20, 2015, as applicable.
(2) If any damage is found on the starter during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the starter with a serviceable part. Do the replacement following Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions in GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1078–196, dated July 14, 2014; GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1078–196/1, dated December 1, 2014; GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144, dated July 14, 2014; GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144/1, dated January 12, 2015; GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144/2, dated February 5, 2015; or GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144/3, dated February 20, 2015, as applicable.
(3) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, install a starter relay following Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions in GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1078–196/1, dated December 1, 2014, or GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144/3, dated February 205, 2015, as applicable.
Actions done before the effective date of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions specified in GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144/1, dated January 12, 2015; or GROB Aircraft Service Bulletin No. MSB1121–144/2, dated February 5, 2015, as applicable, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(2) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015–0010R1, dated February 4, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to revise its regulations to foster competition in the sale of primary frequency response service. Specifically, the Commission proposes to amend its regulations to revise the regulations governing market-based rates for public utilities pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) to permit the sale of primary frequency response service at market-based rates by sellers with market-based rate authority for energy and capacity.
Comments are due April 27, 2015.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following ways:
• Electronic Filing through
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to revise its regulations to foster competition in the sale of primary frequency response service.
2. This NOPR is an extension of the policy reforms the Commission started with Order No. 784,
3. The Commission in Order No. 888
4. Subsequently, in
5. The instant proceeding derives from Order No. 784 in which the Commission found that when appropriate intra-hour transmission scheduling practices are in place, the
6. However, the Commission also found in Order No. 784 that the record developed to that point did not support expanding these market-based rate authorizations to include sales of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control (under OATT Schedule 2) (Schedule 2 service) and Regulation and Frequency Response (under OATT Schedule 3) services (Schedule 3 service).
7. Pursuant to that directive, Commission staff held a workshop on April 22, 2014 to obtain input from interested persons regarding the technical, economic and market issues concerning the provision of Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 services.
8. Separately, the Commission on January 16, 2014 issued a Final Rule approving reliability standard BAL–003–1
9. For the reasons described more fully below, the Commission finds that sales of primary frequency response service at market-based rates should be authorized for entities granted market-based rate authority for sales of energy and capacity.
10. With respect to the remainder of the issues discussed at the workshop and in written comments, the Commission does not see sufficient evidence to support pursuing additional reforms on a generic basis.
11. As explained in Order No. 794, reliable operation of a power system depends on maintaining frequency within predetermined boundaries above and below a scheduled value, which is 60 Hertz (Hz) in North America.
12. Primary frequency response involves the autonomous, automatic, and rapid action of a generator, or other resource, to change its output (within seconds) to rapidly dampen large changes in frequency. Regulation, also known as secondary frequency response, is produced from either manual or automated dispatch from a centralized control system, generally using the communications and control system known as automatic generation control (AGC). In both cases, capacity must be set aside to provide the responses described above.
13. Mechanically, the BAL–003–1 reliability standard provides interconnection-wide primary frequency response obligations for each of the Eastern, Western, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, and Hydro Quebec
14. In Order No. 784, the Commission evaluated, among other things, whether the existing market power screens for sales of energy and capacity could be applied to the sale of Schedule 3 service without significant modification.
15. However, as noted above, primary frequency response is distinct from regulation; and the April 22, 2014 workshop distinguished between these two services for the purpose of discussing market power issues. While the Commission, in Order No. 888, found that primary frequency response did not merit a separate ancillary service given then-standard industry practices,
16. Specifically, following the approval of the new BAL–003–1 Frequency Response and Frequency Bias Setting Reliability Standard, it is now appropriate to consider the possibility that entities may wish to undertake voluntary sales of primary frequency response service as a stand-alone product distinct from regulation service. The Commission anticipates that sales of such a product would involve bilateral transactions by sellers and, while such sales could be made at cost-based rates, many sellers may prefer the administrative ease of market-based rates. Accordingly, provision would need to be made for sales of primary frequency response within the Commission's market-based rate program.
17. The Commission analyzes below the horizontal market power issues relevant to a primary frequency response product.
18. The Commission analyzes horizontal market power
19. Passing both the wholesale market share screen and the pivotal supplier screen creates a rebuttable presumption that the seller does not possess horizontal market power; failing either screen creates a rebuttable presumption that the seller possesses horizontal market power.
20. Three of the key components of the analysis of horizontal market power are the definition of products, the determination of appropriate geographic scope of the relevant market for each product, and the identification of the uncommitted generation supply within the relevant geographic market. In Order No. 697, the Commission adopted a default relevant geographic market for sales of energy and capacity.
21. The Commission has considered whether passing the market-based rate screens for energy and capacity described above should create a rebuttable presumption that the seller lacks horizontal market power for sales of primary frequency response service. As discussed below, the Commission believes it should.
22. As described above, primary frequency response service involves the autonomous, automatic, and rapid reaction of an individual turbine-generator or other resource to change its
23. With respect to the geographic market, the frequency of an interconnection is uniform throughout that interconnection and is determined largely by the dynamic interconnection-wide balance of supply with demand. Large contingency events, such as the unexpected loss of large amounts of generation or load, which happen anywhere within a given interconnection, cause deviations from the target 60Hz frequency that propagate throughout that interconnection. Accordingly, primary frequency response service can be effectively supplied by any resource throughout an interconnection and have the same ability to dampen harmful changes in interconnection-wide frequency.
24. With respect to potential barriers related to transmission scheduling or reservation, while information sharing arrangements will certainly be necessary between buyers and sellers to enable the buyers to rely on purchased resources to meet their frequency response obligations under BAL–003–1, primary frequency response service should not require any transmission reservation or scheduling, even for sales from resources in a different Balancing Authority area. This is because individual frequency responses, by definition,
25. The AGC signals used for that dispatch are generally issued every 2–6 seconds, and actual response from dispatched resources is a gradual process on a scale of minutes due to the inherent ramping constraints of each resource; for example, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. requires a maximum response time of 5 minutes, and certain regions may allow up to 10 minutes. Accordingly, the expectation would be for primary frequency response to gradually decline over a span of 1 to 10 minutes as regulation resources ramp up to their designated output.
26. Accordingly, there should be no barriers related to transmission scheduling or reservation preventing sellers anywhere within the same interconnection as the buyer from providing effective primary frequency response service to that buyer.
27. For the reasons discussed above, the Commission concludes that passage of the existing market-based rate screens for sales of energy and capacity can adequately demonstrate lack of market power for sales of primary frequency response service.
28. The Commission, therefore, proposes that sellers passing the existing market power screens should be permitted to sell primary frequency response service at market-based rates. As a result, we propose to revise our regulations governing market-based rate authorizations to provide that sellers passing the existing market-based rate screens in a given geographic market should be granted a rebuttable presumption that they lack horizontal market power for sales of primary frequency response service in that market. Specifically, section 35.37 of the Commission's regulations would be revised to state that a seller would have a rebuttable presumption it lacks market power with respect to sales of energy, capacity, energy imbalance service, generator imbalance service, and primary frequency response service if the seller passes the indicative screens for that geographic market. The Commission preliminarily concludes that expanding the rebuttable presumption adopted in Order No. 697 for energy and capacity to include primary frequency response service provides adequate protection that market-based rates charged by public utilities will be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.
29. Any entity selling primary frequency response service, either at market-based or cost-based rates, will be required to report such sales in the Electric Quarterly Report. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to update its Electric Quarterly Report system to
30. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, including the proposed revisions to section 35.37(c)(1) of our regulations. Comments may address, among other things, any unique technical requirements or limitations that might apply to the provision of primary frequency response service, and the Commission's proposal to extend the rebuttable presumption to primary frequency response service.
31. In Order No. 697, the Commission provided standard tariff provisions that sellers must include in their market-based rate tariffs to the extent they are applicable based on the services provided by the seller,
Third-party ancillary services: Seller offers [include all of the following that the seller is offering: Regulation Service, Reactive Supply and Voltage Control Service, Energy and Generator Imbalance Service, Operating Reserve-Spinning, Operating Reserve-Supplemental, and Primary Frequency Response Service]. Sales will not include the following: (1) Sales to an RTO or an ISO,
32. The Commission proposes that a seller that already has market-based rate authority as of the effective date of the Final Rule issued in this proceeding would be authorized as of the effective date of the Final Rule to make sales of primary frequency response service at market-based rates. Such a seller would be required to revise the third-party provider ancillary services provision of its market-based rate tariff to reflect that it wishes to make sales of primary frequency response service at market-based rates. However, while this authorization would be effective for sellers with existing market-based rate authority as of the date specified in a Final Rule in this proceeding, the Commission proposes that such sellers may wait to file this tariff revision until the next time they make a market-based rate filing with the Commission, such as a notice of change in status filing or a triennial update.
33. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
34. The Commission will submit the proposed revised information collection requirements to OMB for its review and approval. The Commission solicits public comments on its need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of burden and cost estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques.
35.
36. Below, we discuss the expected increases in burdens as a result of the proposals in this NOPR, which we expect to be greatly outweighed by the reduction in burden from avoiding cost-of-service regulation. The additional estimated annual public reporting burdens and costs for the requirements in this proposed rule are as follows.
Additionally, during the three-year period, we expect a total of ten percent of the existing 1,338 respondents (or 134 respondents), to decide to sell primary frequency response services and to make the corresponding FERC–516 rate filing. The corresponding annual estimate is 45 of the existing respondents (an average of 3.3% annually). Therefore, the annual estimate, including both new respondents and existing respondents, is an average of 258 (213 + 45) respondents and responses per year.
• Year 1, 258 respondents or 16.6 percent of EQR filers.
• Year 2, 258 respondents or 16.6 percent of EQR filers.
• Year 3, 258 respondents or 16.6 percent of EQR filers.
37. These requirements conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection, communication, and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, through internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information collection requirements.
38. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
39. 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.
40. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
41. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.
42. The categories for the applicable entities have a size threshold ranging from 250 employees to 750 employees. For the analysis in this proposed rule, we are using the threshold of 750 employees for all categories. We anticipate that a maximum of 82 percent of the entities potentially affected by this NOPR are small. In addition, we expect that not all of those entities will be able to or will choose to offer primary frequency response service.
43. Based on the estimates above in the Information Collection section, we expect a one-time cost of $576 (including the burden cost related to filing both the tariff and the EQR) for each entity that decides to offer primary frequency response service.
44. The Commission does not consider the estimated cost per small entity to impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that this NOPR will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
45. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due April 27, 2015. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM15–2–000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
46. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
47. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
48. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
49. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
50. 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.
51. 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
Electric power rates; Electric utilities; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Part 35, Chapter I, Title 18,
16 U.S.C. 791a–825r, 2601–2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352.
(c)(1) There will be a rebuttable presumption that a Seller lacks horizontal market power with respect to sales of energy, capacity, energy imbalance service, generation imbalance service, and primary frequency response service if it passes two indicative market power screens: a pivotal supplier analysis based on annual peak demand of the relevant market, and a market share analysis applied on a seasonal basis. There will be a rebuttable presumption that a Seller lacks horizontal market power with respect to sales of operating reserve-spinning and operating reserve-supplemental services if the Seller passes these two indicative market power screens and demonstrates in its market-based rate application how the scheduling practices in its region support the delivery of operating reserve resources from one balancing authority area to another. There will be a rebuttable presumption that a Seller possesses horizontal market power with respect to sales of energy, capacity, energy imbalance service, generation imbalance service, operating reserve-spinning service, operating reserve-supplemental service, and primary frequency response service if it fails either screen.
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
We propose to revise our regulations to allow applicants for a Social Security number (SSN) card to apply by completing a prescribed application and submitting the required evidence, rather than completing a paper Form SS–5, Application for a Social Security Card. We also propose to remove the word “documentary” from our description of certain evidence requirements. These changes would provide flexibility in the ways in which the public may request SSN cards and allow us, in the future, to implement an online SSN replacement card application system, which we are currently developing. In addition, we propose to replace “Immigration and Naturalization Service” with “Department of Homeland Security” to reflect that agency's reorganization.
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them no later than April 27, 2015.
You may submit comments by any one of three methods—Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA–2014–0042 so that we may associate your comments with the correct regulation.
1. Internet: We strongly recommend that you submit your comments via the Internet. Please visit the Federal eRulemaking portal at
2. Fax: Fax comments to (410) 966–2830.
3. Mail: Mail your comments to the Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, 3100 West High Rise Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Arthur LaVeck, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, Office of Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, (410) 966–5665. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
The use of the SSN is widespread in today's society. It is necessary for employment, to properly record a person's wages and the taxes paid on those wages, to collect Social Security benefits, and to receive many other government services. Commercial organizations, such as banks and credit companies, also ask individuals for their SSNs for many business transactions. As a result of this widespread use, the issuance of original and replacement SSN cards is one of our most requested services.
Currently, a person can apply for an SSN by completing Form SS–5 and submitting it, in person or via mail, to his or her local field office (FO) or a Social Security Card Center (SSCC), or by having one of our representatives file an application electronically through the Social Security Number Application Process (SSNAP) during an in-office interview. The applicant must also present, or mail in, supporting documentary evidence.
In fiscal year 2013, we processed over 10 million replacement SSN card applications at FOs and SSCCs. It takes a field office employee an average of 14 minutes to process a replacement card application. Removing the requirements that applicants complete and submit paper Form SS–5 along with paper documentary evidence would allow us to develop convenient and efficient means to electronically process replacement SSN card applications and obtain acceptable supporting evidence, while retaining the security necessary to protect the integrity of the SSN and the card issuance process. Recent advances in technology provide us with additional, convenient options for the public to request government services. By pursuing the electronic approaches available to us, we expect to provide expanded service options that meet the varied needs of the public in a cost-efficient and environmentally responsible way.
For example, we are currently developing a new online application that would allow certain members of the public to apply for replacement SSN cards electronically without having to visit one of our offices or mail in the application and supporting evidence. Adult U.S. citizens who are not reporting any changes to their record (for example, name or date of birth) would have the option to file for an SSN replacement card online after registering through the my Social Security portal. Eligible individuals would also be required to have a U.S. mailing address, (including Air/Army Post Office, Fleet Post Office, or Diplomatic Post Office mailing address) and a valid U.S. state-issued driver's license or U.S. state-issued identity card. During the application process, we would securely collect and verify required information electronically (for example, identifying information, mailing address associated with the individual requesting the card), and analyze each request for potential fraud. Moving this service online would allow customers to complete a request at any time, without the need to visit us in person. It would also help the public by allowing our employees to focus on other vital services, such as taking claims for benefits and conducting program integrity work.
To ensure our SSN regulations support the development of convenient and efficient electronic service delivery options, we propose to update 20 CFR 422.103 and 422.110 to remove the requirement that an individual who seeks a replacement SSN card must file an application at any Social Security office. We also propose to remove references to Form SS–5 because our current process allows us to file an application electronically through SSNAP without the completion of a paper Form SS–5, and our planned online application will not require the completion of a paper Form SS–5. We would replace, in instances where a description is necessary, mention of Form SS–5 with the term “prescribed application.” A prescribed application would simply be the application form—whether a paper form, an online application, or some other method—that we determine to be most efficient and user-friendly at any given time. Information about application procedures would be easily available to applicants on our Internet site and at our offices nationwide.
We also propose to revise 20 CFR 422.107 to remove the word “documentary” from our description of evidence required to obtain an original or replacement SSN card. We would still require evidence to establish eligibility and identity in order to obtain a new or replacement card. However,
These changes would provide us with the flexibility we need to adapt our SSN application process as necessity and technology allow. They would allow us to offer the public new, convenient service alternatives for obtaining SSN replacement cards, while maintaining the security and integrity of the SSN card and issuance process. We also expect these changes would reduce the public's need to visit our FOs, resulting in shorter wait times for individuals who choose to visit a FO for service.
We also propose to update section 422.107(e)(1) to replace references to “Immigration and Naturalization Service” with “Department of Homeland Security” to reflect that agency's restructuring in 2003.
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this proposed rule meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and was reviewed by OMB.
We certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it would affect individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
Although the regulatory changes described below are not subject to OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the new electronic SSN replacement card application will require OMB PRA approval. We will seek public comment in a separate PRA
Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR chapter III part 422 subpart B as set forth below:
Secs. 205, 232, 702(a)(5), 1131, and 1143 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405, 432, 902(a)(5), 1320b–1, and 1320b–13), and sec. 7213(a)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 108–458.
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(e)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(c)
(i) Your age, date of birth, or parents' names; or
(ii) Your photograph or physical description.
(2) A birth record is not sufficient evidence to establish identity for these purposes.
(g)
(a)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.
This document contains proposed regulations that provide rules for the definition of a covered entity for purposes of the fee imposed by section 9010 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended. In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by May 27, 2015.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–143416–14), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–143416–14), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Rachel S. Smith, (202) 317–6855; concerning submissions of comments and request for a hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317–6901 (not toll-free numbers).
Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of
It has been determined that these proposed regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before the proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Rachel S. Smith, IRS Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.
Health insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 57 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805; sec. 9010, Pub. L. 111–148 (124 Stat. 119 (2010)).
(b) * * *
(3) [The text of proposed § 57.2(b)(3) is the same as the text of § 57.2T(b)(3) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) [The text of proposed § 57.2(c)(3)(ii) is the same as the text of § 57.2T(c)(3)(ii) published elsewhere in this issue of the
(b) [The text of proposed § 57.10(b) is the same as the text of § 57.10T(b) published elsewhere in this issue of the
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Request for information.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is requesting information on mine ventilation and roof control plans; atmospheric monitoring systems and new technology for remote monitoring systems; methods to suppress the propagation of coal dust explosions; and criteria and procedures for certification, recertification, and decertification of persons qualified to conduct mine examinations. These issues were raised in reports on the coal dust explosion that occurred at the Upper Big Branch Mine on April 5, 2010. After reviewing the recommendations in these reports and related National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health research, MSHA is seeking information and data that will help improve the health and safety of underground coal miners. Submitted information will assist MSHA in determining appropriate regulatory actions.
Comments must be received by midnight Eastern Standard Time on April 27, 2015.
Submit comments, identified by “RIN 1219–AB85”, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at
MSHA maintains a mailing list that enables subscribers to receive an email notification when the Agency publishes rulemaking documents in the
On April 5, 2010, a coal dust explosion occurred at the Upper Big Branch Mine-South (UBB) in Montcoal, West Virginia. MSHA initiated an accident investigation on April 7, 2010 under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act). MSHA issued an accident investigation report on December 11, 2011, titled, “A Report of Investigation, Fatal Underground Mine Explosion, April 5, 2010, Upper Big Branch Mine-South, Performance Coal Company, Montcoal, Raleigh County, West Virginia, ID No. 46–08436.”
In addition to MSHA's accident investigation report, MSHA announced on May 4, 2010, a separate internal review of MSHA's actions prior to the explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine. On March 6, 2012, MSHA issued the Internal Review (IR) report of the Agency's enforcement actions titled “Internal Review of MSHA's Actions at the Upper Big Branch Mine-South, Performance Coal Company, Montcoal, Raleigh County, West Virginia”. The IR report compared MSHA's actions with the requirements of the Mine Act and MSHA's standards, regulations, policies, and procedures. The report recommended changes to regulations and standards that would improve the health and safety of underground coal miners by protecting them from the hazards that caused or contributed to the explosion. The IR report included recommendations to improve regulations and standards regarding mine ventilation; atmospheric mine monitoring systems; rock dusting; and certification, re-certification, and decertification of persons certified to conduct mine examinations in underground coal mines. Both the IR and Accident Investigation (AI) reports recommended that the Assistant Secretary consider rulemaking to improve mine health and safety. The combined recommendations were listed in the IR report.
Following the explosion at UBB, the Secretary of Labor, on April 16, 2010, requested that NIOSH independently assess MSHA's internal review of its enforcement actions at UBB. NIOSH identified and appointed a panel to conduct an independent assessment (the Independent Panel). On March 22, 2012, the Independent Panel issued its report titled ”An Independent Panel Assessment of an Internal Review of MSHA Enforcement Actions at the Upper Big Branch Mine South Requested by The Honorable Hilda L. Solis, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor” (IP Assessment). In its report, the Independent Panel recommended that MSHA address the technical deficiencies in current mining practices that could compromise safety.
This request for information is based on recommendations in the AI, IR, and IP Assessment reports. MSHA seeks input from industry, labor, and other interested parties to assist the Agency in determining whether regulatory action is needed and, if so, what type of regulatory changes would be appropriate to improve health and safety in underground coal mines. The reports on the UBB mine explosion identified several areas where additional rulemaking could be used to improve health and safety in underground coal mines.
In section A, MSHA is requesting information on issues related to the requirements for developing and implementing roof control and mine ventilation plans in underground coal mines. In section B, MSHA is requesting information on issues related to the use, calibration, and maintenance of atmospheric monitoring systems (AMS) and new technology for remote monitoring systems. In section C, MSHA is requesting information on whether specifications contained in the definition of rock dust could be changed to improve its effectiveness in suppressing the propagation of coal dust explosions. In section D, the Agency is seeking information on whether surface moisture should be excluded from the determination of total incombustible content (TIC) of mixed dust. In section E, MSHA is requesting information on mine operator experiences with the coal dust explosibility meter (CDEM), the cleanup program under 30 CFR 75.400–2, and rock dusting. MSHA is also requesting information on the experiences of mine operators who have used other methods of testing for the explosibility of the dust in their mines. In section F, the Agency is seeking information on the use of active and passive explosion barriers. Finally, in section G, MSHA is requesting information on criteria and procedures for certification, recertification, and decertification of certified persons. MSHA is particularly interested in information regarding persons who conduct examinations and tests in accordance with MSHA's ventilation standards.
When responding, please address your comments to the topic and question number. For example, the response to section A. Requirements for Developing and Implementing Roof Control and Mine Ventilation Plans, Question 1, would be identified as “A.1.” Please explain the rationale supporting your views and, where possible, include specific examples to support your rationale. Provide sufficient detail in your responses to enable proper Agency review and consideration. Identify the information on which you rely and include applicable experiences, data, models, calculations, studies and articles, standard professional practices, availability of technology, and costs.
MSHA invites comment in response to the specific questions posed below and encourages commenters to include any related cost and benefit data, and any specific issues related to the impact on small mines.
MSHA standards require the submission and approval of roof control and ventilation plans prior to their implementation, but do not require the operator to designate a person to be responsible for the mine's plans. The IP Assessment recommended that mine operators hire in-house plan specialists who would be certified roof control and ventilation officers to oversee plan implementation and to coordinate day-to-day actions.
MSHA is considering changes to regulatory requirements to improve roof control plans (30 CFR 75.220 and 75.223) and mine ventilation plans (30 CFR 75.370 and 75.371). These changes could add requirements that would provide mine operators, miners, and MSHA personnel with increased assurance that plans are developed, implemented, and maintained according to the conditions at the mine. These changes could improve roof control and ventilation plans, and in conjunction with additional requirements for mine monitoring, would give mine operators
1. What health and safety benefit could result from requiring mine operators to designate a mine management employee, who is a credentialed professional, to be responsible for development and implementation of approved roof control and ventilation plans?
2. What knowledge, skills, abilities, or licensure would this credentialed professional need in order to develop, implement, and monitor roof control and ventilation plans?
The following recommendations were made in MSHA's reports to improve the ventilation in underground coal mines:
• Consider rulemaking to require that the minimum quantity of air be at least 75,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) reaching the working face of each longwall mechanized mining unit (MMU).
• Establish progressive increases in the minimum quantity of air according to the mine methane liberation rate or the established schedule for spot inspections at 103(i) mines, such as 15, 10, and 5-day spot inspections. A 103(i) mine is a mine that has experienced, within the last 5 years, an ignition or explosion of methane or other gases that resulted in a fatality or in a permanently disabling injury.
• Consider respirable dust compliance as an additional factor for increasing the intake air quantity approved in the ventilation plan.
• Consider rulemaking to require the use of equipment doors in lieu of permanent stoppings, or to control ventilation within an air course, subject to approval in the mine ventilation plan.
• To maintain the separation of air courses, consider rulemaking to require that all equipment doors installed in travelways use an interlock system to ensure that only one door can be opened at a time.
3. Please comment on the recommendation to increase the minimum quantity of air. What are the advantages, disadvantages, impact on miner health and safety, and costs associated with an increase in the minimum quantity of air for longwall mines? How could this minimum quantity of air be determined and where would it be measured?
4. What is the most effective way to control methane, oxygen, and respirable dust levels to assure the health and safety of miners?
5. Please comment on equipment doors: Their use, location, approval, advantages, disadvantages and impact on miner health and safety. Also comment on the use of equipment doors in travelways, including the use of an interlock system. What are the advantages, disadvantages, impact on miner health and safety, and costs of using interlock systems on equipment doors?
Atmospheric Monitoring Systems (AMS) are a reliable method for early detection of fires along belt conveyors and for monitoring several other mine-ventilation-related parameters. Hand-held and machine-mounted gas detectors are used extensively underground, primarily to monitor methane and oxygen concentrations. MSHA is exploring the expanded use of coordinated monitoring systems to monitor methane and carbon monoxide levels, air velocities and directions, pressure differentials, and other parameters at critical locations to help mine operators maintain effective ventilation and diagnose system failures or deficiencies.
The following recommendations were in the IR report:
• Modify 30 CFR 75.342(a)(2) to require additional methane sensors to be installed along the longwall face and to be tied into an AMS for the mine. These sensors should be placed along the face at various distances and heights to aid in the detection of methane during normal mining and in the event of a methane inundation. These additional sensor locations should be approved by the District Manager in the mine ventilation plan; and
• Require an AMS to provide real-time monitoring of methane and carbon monoxide levels and airflow direction, and to record the quality and quantity of air at specific points in the mine. For example, monitor where air reversals are likely to impact the ventilation system, outby loading points, where air courses split, and at certain intervals along the belt.
6. Continuous remote monitoring systems, such as AMS and tube bundle systems, can be used to detect unexpected ventilation system changes or methane inundations. Please comment, including rationale, on whether and under what circumstances MSHA should require the use of a continuous remote monitoring system. Please include impact on miner health and safety, impact on mining method, and any other related impact. What would be the costs to add monitoring systems or to extend existing systems in mines?
7. Where should continuous remote monitoring systems be installed in underground coal mines? Please be specific as to locations and provide rationale, including the impact on miner health and safety.
8. Under what conditions should additional gas monitoring sensors and sensors that measure air velocity and direction be used to monitor the longwall face and its tailgate corner to minimize accumulations of methane, other gases, and dust? Where should these sensors be located?
9. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of continuously monitoring the underground coal mine environment for accumulations of gases, air velocity, and airflow direction?
10. How could continuous remote monitoring technology be linked to communication and tracking technology to form an integrated monitoring system? Please explain.
11. How can integrated monitoring systems be linked to machine-mounted monitors? What are the advantages, disadvantages, impact on miner health and safety, and costs of integrated monitoring systems?
12. What types of continuous remote monitoring systems can continue to safely operate and function after an explosion, fire, or any other mine accident? How long can such systems operate after an explosion or fire, since power is likely to be deenergized due to the emergency? What can be done to improve the survivability and reliability of continuous remote monitoring systems after an explosion or fire?
13. What types of technologies exist to remotely determine methane-air mixtures and other gas, dust, and fume levels in bleeders and bleederless ventilation systems, other than traditional AMS and tube-bundle systems? Please be specific and note if this technology is practical and feasible.
14. MSHA is aware that fiber optic systems are being developed that would transmit data to a central location on the surface of the mine. Please provide system capabilities, specifications, and cost information on these systems, as well as any other relevant technologies.
15. If fiber optic technology is capable of operation when electrical power is deenergized underground, how long can such systems remain operable after power is deenergized? What is the maximum distance such technology is capable of transmitting data to the mine surface?
16. Please describe how fiber optic technology can be used in areas of the mine that require the use of permissible or intrinsically safe equipment.
Mine operators are required to use rock dust that meets the definition of rock dust in 30 CFR 75.2. This standard specifies that rock dust material be pulverized limestone, dolomite, gypsum, anhydrite, shale, adobe, or other inert material, preferably light colored. In addition, 100 percent of the particles must pass through a sieve having 20 meshes per linear inch and 70 percent or more must pass through a sieve having 200 meshes per linear inch. The definition specifies that rock dust particles, when wetted and dried, will not cohere to form a cake that is not dispersed into separate particles by a light blast of air. In addition, the definition specifies that rock dust must not contain more than 5 percent combustible matter or more than a total of 4 percent free and combined silica or, where the Secretary finds that such silica concentrations are not available, must not contain more than 5 percent of free and combined silica.
MSHA has worked cooperatively with NIOSH on rock dust research and on the development and field testing of the CDEM. NIOSH completed development of the CDEM and field-tested it with MSHA's assistance beginning in December 2009. NIOSH researchers published a report, titled “MSHA CDEM Survey and Results,” that summarized the results of this CDEM field study (Harris et al., 2011). MSHA inspectors used the NIOSH-developed prototype CDEM in conjunction with routine dust compliance surveys (conducted under 30 CFR 75.403) to collect the data shown in the report. MSHA inspectors also collected rock dust samples as part of the CDEM field study.
NIOSH analyzed the rock dust samples and reported in Hazard ID 16—Non-Conforming Rock Dust (October 2011), that the investigation of rock dust revealed two significant concerns with the supply of rock dust used in U.S. mines: Insufficient quantity of particles finer than 200 mesh (75 μm) and the tendency of rock dust to form a cake when wetted and subsequently dried.
MSHA issued PIB No. P11–50 on October 27, 2011, titled “Rock Dust Composition, 30 CFR 75.2” that reiterated information contained in NIOSH Hazard ID 16 (October 2011). MSHA stated in PIB No. P11–50 that the particle size issue and the caking issue indicate a possible lack of product quality control.
To assist MSHA in making determinations with respect to rock dust, please respond to the following questions.
17. What specific tests should be performed to monitor the quality of rock dust to assure that the rock dust will effectively suppress an explosion in the mine environment?
18. What materials produce the most effective rock dust?
19. What are the advantages, disadvantages, impact on miner health and safety, and costs of limiting rock dust to light-colored inert materials, such as limestone and dolomite?
20. Please provide information on the types of impurities that could degrade rock dust performance. What tests or methods can be used to detect the presence of impurities?
21. What particle size distribution for rock dust would most effectively inert coal dust? What should be the maximum particle size? What should be the minimum particle size? Please explain and provide the rationale for your answer.
22. Determination of fine particle size of rock dust by sieving may be complicated by static agglomeration. What test methods should be used to measure the size distribution of rock dust to ensure consistent quality? What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of these test methods?
23. How can the potential of rock dust to cake be minimized? Are objective and practical tests available to determine the caking potential of rock dust? If so, please explain and provide documentation.
24. Please provide information on how fine particles (less than 10 μm) may increase the likelihood of caking in rock dust.
25. Can rock dust be treated with additives that would reduce caking? Would the additive enhance or diminish the ability of the rock dust particles to quench a coal dust explosion and, therefore, impact the effectiveness of the rock dust to inert coal dust? Please provide information on the chemical composition of any suggested additives, the quantities needed, costs, and potential impact on miner health and safety. If available, what areas of an underground coal mine would need to be treated with non-caking rock dust? Please explain and provide the rationale for your answer.
26. Applied rock dust must be dispersible to inert an explosion. What in-mine tests can be used to determine the caking resistance (
27. How does combustible material degrade the performance of rock dust? How should MSHA modify the existing specification in the definition of rock dust? Please explain and provide documentation.
28. How should MSHA modify the existing requirement for free and combined silica in the definition of rock dust? Please explain and provide documentation.
29. How can the respirable particle size fraction of rock dust,
The IR report recommended that MSHA amend existing standards to exclude surface moisture from the determination of TIC. (See 30 CFR 75.403 and 75.403–1). In addition, Harris
30. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of excluding surface moisture from the definition of TIC?
MSHA has worked cooperatively with NIOSH on the development and field testing of the CDEM. NIOSH completed development of the CDEM and field-tested it with MSHA's assistance beginning in December 2009. NIOSH researchers published a report, titled “MSHA CDEM Survey and Results,” that summarized the results of this CDEM field study (Harris et al., 2011). MSHA inspectors used the NIOSH-developed prototype CDEM in conjunction with routine dust compliance surveys (conducted under 30 CFR 75.403) to collect the data shown in the report.
MSHA stated in the final rule on “Maintenance of Incombustible Content of Rock Dust in Underground Coal Mines,” published on June 21, 2011 (76 FR 35968, at 35972), that—
In addition, the IR report recommended that MSHA should consider rulemaking to require mine operators to regularly determine the adequacy of rock dusting using a method approved by the Secretary. The IR report stated that this could be achieved by requiring mine operators to sample mine dust for analysis or conduct CDEM testing at sufficient locations and intervals to determine if any area of the mine needs re-dusting. The IR report further recommended that the rule should consider requirements for certification, recordkeeping (including a map of sample locations), and corrective actions similar to examination standards.
In light of this recommendation, MSHA requests the following information from mine operators:
31. What experience do you have with CDEMs, including use, maintenance, calibration, and costs? Based on your experience, how can CDEMs be used to help prevent coal dust explosions? What benefits have you experienced? What limitations have you encountered?
32. To what extent are mine operators using other methods to assess explosibility (
33. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of these methods? What are the benefits and limitations of each of these methods?
34. How often should mine operators test for explosibility? Where should mine operators test for explosibility in mines?
35. How should mine operators assess their rock dust applications?
36. What records should mine operators be required to retain to verify that they have tested for explosibility?
The IR report also recommended that MSHA consider rulemaking to revise 30 CFR 75.402 to require the use of:
• High-pressure rock-dusting machines to continuously apply rock dust into the air stream at the tailgate end of the longwall face whenever cutting coal; and
• Rock-dusting machines to regularly apply rock dust at the outby edges of active pillar lines on retreating continuous mining machine sections and at approaches to inaccessible areas downwind of coal dust generating sources.
In light of these recommendations, MSHA requests the following information from mine operators:
37. In what additional areas of underground coal mines should the operator apply rock dust continuously or regularly?
38. What conditions necessitate the reapplication of rock dust to previously treated areas?
The IP Assessment recommended that MSHA determine the relative merits of applying passive or active explosion barriers in specific circumstances. Explosion barriers remove heat from an explosion by engulfing the area of the barrier in an incombustible cloud of inert material like rock dust or water. These barriers are not used in underground coal mines in the United States. However, other countries allow the use of explosion barriers in underground coal mines.
These explosion barriers are designed to be activated by the pressure wave in front of a coal dust explosion. The barriers flood the area with either water or rock dust which renders any suspended coal dust inert (Cain 2003). Passive barriers quench coal dust explosions when the explosion shock wave traveling in advance of the explosion flame disturbs the barrier. Active barriers contain sensors that detect the approach of the flame and trigger a positive pressure system to flood the area with water or rock dust to quench the flame (Cain 2003).
39. What types of active or passive explosion barriers could be used and where could they be used in underground coal mines? How does the movement of equipment and personnel affect the effectiveness of explosion barriers to quench a coal dust explosion?
40. What are the advantages, disadvantages, impact on miner health and safety, and costs of installing and maintaining active and passive explosion barriers?
MSHA's standards at 30 CFR 75.360, 75.361, 75.362, and 75.364 require that preshift, on-shift, supplemental, and weekly examinations be performed by persons who have been certified by MSHA or a State. A certified person, defined in 30 CFR 75.2 and addressed in 30 CFR 75.100, is a person who has been certified as a mine foreman (mine manager), an assistant mine foreman (section foreman), or a preshift examiner (mine examiner). Under 30 CFR 75.100, a person can become certified through an MSHA-administered program or a State-administered program. A person must satisfy the criteria specified in 30 CFR 75.100 to obtain an MSHA certification.
Most State certifications are conditional on age and mining experience, specified training, and an examination. The criteria for certification and the types of certification, however, vary across States. The IR report recommended that MSHA supplement the recent rulemaking on Examinations of Work Areas in Underground Coal Mines, published on April 6, 2012 (77 FR 20700), as follows:
In response to these recommendations, MSHA is considering changing existing certification criteria and establishing criteria and procedures for renewal, decertification, and recertification of persons certified under 30 CFR 75.100 to conduct mine examinations in underground coal mines.
If your State administers a program to certify persons to conduct mine examinations in underground coal mines, please respond to the following questions:
41. What criteria and procedures does the State use for certifying persons to perform mine examinations?
42. If the State requires that certified persons renew their certifications, what procedures are used for a renewal of a certification? Does the State recognize or accept other State certifications? Please provide examples.
43. If the State also has a decertification program, what criteria and procedures are used to suspend or decertify a person's certification? What procedures are used to recertify a person after a suspension or decertification?
44. How does the State notify mine operators and other States that it has decertified or recertified a person to conduct mine examinations? What types of actions are taken by other States based on your State's decertification?
In addition, MSHA requests the following information:
45. What criteria should a miner meet to be a certified person to conduct mine examinations under 30 CFR 75.100,
46. What criteria and procedures would you recommend for the
47. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and administrative costs of having uniform criteria and procedures for the certification, decertification, and recertification of persons to conduct mine examinations in underground coal mines?
Please provide any other data or information that you think would be useful to MSHA in evaluating the effectiveness of its regulations and standards as they relate to the recommendations included in the IR and AI reports and those contained in the IP Assessment report.
Coal mines, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Underground mining.
30 U.S.C. 811.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from fugitive sources that was submitted to EPA on July 2, 2010. The SIP revision allows for a voluntary alternative work practice to detect fugitive emission leaks using optical gas imaging instruments under the EPA federal Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) requirements. The EPA adopted through rulemaking the use of this voluntary alternative work practice for federal leak detection and repair of fugitive emissions sources. EPA has evaluated the SIP revision and determined that it is consistent with the federal LDAR regulations. EPA is approving this action under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
Written comments should be received on or before March 30, 2015.
Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 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
Jennifer Huser, (214) 665–7347,
In the final rules section of this
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, through direct final procedure, Indiana's State Plan to control air pollutants from “Other Solid Waste Incineration” (OSWI) Units. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management submitted the State Plan on November 27, 2007, following the required public process. The State Plan is consistent with Emission Guidelines promulgated by EPA on December 16, 2005. This approval means that EPA finds that the State Plan meets applicable Clean Air Act requirements for OSWI units for which construction commenced on or before December 4, 2004. Once effective, this approval also makes the State Plan Federally enforceable.
Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0554, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Margaret Sieffert, Environmental Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AT–18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–1151,
In the Rules section of this
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes improvements to the collection of data reported on FCC Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations, and also to FCC Form 323–E, Ownership Report for Non Commercial Broadcast Stations, through the development of a new functionality in the Commission's Registration System (CORES) for issuing FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs). Specifically the Commission seeks comment on a proposal to create a new mechanism for an individual to obtain an FRN that is usable only for broadcast ownership reporting purposes through CORES.
The Commission must receive written comments on or before March 30, 2015 and reply comments on or before April 13, 2015. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before April 27, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No 07–294 and/or MD Docket No 10–234, by any of the following methods:
Jake Riehm, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau, FCC, (202) 418–2330. For additional information concerning the PRA proposed information collection requirements contained in the
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
1. The Commission has a long-standing goal of promoting ownership diversity in broadcast stations to ensure that diverse viewpoints and perspectives are available to the American people in the content they receive over the broadcast airwaves. In pursuit of this goal, the Commission has a long history of promulgating rules and regulations designed to foster diversity in terms of minority and female ownership. A necessary foundation for the Commission's rulemaking efforts is the collection of comprehensive, reliable data reflecting the race, gender, and ethnicity of the owners and other interest holders in broadcast stations. Such data are essential to study and analyze ownership trends effectively, to assess the impact of Commission rules, and to determine whether rule changes would be in the public interest. To be useful for these purposes, to the greatest extent possible the data must be capable of being read, verified, searched, aggregated, and cross-referenced electronically.
2. As a part of these efforts, the Commission herein proposes improvements to the collection of data reported on FCC Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations, and also to FCC Form 323–E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations, through the development of a new functionality in the Commission's Registration System (CORES) for issuing FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs). Specifically, we seek comment on a proposal to create a new mechanism for obtaining an FRN through CORES. Use of this FRN would be restricted to the reporting of individual attributable interest holders in commercial and noncommercial broadcast stations on ownership reports. This “Restricted Use” FRN (RUFRN) would be supported by identifying information for attributable individuals that does not include full Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and that would be housed securely on the Commission's servers and not made available to the public. This proposal is intended to address some of the privacy and data security concerns that commenters raised with respect to prior proposals while still enabling the Commission to uniquely identify reported individuals, obtain data reflecting a more useful, accurate, and thorough assessment of minority and female broadcast station ownership in the United States and reduce certain filing burdens. Ultimately, such changes to the Commission's system could assist future initiatives promoting diverse ownership.
3. The Commission is engaged in ongoing efforts to improve the quality, utility, and reliability of its broadcast
4.
5. On October 6, 2009, the Office of the Managing Director (OMD) at the Commission submitted a letter to OMB addressing the comments filed in response to the revised Form 323. OMD explained that requiring CORES FRNs on Form 323 is an integral part of the Commission's effort to “improve the quality, reliability, and usability of the collected data by eliminating inconsistencies and inadequacies in the data submitted.” Noting that the CORES FRN is a key tool for ensuring that ownership data is matched to specific owners, OMD explained that, without the CORES FRNs, it would be unable to accurately determine an interest holder's identity when variations of a single name or other spelling irregularities appear from form to form. The Reply Letter also responded to comments that the Commission erred in concluding that the revised Form 323 did not implicate the Privacy Act. OMD stated that because sole proprietors, officers, and directors are acting in an entrepreneurial role with respect to broadcast stations, these persons are not individuals for purposes of the Privacy Act. OMD added that, to the extent that the revisions raise any privacy concerns, the Commission created a Privacy Act System of Records (SORN) for Form 323 that would address them.
6. On October 19, 2009, OMB approved the revised Form 323, including the requirement that filers provide a CORES FRN for all individuals and entities holding an attributable interest in the licensee.
7.
8. On November 14, 2012, the Media Bureau released the first electronic analysis of commercial broadcast ownership data submitted pursuant to the revised biennial reporting requirements for 2009 and 2011 (
9. The Media Bureau's Consolidated Database System (CDBS) reflects that for each filing round, more than one quarter of the unique FRNs provided for individuals were SUFRN. Further, a combined analysis of the 2009, 2011, and 2013 filing rounds shows that more than 30 percent of the total unique FRNs reported were SUFRNs and the rate at which filers obtained and reported new SUFRNs for individuals was higher than the rate at which they obtained and reported new CORES FRNS. In addition, it appears that single SUFRNs have been used for multiple individuals and that single individuals have used multiple SUFRNs despite Bureau guidance to the contrary. Because it is possible for filers to improperly report SUFRNs for individuals—either by reporting multiple SUFRNs for a single individual on multiple reports or using the same SUFRN for multiple individuals on multiple reports—the number of unique SUFRNs reported during a given filing period cannot be relied on to determine accurately the number of individuals using a Special Use FRN. The Media Bureau therefore cannot confidently determine the number of individuals reporting a SUFRN.
10. On December 3, 2012, the Commission issued a
11. On June 27, 2014, the Commission solicited comment concerning the
12.
13. On January 3, 2013, the Commission released its
14.
15. In response to the
16.
17. In December 2010, the Commission initiated a rulemaking proceeding in which it proposed to update CORES in an effort to enhance the Commission's data collection efforts and to improve customer interface with CORES.
18. We propose implementing an RUFRN for use on Form 323 filings. We tentatively conclude that this proposal will provide reasonable assurance of unique identification of individuals within our broadcast ownership report database, which is critical to the improvement of the Commission's data gathering practices. We also tentatively conclude that RUFRNs provide superior data quality to SUFRNs and could enable the Commission to implement a burden-reducing form modification. We next consider ways in which the RUFRN proposal is consistent with other Commission data gathering and policy initiatives. Thereafter we propose to apply RUFRNs to NCE filings if additional Commission action is undertaken with respect to broadcast ownership reporting in the NCE industry segment. We believe that the quality of the Commission's security systems and the Privacy Act are not a barrier to the system proposed. In addition, we tentatively conclude that the RUFRN proposal is not burdensome. We ask for comment on whether SUFRNs should remain available in the case of recalcitrant individuals. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of all the proposals contained herein and any alternatives commenters propose.
19.
20. Accordingly, we propose to establish an alternative mechanism within CORES to identify individuals uniquely that does not require submission of a full SSN to the Commission. This method would allow an individual to obtain an RUFRN from CORES by submitting an alternate set of identifying information—including full name, residential address, date of birth, and last four digits of the individual's SSN. The CORES system will be programmed to verify that the submitted information is complete and does not duplicate any information that is already associated with an RUFRN in CORES. We also propose that when an applicant obtains an RUFRN the individual will be asked to list all CORES FRNs registered to the individual and all SUFRNs that individual previously used in any broadcast ownership report filings since the 2009 biennial reporting cycle. We tentatively conclude that such disclosures will allow the Commission to identify CORES FRNs, RUFRNs, and SUFRNs that identify the same individual, promoting the usefulness of the broadcast ownership data for purposes of electronic searching, aggregating, and cross-referencing and for trend analysis. Once an RUFRN is issued, we propose that any ownership report filing that lists that specific individual would be required to include that RUFRN. We propose that attributable interest holders would not be required to obtain or use an RUFRN for Form 323 (or Form 323–E if the filing obligations proposed in the
21. The Commission has previously recognized that Sections 257 of the 1996 Act and 309(j) of the Act support its efforts to gather the ownership data contained in Form 323. In the
22. We tentatively find that flaws in the current practices related to the reporting of SUFRNs for individuals listed on Form 323 compromise the integrity of the data and thereby frustrate the Commission's attempts to fulfill its statutory mandates under section 257 and section 309(j). Because our policy initiatives are dependent on the quality of the data collected, we tentatively conclude that requiring an FRN generated by CORES, either through existing mechanisms or via the proposed method to obtain an RUFRN, for all reportable interest holders on Forms 323 (and 323–E if proposals in the
23. We tentatively conclude that having reasonable assurance that attributable interest holders are uniquely identified on ownership reports in a manner that ensures the data can be meaningfully searched, aggregated, and cross-referenced electronically is crucial to data quality and usability. In the
24. A commenter to the
25.
26. As noted above, some commenters in the
27.
28.
29.
30. We agree with commenters that privacy and security with respect to personally identifiable information are paramount, and we believe that the steps taken and the procedures in place assure the security of the Commission's systems. The Commission is not aware of any breaches to CORES. In addressing similar security concerns from commenters, the Commission wrote in 2009 that the CORES architecture exceeds Federal guidelines and that its databases are behind several firewalls. The Commission also explained that administrative access to the CORES application is limited and that all transmission of non-public data is encrypted. Furthermore, the safeguards in place in 2009 have been improved. Certain improvements were underway prior to completion of the Information Security GAO Report, and that report also provided the Commission with additional, valuable recommendations for continuing to strengthen our security environment. We have implemented enhanced perimeter controls, malware protection, and monitoring devices and upgraded workstations to operating systems with improved security. The Commission's security architecture has strict operational controls in place that comply with National Institute of Standards and Technology guidance. As the Commission explained to OMB in 2009, system servers are located behind several firewalls and other security controls to protect CORES data from intrusion by outsiders as well as the general Commission population. Administrative access to CORES remains limited to only certain known internal workstations and all servers are monitored by automated tools and operational procedures. Moreover, the Commission made several upgrades to all of its systems, including CORES, to ensure that its systems remain secure. Security will continue to be one of our highest priorities. In light of the foregoing, we seek comment on whether the elimination of the need for individual attributable interest holders to submit an SSN eliminates the privacy and identity theft concerns existing in the current record. If not, what privacy or identity theft concerns remain and how can they be addressed? Are such concerns outweighed by the importance of the data collection?
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
•
•
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any PRA comments on the proposed collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
41. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this)
42. Currently, filers of Form 323 (Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcasters) must provide an FCC Registration Number (FRN) generated via the Commission's Registration System (CORES) for each reported attributable party. To obtain a CORES FRN, an individual must submit his or her social security number (SSN) to the Commission through CORES. CORES FRNs therefore can be used to uniquely identify individuals reported on Form 323, which is crucial to the quality and utility of the Commission's broadcast ownership data. However, if a filer uses diligent and good-faith efforts to obtain an SSN from an individual that must be reported on Form 323 in order to generate a CORES FRN, but is unable to do so, the filer may provide a Special Use FRN (SUFRN) for that individual. Because the SUFRN generation process does not requires submission of an SSN, or any other identifying information, SUFRNs do not provide a reliable means of linking a reported interest holder to a unique individual. The existence of SUFRNs therefore undermines the usefulness and integrity of the Commission's broadcast ownership data.
43. To address this issue, the Notice invites comment on a proposal to create a new type of FRN within CORES—a Restricted Use FRN (“RUFRN”)—for use on Form 323. Under the proposal set forth in the Notice, an individual requesting an RUFRN would be required to submit his or her name, date of birth, and residential address, along with the last four digits of his or her SSN, to CORES. Once obtained, an individual would be required to use the RUFRN on all current and future Form 323 filings. The Notice seeks comment on this RUFRN proposal, including input concerning the costs, benefits, and possible alternative approaches.
44. The Notice explains that the Commission's Fourth Diversity Further Notice requested input on adopting modifications to Form 323–E (Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations) similar to those previously adopted for Form 323. The Sixth Diversity Further Notice specifically proposed requiring Form 323–E filers to provide a CORES FRN for all attributable parties. In light of the foregoing, the Notice seeks comment concerning the future application of the RUFRN proposal to Form 323–E (if Form 323–E is modified along the lines proposed in the Fourth Diversity Public Notice).
45. Finally, the Notice indicates that the Sixth Diversity Further Notice solicited input on whether to retain the availability of SUFRNs for ownership report filings in the event that reportable individuals are unwilling to provide their SSN to a third party or unwilling to obtain and provide a CORES FRN. Similarly, the Notice asks whether, if the RUFRN proposal is adopted, SUFRNs should continue to be available to Form 323 filers (and Form 323–E filers if the proposals in the Fourth Diversity Further Notice are adopted), in the event that after a filer has used reasonable and good faith efforts, reportable individuals are unwilling to provide their identifying information or unwilling to obtain and provide a CORES FRN or RUFRN themselves.
46. This Notice is adopted pursuant to sections 1, 2(a), 4(i)–(j), 257, and 303(r), of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i, j), 257, 303(r).
47. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction” under Section 3 of the Small Business Act. In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
48. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television broadcasting station that has no more than $38.5 million in annual receipts as a small business. The definition of business concerns included in this industry states that establishments are primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These firms operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These firms also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. Census data for 2007 indicate that 808 such firms were in operation for the duration of that entire year. Of these, 709 had annual receipts of less than $25.0 million per year and 99 had annual receipts of $25.0 million or more per year. Based on this data and the associated size standard, the Commission concludes that the majority of such firms are small.
49. Additionally, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,387. According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on November 25, 2014, about 1,276 of an estimated 1,387 commercial television stations (or approximately 92 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational television stations to be 395. We do not have revenue data or revenue estimates for noncommercial stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for their operations, so we will assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. We note that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by any changes to the filing requirements for FCC Form 323 or Form 323–E, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
50. An element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any television stations from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
51. Radio Broadcasting. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting entity that has $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.” Census data for 2007 indicate that 2,926 such firms were in operation for the duration of that entire year. Of these, 2,877 had annual receipts of less than $25.0 million per year and 49 had annual receipts of $25.0 million or more per year. Based on this data and the associated size standard, the Commission concludes that the majority of such firms are small.
52. Further, according to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on November 25, 2014, about 11,337 (or about 99.9 percent) of 11,348 commercial radio stations in the United States have revenues of $38.5 million or less. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial radio stations to be 4,085. We do not have revenue data or revenue estimates for these stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for their operations, so we will assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. We note that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by any changes to filing requirements for FCC Form 323 or Form 323–E, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
53. In this context, the application of the statutory definition to radio stations is of concern. An element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
54. Class A TV and LPTV Stations. The rules and policies adopted herein apply to licensees of low power television (“LPTV”) stations, including Class A TV stations and, as well as to potential licensees in these television services. The same SBA definition that
55. There may be changes to reporting or recordkeeping requirements if the Commission adopts the RUFRN proposal for Form 323 and/or Form 323–E. In the event that the RUFRN proposal is adopted for the Form 323 and/or Form 323–E, filers will have the option to obtain and report a unique identifier for individual attributable interest holders that does not require submission of a full SSN to the Commission. Adoption of this proposal will allow an individual to obtain an RUFRN from CORES by submitting an alternate set of identifying information. Individuals would not be required to obtain or report an RUFRN on the Form 323 and/or Form 323–E—instead, individuals could obtain and report a CORES FRN. An individual who has provided a CORES FRN on one or more previous ownership filings may continue to use that CORES FRN going forward. There also may be changes to reporting or recordkeeping requirements if the Commission limits or eliminates that availability of SUFRNs for broadcast ownership reports. Filers may be obligated to instruct individuals about their obligation to supply the filer with a CORES FRN or RUFRN or to provide the filer with the information sufficient to obtain one of these identifiers on the individual's behalf. A filer may also be required to inform individuals about potential enforcement action for failure to obtain or report a CORES FRN or RUFRN. Moreover, if a filer reports an SUFRN for an individual interest holder, the filer may be required to show that the filer made reasonable good faith efforts to obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN, or the information necessary to obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN, on the individual's behalf.
56. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that might minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. Such alternatives may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
57. As noted, we are directed under law to describe any such alternatives we consider, including alternatives not explicitly listed above. The Notice proposes to allow individuals reported on Form 323 to obtain and provide an RUFRN in lieu of a traditional CORES FRN. Similarly, the Notice proposes making RUFRNs available to Form 323–E filers in the event that Form 323–E is modified as proposed in the Fourth Diversity Further Notice. The Notice also proposes eliminating the availability of SUFRNs for Form 323 and Form 323–E filings. In the alternative, the Commission could decide not to enact the RUFRN proposal contained in the Notice and not to modify the availability of SUFRNs. The Commission also could defer these actions until a later time. Additionally, the Commission could decide to treat noncommercial broadcasters differently from commercial broadcast stations for purposes of uniquely identifying and tracking individual attributable interest holders reported on the 323–E. While decisions to adopt the RUFRN proposal and eliminate the Special Use FRN might result in increased burdens on reporting parties, the Notice tentatively concludes that any such burdens would be minimal and that the benefits of having a unique identifier for data quality, searchability, cross-referencing and aggregation purposes in order to further the Commission's goal of advancing diversity of ownership in the broadcast industry would outweigh those burdens. A unique identifier is necessary to improve the quality of the data collected on the Form 323. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Special Use FRN should be available solely in instances where, after reasonable and good faith efforts, filers are unable to obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN from an individual with reportable interests. This alternative could reduce the burden for those filers who are unable to, after reasonable and good faith efforts, to obtain a CORES FRN or RUFRN from an individual attributable interest holder, while ensuring that the filer will be able to timely submit the Form 323. This will allow the Commission to identify the individual with a reportable interest that has failed to provide a CORES FRN or RUFRN.
58. None.
59. Accordingly,
60.
61.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule.
DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement sections of the Department of Defense Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 and FY 2015 that prohibit use of funds made available under the acts for the purchase or manufacture of a flag of the United States, unless such flag is manufactured in the United States.
Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before April 27, 2015, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.
Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2015–D005, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571–372–6106.
DoD is proposing to amend the DFARS to implement sections 8123 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division C, Title VIII of Pub. L. 113–76) and section 8119 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015 (Division C, Title VIII of Pub. L. 113–235). These sections prohibit the use of funds appropriated under those acts for the purchase or manufacture of a flag of the United States unless such flag is treated as a covered item under 10 U.S.C. 2533a(b) (commonly known as the Berry Amendment). With some exceptions, the Berry Amendment restricts the purchase of certain items of food, clothing, fabrics, and hand or measuring tools (whether as end products or components), unless the items have been grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States.
The Berry Amendment is implemented in DFARS 225.7002 and associated clauses DFARS 252.225–7012 and 252.225–7015.
This rule proposes to amend DFARS 225–7002–1, 225–7002–2, and 225.7002–3, and add a new clause at 252.225–70XX, Acquisition of the American Flag. Conforming changes are also required in DFARS 212.301(f) to apply the new clause to the acquisition of commercial items. Since most, if not all, flags are commercial items, this statute would be without affect if not applied to commercial items. Furthermore, this is an appropriations act restriction, which specifically prohibits the expenditure of any funds appropriated under these acts, unless the flags to be acquired are manufactured in the United States (regardless of whether the flags are commercial items.)
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 does not expect this proposed 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 is necessary to implement sections 8123 and 8119 of the DoD Appropriations Acts for FYs 2014 and 2015, respectively, and the same provision in subsequent DoD appropriations acts.
The objective of the rule is to prohibit acquisition of a flag of the United States (Product or Service Code 8345), unless such flag, including the materials and components thereof, is manufactured in the United States, consistent with the requirements at 10 U.S.C. 2533a. The legal basis for the rule is sections 8123 and 8119 of the DoD Appropriations Acts for FYs 2014 and 2015 (Division C of Pub. Laws 113–76 and 113–235, respectively.
Based on FY 2013 Federal Procurement Data System data, there was only one acquisition of flags from a small business that exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold. There are no projected reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The rule only requires that if a contractor is to provide flags of the United States to DoD under a contract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, the flags must be manufactured in the United States.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. There are no significant alternatives that meet the requirement of the statute.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2015–D005), in correspondence.
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, 48 CFR parts 205, 212, 225, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:
41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(f) * * *
(ix) * * *
(CC) Use the clause at 252.225–70XX, Acquisition of the American Flag, as prescribed in 225.7002–3(c), to comply with section 8123 of the DoD Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113–76, Division C, Title VIII), and the same provision in subsequent DoD appropriations acts.
The addition reads as follows:
(b) In accordance with section 8123 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113–76, Division C, Title VIII), and the same provision in subsequent Defense appropriations acts, except as provided in 225.7002–2, do not acquire a flag of the United States (PSC 8345), unless such flag, including the materials and components thereof, is manufactured in the United States, consistent with the requirements at 10 U.S.C. 2533a.
(c) Use the clause at 252.225–70XX, Acquisition of the American Flag, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that are for the acquisition of the American flag, with an estimated value that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold.
As prescribed in 225.7002–3(c), use the following clause:
(a)
(b) If the Contractor is required to deliver under this contract one or more American flags (Product or Service Code 8345), such flag(s), including the materials and components thereof, shall be manufactured in the United States, consistent with the requirements at 10 U.S.C. 2533a (commonly known as the “Berry Amendment”).
(c) This clause does not apply to the acquisition of any end items or components related to flying or displaying the flag (
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing a meeting of the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee (Committee). The meeting is being convened to examine the full spectrum of fruit and vegetable industry issues and provide recommendations and ideas to the Secretary of Agriculture on how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can tailor programs and services to better meet the needs of the U.S. produce industry. The meeting is open to the public. This notice sets forth the schedule and location for the meeting.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Wednesday, March 11, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
The Committee meeting will be held in Room 107A, USDA Jamie L. Whitten Office Building, Jefferson Drive Southwest, Washington, DC 20250.
Pamela Stanziani, Designated Federal Official, USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Program; Telephone: (202) 720–3334; Email:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)(5 U.S.C. App.), the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) established the Committee in 2001, to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and to provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs. The Committee was re-chartered in July 2013, for a two-year period.
AMS Deputy Administrator for the Fruit and Vegetable Program, Charles Parrott, serves as the Executive Secretary. Representatives from USDA mission areas and other government agencies affecting the fruit and vegetable industry are periodically called upon to participate in the Committee's meetings as determined by the Committee. AMS is giving notice of the Committee meeting to the public so that they may attend and present their views. The meeting is open to the public. The public is asked to pre-register for the meeting at least 10 business days prior to the meeting. Your pre-registration should state: The names of each person in your group; organization or interest represented; and whether anyone in your group requires special accommodations. Submit registrations to Pamela Stanziani via
Agenda items may include, but are not limited to, welcome and introductions, administrative matters, progress reports from committee working group chairs and/or vice chairs, potential working group recommendation discussion, and presentations by subject matter experts as requested by the Committee.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Metroplex International Trade Development Corporation, grantee of FTZ 168, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Samsung Electronics America, Inc (Samsung), located in Coppell, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 20, 2015.
The Samsung facility is located within Site 9 of FTZ 168. The facility is used for the warehousing, distribution and kitting of mobile phones and tablet computers. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Samsung from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Samsung would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to mobile phones and tablet computers (duty-free) for the foreign status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Rubber tape; holsters (device holders); leather cases, covers and pouches; polyurethane pouches; silicone gel cases; paper labels; barcodes; user's manuals; tablets; Bluetooth® keyboards; keyboard docks; power adaptors; battery chargers; inductors; batteries; cordless headsets; mobile phones; displays; display keysets; internet phones; handsets; stereo Bluetooth® headsets; handset back covers; hands-free handsets; software; memory cards; backplanes; fan trays; LCD windows; handset bases; internal chips; surge absorbers; thermistors; mini-relays; coaxial connectors; chargers; adaptors; diodes; transistors; internal ceramic chips; SMD crystal; integrated circuit memory; flash memory; and, USB data cables (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 17.6%).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 7, 2015.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Greater Metropolitan Area Foreign Trade Zone Commission, grantee of FTZ 119, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc., located in Red Wing, Minnesota. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on February 20, 2015.
The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites in Red Wing:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 7, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 22, 2015.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Puerto Rico Trade & Export Company, grantee of FTZ 61, requesting subzone status for the facility of Roger Electric Corporation located in Bayamon, Puerto Rico. The application
The proposed subzone (3.9090 acres) is located at Road #5, Marginal Street, Luchetti Industrial Park, Bo. Juan Sanchez, Bayamon. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 61. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 7, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 22, 2015.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received information sufficient to warrant initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils (pencils) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Sergio Balbontin, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6478.
On December 28, 1994, the Department published the
On November 27, 2014, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.216 and 19 CFR 351.221, Beijing Dixon, and the Dixon Ticonderoga Company (Ticonderoga), Beijing Dixon's U.S. parent company, requested a CCR because Beijing Dixon's production of pencils is now performed by Fila Dixon Stationery (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. (Kunshan Dixon), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beijing Dixon formed after the
The merchandise subject to the order includes pencils from the PRC. Pencils are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 9609.1010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description is dispositive.
In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base.
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request from an interested party or receipt of information concerning an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. Section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of the Department's regulations permits the Department to combine the initiation and preliminary results of a CCR if the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this instance, we have information on the record necessary to reach the preliminary results of CCR. As such, we find that expedited action is warranted. Accordingly, we have combined the preliminary results with the initiation.
We preliminarily determine that Beijing Dixon, under its new business license, (
Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. Parties will be notified of the time and date of any hearing, if requested. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 30 days after the publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, and rebuttals to written comments, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 5 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this CCR are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Interested parties who wish to comment on the preliminary results must file briefs electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the date the document is due.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), the Department intends to issue the final results of this changed circumstance review not later than 270 days after the date on which the review is initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(ii).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and initiate scoping process; request for comments.
The New England Fishery Management Council announces its intention to prepare, in cooperation with NMFS, an environmental impact statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. An environmental impact statement may be necessary to provide analytical support for Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 8 would specify a long-term acceptable biological catch control rule for the herring fishery and consider acceptable biological catch control rule alternatives that account for herring's role in the ecosystem. This notice is to alert the interested public of the scoping process and potential development of a draft environmental impact statement and to outline opportunity for public participation in that process.
Written and electronic scoping comments must be received on or before 5 p.m., local time, April 30, 2015.
Written scoping comments on Amendment 8 may be sent by any of the following methods:
• Email to the following address:
• Mail to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; or
• Fax to (978) 465–3116.
Requests for copies of the Amendment 8 scoping document and other information should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, telephone (978) 465–0492. The scoping document is accessible electronically via the Internet at
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, (978) 465–0492.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council), working through its public participatory committee and meeting processes, anticipates the development of an amendment that may be analyzed through an environmental impact statement (EIS), dependent on addressing applicable criteria in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations and guidance for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (Herring FMP) is anticipated to consider long-term harvest strategies for herring, including an acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rule, that address the biological needs of the herring resource and the role of herring in the ecosystem.
The herring fishery is managed as one stock complex along the east coast from Maine to Cape Hatteras, NC, although evidence suggests that separate spawning components exist within the stock complex. The Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission adopted management measures for the herring fishery in state and Federal waters in 1999 and the Federal Herring FMP became effective on January 10, 2001.
Following the re-authorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Fishery Management Act (MSA) in 2007, the Council developed Amendment 4 to the Herring FMP and implemented a process for establishing annual catch limits and accountability measures in the herring fishery. Amendment 4 also defined the herring ABC control rule as the specified approach to setting the ABC for a stock or stock complex as a function of scientific uncertainty in the estimate of the overfishing limit (OFL) and any other scientific uncertainty. The ABC control rule provides guidance to the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) regarding how to specify an annual ABC for herring based on scientific uncertainty, stock status, and the Council's risk tolerance. The ABC control rule specifies a buffer between the OFL and ABC to account for scientific uncertainty, such that there is a low risk in any given year that the OFL for herring will be exceeded. Establishing an ABC control is consistent with National Standard 1 Guidelines for implementing the provisions of the MSA.
During the development of Amendment 4, there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the 2009 herring stock assessment. As part of the 2010–2012 herring fishery specifications process, the SSC recommended that the Council specify an ABC based on recent catch until a new benchmark stock assessment for herring could be completed. Consistent with the SSC advice, the Council specified the herring ABC for 2010–2012 as a three-year average catch level (2006–2008). This specification was adopted as the interim ABC control rule in Amendment 4, to serve as a placeholder until a benchmark stock assessment could be completed and a more appropriate long-term ABC control rule for herring could be developed.
Following a benchmark stock assessment for herring in 2012, the Council and its SSC considered several alternatives for establishing an ABC control rule for herring, including two ABC control rules that explicitly adjust for the role of a forage fish in the ecosystem, during the 2013–2015 fishery specifications process. At that time, the SSC recognized the herring stock assessment's accounting for herring's role in the ecosystem. The SSC recommended that using reference points and projections associated with explicit forage fish ABC control rules receive further evaluation prior to implementation in a long-term harvest strategy for managing the herring fishery. Ultimately, based on SSC advice, the Council adopted an ABC control rule that specified a constant ABC for 2013–2015. The ABC control rule was based on the annual catch projected to produce a less than or equal to 50 percent probability of exceeding the fishing mortality rate to support maximum sustainable yield in 2015. At the conclusion of the 2013–2015 specifications process, the Council recommended a further consideration of long-term harvest strategies for herring either during the next specifications process and/or through an amendment to the Herring FMP.
Amendment 8 is proposed to further consider long-term harvest strategies for herring, including an ABC control rule that addresses the biological needs of the herring resource and explicitly accounts for herring's role in the ecosystem, consistent with the requirements and intent of the MSA. The importance of herring as a forage species is underscored by the Council's specified intent to consider a wide range of alternatives for ABC control rules in this amendment, including those that explicitly account for herring's role in the ecosystem.
The Council's Herring Oversight Committee and the Council will be identifying the goals and objectives for Amendment 8 following the scoping period and will then develop alternatives to meet the purpose and need of the action. Additionally, the Council's Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) Plan Development Team and EBFM Committee will be developing guidance for managing forage fish within an ecosystem context and will be participating in the development of an ABC control rule and reference points for herring during this amendment. Following input from these Council bodies and the public, the Council will select a range of alternatives to consider long-term harvest strategies and ABC control rules for herring.
All persons affected by or otherwise interested in herring management are invited to participate in determining the scope and significance of issues to be analyzed by submitting written comments (see
In addition to soliciting comment on this notice, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the measures and alternatives being considered by the Council through public meetings and public comment periods consistent with NEPA, the MSA, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The following scoping meetings have been scheduled. The Council will take and discuss scoping comments on this amendment at the following public meetings:
1. Friday, March 6, 2015; 10:30 a.m.; Samoset Resort, Rockland Room, 220 Warrenton Street, Rockport, ME 04856; (207) 594–2511.
2. Thursday, March 26, 2015; 6 p.m.; DoubleTree by Hilton, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923; (978) 777–2500.
3. Monday, April 6, 2015; 6 p.m.; Webinar; Register to participate:
4. Monday, April 20, 2015; 6 p.m.; Hilton Hotel, 20 Coogan Boulevard, Mystic, CT 06355; (860) 572–0731.
The meetings are accessible to people with physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; notification of quota for bowhead whales.
NMFS notifies the public of the aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for bowhead whales that it has assigned to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), and of limitations on the use of the quota deriving from regulations of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). For 2015, the quota is 75 bowhead whales struck. This quota and other applicable limitations govern the harvest of bowhead whales by members of the AEWC.
Effective February 26, 2015.
Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Melissa Garcia, (301) 427–8385.
Aboriginal subsistence whaling in the United States is governed by the Whaling Convention Act (WCA) (16 U.S.C. 916
At the 64th Annual Meeting of the IWC, the Commission set catch limits for aboriginal subsistence use of bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock. The bowhead catch limits were based on a joint request by the United States and the Russian Federation, accompanied by documentation concerning the needs of two Native groups: Alaska Eskimos and Chukotka Natives in the Russian Far East.
The IWC set a 6-year block catch limit of 336 bowhead whales landed. For each of the years 2013 through 2018, the number of bowhead whales struck may not exceed 67, except that any unused portion of a strike quota from any prior year may be carried forward. No more than 15 strikes may be added to the strike quota for any one year. At the end of the 2014 harvest, there were 15 unused strikes available for carry-forward, so the combined strike quota set by the IWC for 2015 is 82 (67 + 15).
An arrangement between the United States and the Russian Federation ensures that the total quota of bowhead whales landed and struck in 2015 will not exceed the limits set by the IWC. Under this arrangement, the Russian natives may use no more than seven strikes, and the Alaska Eskimos may use no more than 75 strikes.
Through its cooperative agreement with the AEWC, NOAA has assigned 75 strikes to the Alaska Eskimos. The AEWC will in turn allocate these strikes among the 11 villages whose cultural and subsistence needs have been documented, and will ensure that its hunters use no more than 75 strikes.
The IWC regulations, as well as the NOAA regulation at 50 CFR 230.4(c), forbid the taking of calves or any whale accompanied by a calf.
NOAA regulations (at 50 CFR 230.4) contain a number of other prohibitions relating to aboriginal subsistence whaling, some of which are summarized here:
• Only licensed whaling captains or crew under the control of those captains may engage in whaling.
• Captains and crew must follow the provisions of the relevant cooperative agreement between NOAA and a Native American whaling organization.
• The aboriginal hunters must have adequate crew, supplies, and equipment to engage in an efficient operation.
• Crew may not receive money for participating in the hunt.
• No person may sell or offer for sale whale products from whales taken in the hunt, except for authentic articles of Native American handicrafts.
• Captains may not continue to whale after the relevant quota is taken, after the season has been closed, or if their licenses have been suspended. They may not engage in whaling in a wasteful manner.
DoD.
Renewal of Federal Advisory Committee.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter for the Missouri River (South Dakota) Task Force (“the Task Force”).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703–692–5952.
This committee's charter is being renewed pursuant to section 905(a) of the Missouri River Restoration Act of 2000 (“the Missouri River Restoration Act”) (Title IX of Pub. L. 106–541, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000) and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102–3.50(a).
The Task Force is a non-discretionary Federal advisory committee that shall provide independent advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on plans and projects to reduce siltation of the Missouri River in the State of South Dakota and to meet the objectives of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program authorized by
a. Prepare and approve, by a majority of the members, a plan for the use of the funds made available under the Missouri River Restoration Act, to promote:
i. Conservation practices in the Missouri River watershed;
ii. the general control and removal of sediment from the Missouri River;
iii. the protection of recreation on the Missouri River from sedimentation;
iv. the protection of Indian and non-Indian historical and cultural sites along the Missouri River from erosion;
v. erosion control along the Missouri River; or
vi. any combination of the activities just described;
b. Review projects to meet the goals of the plan and recommend, to the Secretary of the Army, critical restoration projects for implementation; and
c. Determine whether these critical restoration projects primarily benefit the Federal Government for purposes of cost-sharing.
The Task Force may, on an annual basis, revise the plan and shall provide the public with the opportunity to review and comment on any proposed revision to the plan.
The Task Force shall report to the Secretary of the Army and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Secretary of the Army may act upon the Task Force's advice and recommendations. As prescribed by sections 904 and 905(b) of the Missouri River Act, the Task Force shall be composed of 29 members. Specifically, the Task Force membership shall be composed of the Secretary of the Army or designee, who shall serve as the Chairperson; Secretary of Agriculture or designee; Secretary of Energy or designee; Secretary of the Interior or designee; and the Trust. The Trust is composed of 25 members to be appointed by the Secretary of the Army, including 15 members recommended by the Governor of South Dakota that represent equally the various interest of the public and include representatives of: The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources; the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks; environmental groups; the hydroelectric power industry; local governments; recreation user groups; agricultural groups; other appropriate interests; nine members, one of each of whom shall be recommended by each of the nine Indian Tribes in the State of South Dakota; and one member recommended by the organization known as the “Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota” (composed of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara tribes).
The members of the Trust shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense, to serve as representative members to the Task Force pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.130(a). Those individuals who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees shall be appointed to serve as regular government employee (RGE) members pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.130(a).
All representative members of the Trust shall be appointed for a two-year term of service; and no member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense upon request of the Secretary of the Army, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service. In addition, all Task Force members shall serve without compensation, with the exception of reimbursement for official Task Force-related travel and per diem.
The Department of Defense (DoD), when necessary and consistent with the Task Force's mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task groups, and working groups to support the Task Force. Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of the Army, as the Task Force's Sponsor.
Such subcommittees shall not work independently of the Task Force and shall report all of their recommendations and advice solely to the Task Force for full and open deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Task Force. No subcommittee or any of its members can update or report, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Task Force, directly to the DoD or any Federal officers or employees.
The Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense may approve the appointment of subcommittee members for a two-year term of service, with annual renewals; however, no member, unless authorized by the Secretary of Defense, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service. These individuals may come from the Task Force or may be new nominees, as recommended by the Secretary of the Army and based upon the subject matters under consideration.
Subcommittee members, if not full-time or permanent part-time Federal employees, shall be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members. Those individuals who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees shall be appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.130(a) to serve as RGE members. With the exception of reimbursement for official Task Force-related travel and per diem, subcommittee members shall serve without compensation.
Each subcommittee member is appointed to provide advice to the Government on the basis of his or her best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.
All subcommittees operate under the provisions of the FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing Federal statutes and regulations, and established DoD policies and procedures.
The estimated number of Task Force meetings is no less than two per year.
The Task Force's Designated Federal Officer (DFO), pursuant to DoD policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee appointed in accordance with governing DoD policies and procedures.
The Task Force's DFO is required to be in attendance at all meetings of the Task Force and any of its subcommittees for the entire duration of each and every meeting. However, in the absence of the Task Force's DFO, a properly approved Alternate DFO, duly appointed to the Task Force according to established DoD policies and procedures, shall attend the entire duration of the Task Force or any subcommittee meeting.
The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, shall call all meetings of the Task Force and its subcommittees; prepare and approve all meeting agendas; and adjourn any meeting when the DFO, or the Alternate DFO, determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by governing regulations or DoD policies and procedures.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and 102–3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to Missouri River (SD) Task Force membership about the Task Force's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the Missouri River (SD) Task Force.
All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the Missouri River (SD) Task Force, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration. Contact information for the Missouri River (SD) Task Force DFO can be
The DFO, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.150, will announce planned meetings of the Missouri River (SD) Task Force. The DFO, at that time, may provide additional guidance on the submission of written statements that are in response to the stated agenda for the planned meeting in question.
Department of the Air Force, Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, Rome, New York.
Notice of Intent to Issue an Exclusive Patent License.
Pursuant to the provisions of part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96–517, as amended, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Lilo, LLC, a corporation of New York, having a place of business at 106 Genesee St., Utica, New York 13413, an exclusive license in any right, title and interest the United States Air Force has in: In U.S. Patent No. 8,317,058 entitled “Bicyclists' Water Bottle with Bottom Drinking Valve”, issued on November 27th, 2012, U.S. Design Patent No. D588,856 issued on March 24th, 2009, and U.S. Design Patent D583,626 issued on December 20th, 2008.
An exclusive license for this patent will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written objections should be sent to: Air Force Research Laboratory, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, AFRL/RIJ, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, New York 13441–4514. Telephone: (315) 330–2087; Facsimile (315) 330–7583.
U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Meeting notice.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 9355, the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) Board of Visitors (BoV) will hold a meeting at Harmon Hall, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs CO on March 16, 2015. The meeting will begin at 10:15 a.m. and is scheduled to close to the public at 3:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is to review morale and discipline, social climate, curriculum, instruction, infrastructure, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and other matters relating to the Academy. Specific topics for this meeting include a Superintendent's update, which will include, but not be limited to, an admissions update and a review of the DoD Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at Military Service Academies; an update from non-federal entities that support the Academy; and a review of the Center for Character and Leadership Development organization and facility. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102–3.155, one session of this meeting shall be closed to the public because it involves matters covered by subsection (c)(6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b. Public attendance at the open portions of this USAFA BoV meeting shall be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis up to the reasonable and safe capacity of the meeting room. In addition, any member of the public wishing to provide input to the USAFA BoV should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102–3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements must address the following details: the issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included as needed to establish the appropriate historical context and provide any necessary background information. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the Air Force address detailed below at any time. However, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days before the first day of the meeting which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the BoV until its next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the BoV Chairman and ensure they are provided to members of the BoV before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. If after review of timely submitted written comments and the BoV Chairman and DFO deem appropriate, they may choose to invite the submitter of the written comments to orally present the issue during an open portion of the BoV meeting that is the subject of this notice. Members of the BoV may also petition the Chairman to allow specific personnel to make oral presentations before the BoV. In accordance with 41 CFR 102–3.140(d), any oral presentations before the BoV shall be in accordance with agency guidelines provided pursuant to a written invitation and this paragraph. Direct questioning of BoV members or meeting participants by the public is not permitted except with the approval of the DFO and Chairman. For the benefit of the public, rosters that list the names of BoV members and any releasable materials presented during the open portions of this BoV meeting shall be made available upon request.
New York, Rome, Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate, Department of the Air Force.
Notice of Intent to Issue a Partially Exclusive Patent License.
Pursuant to the provisions of part 404 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96–517, as amended, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Kognitive Systems, LLC, a corporation of New York, having a place of business at 14 White Pine Road, New Hartford, New York 13413, a partially exclusive license being limited to the field of use in Process
An exclusive license for this patent will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Written objections should be sent to: Air Force Research Laboratory, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, AFRL/RIJ, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, New York 13441–4514. Telephone: (315) 330–2087; Facsimile (315) 330–7583.
Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 27, 2015.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela 202–502–7411.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Department of Education.
Correction Notice.
On February 23, 2015 the U.S. Department of Education published a 30-day comment period notice in the
The Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.
Applications Available: February 26, 2015.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 27, 2015.
Congress has expressly authorized the use of FY 2015 program funds for construction of facilities that support the operation of ANE programs.
This priority is:
Applications from an Alaska Native organization, including an Alaska Native regional nonprofit organization, or a consortium that includes at least one Alaska Native organization or Alaska Native regional nonprofit organization.
In order to receive a competitive preference under this priority, the applicant must provide documentation supporting its claim that it meets this priority.
Under this competition, we also are particularly interested in applications that address the following priority.
This priority is:
Applications that propose to carry out activities that preserve and strengthen Alaska Native culture and language.
20 U.S.C. 7544.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
A State educational agency (SEA) or local educational agency (LEA), including a charter school that is considered to be an LEA under State law, may apply for an award under this program only as part of a consortium involving an Alaska Native organization. The Secretary encourages the Alaska Native organization to serve as the lead applicant and to play an active role in carrying out grant activities. The consortium may also include other eligible applicants.
2.
1.
To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative to no more than 25 pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section.
Our reviewers will not read any pages of your application that exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications Available: February 26, 2015.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 27, 2015.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the ANE program, CFDA number 84.356A, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the ANE program at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must comply with the page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Almita Reed, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E210, Washington, DC 20202–6200. FAX: (202) 260–8969.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.356A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.356A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288.
1.
(a)
(b)
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable (15 points).
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (15 points).
(c)
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (10 points).
(ii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project (10 points).
(d)
(e)
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project (5 points).
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are appropriate to the context within which the project operates (5 points).
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report that includes data addressing these performance measures, to the extent that they apply to the grantee's project.
5.
Almita Reed, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E210, Washington, DC 20202–6200. Telephone: (202) 260–1979 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Department of Energy
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory
Wednesday, March 11, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
Department of Energy Information Center, Office of Science and Technical Information, 1 Science.gov Way, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830.
Melyssa P. Noe, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM–90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241–3315; Fax (865) 576–0956 or email:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l. With this notice, we are designating Bear Swamp Power Company, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Bear Swamp Power Company, LLC filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
Register online at
o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status,
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at
All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading: “Comments on Pre-Application Document,” “Study Requests,” “Comments on Scoping Document 1,” “Request for Cooperating Agency Status,” or “Communications to and from Commission Staff.” Any individual or entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating status must do so by April 18, 2015.
p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, the meetings below will satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or EIS is issued by the Commission.
Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals, organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015.
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Holiday Inn Berkshires, 40 Main Street, North Adams, Massachusetts 01247.
Phone Number: (413) 663–6500.
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015.
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Holiday Inn Berkshires, 40 Main Street, North Adams, Massachusetts 01247.
Phone Number: (413) 663–6500.
Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental site review of the project on Thursday, March 19, 2015, starting at 9:00 a.m. All participants should meet at the Bear Swamp Visitors Center, located at 458 River Road, Florida, Massachusetts, 01247. Please notify Steve Murphy at (315) 598–6130 or
At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an environmental document.
Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are included in item n. of this document.
The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed in the public records of the project.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company 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 on February 13, 2015 pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), Champion Energy Marketing LLC (Complainants or Champion) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, LLC. and PJM Settlement, Inc. (Respondents or PJM) alleging that PJM's Tariff provisions that allowed for uplift charges to be incurred and then allocated to Champion are flawed, and perpetuate fleet-wide resource performance problems, which as a result fail to ensure reliability in a cost-effective manner, rendering the Tariff unjust and unreasonable, as more fully explained in the complaint.
Champion certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for PJM as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 18, 2015, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e), NextEra Desert Center Blythe, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against the California Independent System Operator Corporation (Respondent) alleging that, the Respondent failed to allocate Merchant Congestion Revenue Rights to the Complainant for its investment in transmission upgrades as required by the Respondent's Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade Tariff.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for the Respondent and Southern California Edison Company as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials and on the California Public Utilities Commission.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
With respect to orders issued by the Commission on August 5, 2013 and May 15, 2014 in the above-captioned docket, with the exceptions noted below, the staff of the Office of Enforcement are designated as non-decisional in deliberations by the Commission in this docket. Accordingly, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2202 (2014), they will not serve as advisors to the Commission or take part in the Commission's review of any
Exceptions to this designation as non-decisional are:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Aguirre Offshore GasPort Project (Project), proposed by Aguirre Offshore GasPort, LLC (Aguirre LLC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Excelerate Energy, LP in the above-referenced docket. Aguirre LLC is seeking authorization from the FERC to develop, construct, and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal off the southern coast of Puerto Rico.
The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Aguirre Offshore GasPort Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Construction and operation of the Project would result in mostly temporary and short-term environmental impacts; however, some long-term and permanent environmental impacts would occur. The FERC staff concluded that approval of the proposed Project, with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIS, would result in limited adverse environmental impacts.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Puerto Rico Permits Management Office, Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, Puerto Rico Planning Board, Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, and Puerto Rico Department of Health participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal, and participate in the NEPA analysis. In addition, other federal, state, and local agencies may use this EIS in approving or issuing permits for all or part of the proposed Project. Although the cooperating agencies provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the final EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective Records of Decision for the Project.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service also provided assistance in preparing this EIS as permitting and consulting agencies.
The Project is being developed in cooperation with the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) for the purpose of receiving, storing, and regasifying the LNG to be acquired by PREPA; and delivering natural gas to PREPA's existing Aguirre Power Complex (Aguirre Plant) in Salinas, Puerto Rico. The Project will help diversify Puerto Rico's energy sources, allow the Aguirre Plant to meet the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standard rule, reduce fuel oil barge traffic in Jobos Bay, and contribute to price stabilization for power in the region. The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following Project facilities:
• An offshore berthing platform;
• an offshore marine LNG receiving facility;
• a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit moored at the offshore berthing platform;
• visiting LNG carriers; and
• a 4.0-mile-long (6.4 kilometer) subsea pipeline connecting the Offshore GasPort to the Aguirre Plant.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the final EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the Project area; and parties to this proceeding. The final EIS was also translated in Spanish. Paper copy versions of this EIS in English were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version. To accommodate translation, paper copy and CD versions of this EIS in Spanish are scheduled to be mailed out about two weeks after the English version. In addition, the final EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
1. By letter filed January 23, 2015, the City of Nashua, New Hampshire informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Jackson Mills Project, FERC No. 7590, originally issued April 24, 1984,
2. The City of Nashua, New Hampshire is now the exemptee for the Jackson Mills Project, FERC No. 7590. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Ms. Sarah Marchant, Division Director, City of Nashua, New Hampshire, Community Development Division, 229 Main Street, Nashua, New Hampshire 03060.
Take notice that on February 9, 2015 the Western Area Power Administration submitted a tariff filing per 10 CFR 903.23: CRSP_PRP_165–20150209, to be effective 4/1/2015. (Formula Rate for the Provo River Project-Western Area Power Administration-Rate Order No. WAPA–165.)
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on February 19, 2015, Twin Valley Hydroelectric, pursuant to sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d, and sections 35.7 and 35.13(a)(2)(iii) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 35.7 and 35.13, submits revisions to the Small Generator Interconnection Agreement, Service Agreement No. 83 (Pro Forma Sheets) under Electric Tariff Volume No. 4 with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to be effective April 17, 2015 and retroactive to January 26, 2012.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Balko Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 11, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Red Horse Wind 2, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 11, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of California Clean Power Corp.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 11, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on January 5, 2015 13, 2000. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company provided public notice of its request on December 28, 2014 and January 14, 2015. In a letter dated February 20, 2015, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved South Carolina Electric & Gas Company's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating South Carolina Electric & Gas Company as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 (d) of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 1894. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by June 29, 2018.
p. Register online at
Take notice that on February 12, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Belle Fourche Pipeline Company (Belle Fourche) and Bridger Pipeline LLC (Bridger), filed a petition for declaratory order seeking approval of the overall tariff and rate structure for an expansion pipeline system involving the coordinated expansions of both Belle Fourche's and Bridger's pipeline systems in Wyoming. The coordinated expansions will provide additional capacity for the transportation of crude oil for the Powder River Basin formation near Converse and Campbell Counties, Wyoming to Guernsey, Wyoming, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend the following MISO-related meetings:
Unless otherwise noted all of the meetings above will be held at: MISO Headquarters, 701 City Center Drive, 720 City Center Drive, and Carmel, IN 46032.
Further information may be found at
The above-referenced meetings are open to the public.
The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249–5937 or
On November 20, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued an Order on Technical Conferences
In the Order, the Commission also allowed for a 30-day public comment period following the submission of the RTO/ISO reports. Pursuant to the Order, all interested persons are invited to file comments on any or all of the RTO/ISO reports filed. These comments must be filed with the Commission no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Friday, March 20, 2015.
For more information about this Notice, please contact: David Tobenkin (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (40 CFR part 63, Subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 2237.04, OMB Control No. 2060–0620) 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 March 30, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA- HQ–OECA–2014–0095, 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.
Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–2970; fax number: (202) 564–0050; 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 Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 9, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0371, 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.
Ms. Kim Teal, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243–04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919–541–5580; fax number: 919–541–5450; 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 of final actions.
This notice is to announce that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two final Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air quality permits numbered OCS–EPA–R4019 and OCS–EPA–R4020 to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) on December 31, 2014.
The final permits, the EPA's response to public comments for these permits, and supporting information are available at
Please contact Ms. Heather Ceron, Air Permits Section Chief, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–9185. Ms. Ceron can be reached by phone at (404) 562–9185 and via electronic mail at
On November 14, 2014, EPA requested public comments on the drafts of the two OCS air permits for the Anadarko (BlackHawk and BlackHornet) projects. The draft permit conditions and preliminary determination documents are the same for both projects; they simply reference different drilling rigs. During the public comment period, which ended on December 15, 2014, the EPA received a total of 7 comments from 1 commenter (Anadarko).
The EPA reviewed each comment received for the Anadarko projects and prepared a Response to Comments document. After consideration of the expressed view of all interested persons, the pertinent federal statutes and
The EPA must follow the administrative procedures in 40 CFR part 124 used to issue Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits when processing OCS permit applications under Part 55. 40 CFR 55.6(a)(3). The EPA must also follow the administrative procedures of 40 CFR part 71 when issuing permits to OCS sources subject to Title V requirements. 40 CFR 71.4(d). Under 40 CFR 124.19(l)(3) and 40 CFR 71.11(l)(7), notice of any final Agency action regarding a subject permit must be published in the
Any person who filed comments on the Anadarko draft permits was provided the opportunity to petition the Environmental Appeals Board by January 30, 2015. No petitions were submitted for these permit. Therefore, the Anadarko permits became effective on January 31, 2015.
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, February 26, 2015. The meeting is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. in Room TW–C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Meribeth McCarrick, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418–0500; TTY 1–888–835–5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993–3100 or go to
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday March 3, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. and Its Continuation on Thursday March 5, 2015 at the Conclusion of the Open Meeting.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.
This Meeting Will Be Closed to the Public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Internal personnel rules and internal rules and practices.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694–1220.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, March 5, 2015.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434–9935/(202) 708–9300 for TDD Relay/1–800–877–8339 for toll free.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collections by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Reserve Board Acting Clearance Officer, Mark Tokarski, Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452–3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263–4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer, Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW.,Washington, DC 20503.
In the March 2015 proposal, Schedule HC–R, Part II—the portion of the Y–9C that risk-weighted assets (RWAs)—would be modified to ensure that all banking organizations are reporting RWAs consistent with the standardized approach outlined in the 2013 revisions to the regulatory capital rules. All HCs that are subject to FR–Y9C filing requirements would submit this revised Schedule HC–R, Part II. Compared to
The final version of Schedule HC–R, Part II, would be divided into the following sections: (A) Balance sheet asset categories; (B) on- and off-balance-sheet securitization exposures; (C) total balance sheet assets; (D) derivatives, off-balance sheet, and other items subject to risk weighting; (E) totals; and (F) memoranda. These distinct category headings would-be added in order to enhance the clarity of the reporting form and do not affect the number of line items banking organizations would be required to complete.
One commenter noted that the proposed reporting instructions refer the reader to the Federal Reserve's regulatory capital rules for additional information and requested that the Federal Reserve incorporate the information from the regulatory capital rules into the reporting instructions. The Federal Reserve will clarify the cross-references to the regulatory capital rules in the final reporting instructions. However, the Federal Reserve believes that incorporating the additional information from the Board's regulatory capital rules into the reporting instructions would unduly add significant length to the instructions, and condensing the information would likely omit significant details.
One commenter requested the addition of a separate line item for total equity exposures, while another commenter requested the addition of a three-way breakout of equity exposures to investment funds similar to that found in the Regulatory Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (FFIEC 101).
Proposed line items 1 through 8 reflect balance sheet asset categories (excluding those assets within each category that meet the definition of a securitization exposure), similar to the asset categories included in the current version of Schedule HC–R, Part II. However, the proposed data items would capture greater detail. The number of risk-weight categories to which the individual assets in each asset category would be allocated would be expanded consistent with the revised regulatory capital rules. On-balance sheet assets and off-balance sheet items that meet the definition of a securitization exposure would be reported in items 9 and 10, respectively.
Two commenters noted that several risk-weight categories for item 8, “Other assets,” on the proposed reporting form are not available for data input (
One commenter requested clarification of the reporting of default fund contributions (DFCs) made by the reporting banking organization to qualifying central counterparties (QCCPs) in item 8, “Other assets.” The commenter noted that the proposed reporting instructions for item 8 stated that such contributions should be allocated to the risk-weight categories defined for column B through column Q. However, the commenter observed that DFCs to QCCPs are subject to two alternative methodologies (Methods 1 and 2) for calculating risk-weighted assets, one of which may result in risk-weightings not captured in column B through column Q. In response to this comment, the Federal Reserve will add data items to collect the exposure amount and risk-weighted asset amount of DFCs to QCCPs, which would be reported separately from the risk weightings otherwise captured in item 8. The Federal Reserve will clarify the instructions to describe how respondents should report DFCs under Method 1 as well as Method 2.
One commenter noted that items 2 through 8 could include securitization exposures, and when added with item 9, “On-balance sheet securitization exposures,” it would double count such exposures in reporting item 11, “Total assets.” The Federal Reserve notes that the reporting instructions for each proposed balance sheet asset category (items 1 through 8) explicitly state that the reporting banking organization must exclude securitization exposures. The Federal Reserve will clarify the proposed reporting form to explicitly state that these data items should exclude securitization exposures from items 2 through 8 and be reported in item 9.
The Federal Reserve notes that, although the proposed reporting form and instructions addressed the reporting of an institution's securitization exposures and the treatment of financial collateral, a subsequent review found the proposal did not clearly articulate the risk weighting and reporting of assets and certain other items secured by financial collateral in the form of securitization exposures or mutual funds. In addition, the proposed reporting form and instructions did not fully address the two approaches for recognizing the effects of qualifying financial collateral. The approaches for risk weighting securitization exposures and investments in mutual funds also are applicable to such exposures when they serve as financial collateral. To account for the possible risk weight outcomes when exposures are secured by these types of collateral, the Federal Reserve will add data items to columns R and S for reporting the exposure amount and risk-weighted asset amount
Proposed line items 12 through 22 pertain to the reporting of derivatives, off-balance sheet, and other items subject to risk weighting, excluding those that meet the definition of a securitization exposure (which are reported in item 10).
One commenter noted that in accordance with section 37 of the Federal Reserve's revised regulatory capital rules, banking organizations must calculate the exposure amount and risk-weighted assets for repo-style transactions on a netting set basis. A netting set may contain transactions that are reported as assets, liabilities, and off-balance sheet items (as long as they are executed under the same master netting agreement), and the basis for the risk-weighted assets calculation is the net exposure, adjusted for volatility and foreign exchange haircuts. As proposed, Schedule HC–R, Part II, would have split the reporting of repo-style transactions between assets (reported in item 3, “Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell,”
In response to this comment, the Federal Reserve will revise proposed item 16 of Schedule HC–R, Part II, to include all repo-style transactions in item 16, re-titled as “Repo-style transactions,” which would also include securities purchased under agreements to resell (reverse repos) in order for banking organizations to calculate their exposure based on master netting set agreements. In addition, the Federal Reserve will split proposed item 3 of Schedule HC–R, Part II, into item 3(a), “Federal funds sold (in domestic offices),” and item 3(b), “Securities purchased under agreements to resell.” However, after an institution reports the balance sheet carrying amount of its reverse repos in column A of item 3(b), it would report this same amount as an adjustment in column B of item 3(b), resulting in no allocation of the balance sheet carrying amount of reverse repos across the risk-weight categories in item 3. This reporting methodology would ensure that the sum of the balance sheet asset amounts reported in items 1 through 9, column A, of Schedule HC–R, Part II, that an institution would report in item 11 of Schedule HC–R, Part II, continues to equal the “Total assets” reported in item 12 of the FR Y–9C balance sheet (Schedule HC).
Another commenter noted that, under the Federal Reserve's revised regulatory capital rules, a banking organization is required to hold risk-based capital against all repo-style transactions, regardless of whether the transactions generate on-balance sheet exposures. The commenter also noted that the proposed reporting instructions for Schedule HC–R, Part II, state that “Although securities sold under agreements to repurchase are reported on the balance sheet (Schedule HC) as liabilities, they are treated as off-balance sheet items under the regulatory capital rules.” The commenter then questioned the intent of the Federal Reserve's proposed reporting form that would require an institution to calculate a capital charge for these “off-balance sheet items” despite the fact that the security pledged by the institution as collateral for the repo remains on the balance sheet for accounting purposes and would therefore require a separate on-balance sheet risk-weighting. The Federal Reserve adopted this reporting approach for consistency with the revised regulatory capital rules, which recognize that institutions face counterparty credit risk when engaging in repo-style transactions. However, under certain conditions, the Federal Reserve's revised regulatory capital rules also allow banking organizations to recognize the risk mitigating effects of financial collateral when risk weighting their repo-style exposures. The final reporting form and instructions for Schedule HC–R, Part II, will implement this treatment of repo-style transactions, which is set forth in the revised regulatory capital rules.
Although the proposed reporting form and instructions addressed the reporting of a banking organization's unsettled transactions as part of item 8, “All other assets,” the Federal Reserve notes that during a subsequent review of the proposal it did not clearly address the fact that a banking organization's unsettled transactions could potentially be composed of both on- and off-balance sheet exposures. In order to more clearly assess risk-based capital against delayed trades where the counterparty has failed to deliver an instrument or make a payment in a timely manner, the Federal Reserve will modify Schedule HC–R, Part II, by adding line item 22, “Unsettled transactions (failed trades).”
Proposed items 23 through 31 would apply the risk-weight factors to the exposure amounts reported for assets, derivatives, and off-balance sheet items in items 11 through 23 to calculate a banking organization's total risk-weighted assets. The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments on these line items and will implement as proposed.
In proposed memoranda items 1 through 3, a banking organization would report the current credit exposure and notional principal amounts of its derivative contracts. Memorandum item 4 would require those banking organizations subject to the Market Risk Rule to report the portion of their standardized market risk weighted assets (as reported in Schedule HC–R, item 27) that is attributable to specific risk.
Memorandum item 1 would continue to collect the “Current credit exposure across all derivative contracts covered by the risk-based capital standards.” One commenter noted that, prior to the proposed revisions, the instructions for Memorandum item 1 stated that all written option contracts (except those that are, in substance, financial guarantees) are not covered by the risk-based capital standards. The commenter asked if this was an explicit change in the reporting of written option contracts. The Federal Reserve notes that this exclusion was inadvertently omitted from the proposed instructions for Memorandum item 1 and will clarify the instructions to note that written option contracts will continue to be
The Federal Reserve did not receive any comments on memoranda items 2, 3 or 4, and will implement as proposed.
FR Y–9C, Schedule HC–L collects regulatory data on derivatives and off-balance sheet items. The Federal Reserve proposed to revise the reporting requirements for off-balance sheet exposures related to securities lent and borrowed, consistent with the revised regulatory capital rules. Compared to the current schedule, the proposed changes to Schedule HC–L would require all banking organizations to report the amount of securities borrowed. At present, banking organizations include the amount of securities borrowed in the total amount of all other off-balance sheet liabilities reported in item 9 of Schedule HC–L if the amount of securities borrowed is more than 10 percent of total holding company equity capital and they disclose the amount of securities borrowed if that amount is more than 25 percent of total holding company equity capital. In addition, the proposed changes to Schedule HC–L would require institutions to report securities borrowed in a new item 6.b immediately after the line item for securities lent, which would be renumbered from item 6 to item 6.a.
One commenter noted that the current instructions for item 9 state to “report all securities borrowed against collateral (other than cash)” for such purposes as serving “as a pledge against deposit liabilities or delivery against short sales,” whereas the current instructions for item 6 state to report all securities owned that are “lent against collateral or on an uncollateralized basis.” The commenter characterizes current item 9 as inclusive of only certain types of securities borrowings such as those collateralized by “other than cash” and those “for purposes as a pledge against deposit liabilities or short sales,” whereas current item 6 covers all types of securities lending regardless of the type of collateral. The commenter suggested clarifying the scope of these two items.
The Federal Reserve will clarify the instructions for new item 6(b) to state that institutions should report all types of securities borrowing, regardless of collateral type or purpose. The phrases “other than cash” and “for such purpose as a pledge against deposit liabilities or delivery against short sales” will be deleted from the final instructions for new item 6(b).
For the March 31, 2015, report date, institutions may provide reasonable estimates for any new or revised FR Y–9C items initially required to be reported as of that date for which the requested information is not readily available.
In December 2014, Congress enacted and the President signed into law Public Law 113–250. Public Law 113–250 directs the Board to publish in the
On January 29, 2015, the Board issued an interim final rule that would exclude SLHCs that have total consolidated assets of less than $500 million and that meet other qualitative requirements from the Board's regulatory capital requirements (Regulation Q). In light of Public Law 113–250 and the rulemaking, the Federal Reserve will not finalize the proposed revisions to the FR Y–9SP, Part II, for SLHCs with total consolidated assets of less than $500 million that meet the qualitative requirements of the Policy Statement.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 13, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166–2034:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 23, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198–0001:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice of new system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, notice is given that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) proposes the establishment of a new system of records, BGFRS–39 (General File of the Community Advisory Council).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment; and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibility under the Privacy Act, requires a 40-day period in which to conclude its review of the system. Therefore, please submit any comments on or before March 30, 2015. The new system of records will become effective April 7, 2015, without further notice, unless comments dictate otherwise.
The public, OMB, and Congress are invited to submit comments, identified by the docket number above, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments will be made available on the Board's Web site at
Alye S. Foster, Senior Special Counsel, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1801 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007, or (202) 452–5289, or
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Board proposes to establish a new system of records BGFRS–39 (General File of the Community Advisory Council). The Board has established a Community Advisory Council (the “CAC”). The CAC is scheduled to meet semi-annually with the Board to offer diverse perspectives on the economic circumstances and financial services needs of consumers and communities, with a particular focus on the concerns of low- and moderate-income populations. The Board's new system of records, BGFRS–39, maintains records relating to the appointment and selection of individuals to the CAC and, for selectees, records relating to the individual's membership on the CAC.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report of this system of records is being filed with the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget.
FRB—General File of the Community Advisory Council
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.
This system maintains information on individuals considered for membership on the CAC and individuals selected to serve on the CAC.
Records in the system include identifying information about candidates and members of the CAC relating to the selection and appointment to the CAC and records relating to service on the CAC. Individual information in the system includes, but is not limited to, name, work address, telephone number, email address, organization, and title. The system stores additional information including, but not limited to, the candidate's or CAC member's education, work experience, and qualifications.
Sections 10 and 11 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 244 and 248).
The new system of records aids the Board in its operation and management of the CAC, including the selection and appointment of members to the CAC.
General routine uses A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I apply to this system. Records are routinely used in the Board's operation and management of the CAC, including in the selection and appointment of members to the CAC.
Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th St. and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20551.
An individual desiring to learn of the existence of, or to gain access to, his or her record in this system of records shall submit a request in writing to the Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551. The request should contain: (1) A statement that the request is made pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, (2) the name of the system of records (
See “Notification Procedure,” above.
Same as “Notification procedures,” above except that the envelope should be clearly marked “Privacy Act Amendment Request.” The request for amendment of a record should: (1) Identify the system of records containing the record for which amendment is requested, (2) specify the portion of that record requested to be amended, and (3) describe the nature of and reasons for each requested amendment.
Information is provided by the individual to whom the record pertains.
None.
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
National Vital Statistics Report Forms (OMB No. 0920–0213)—Extension—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The compilation of national vital statistics dates back to the beginning of the 20th century and has been conducted since 1960 by the Division of Vital Statistics of the National Center for Health Statistics, CDC. The collection of the data is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 242k. This submission requests approval to collect the monthly and annually summary statistics for three years.
The Monthly Vital Statistics Report forms provide counts of monthly occurrences of births, deaths, infant deaths, marriages, and divorces. Similar data have been published since 1937 and are the sole source of these data at the National level. The data are used by the Department of Health and Human Services and by other government, academic, and private research and commercial organizations in tracking changes in trends of vital events. Respondents for the Monthly Vital Statistics Reports Form are registration officials in each State and Territory, the District of Columbia, and New York City. In addition, local (county) officials in New Mexico who record marriages occurring and divorces and annulments granted in each county of New Mexico will use this form. This form is also designed to collect counts of monthly occurrences of births, deaths, infant deaths, marriages, and divorces immediately following the month of occurrence.
The Annual Vital Statistics Occurrence Report Form collects final annual counts of marriages and divorces by month for the United States and for each State. The statistical counts requested on this form differ from provisional estimates obtained on the Monthly Vital Statistics Report Form in that they represent complete counts of marriages, divorces, and annulments occurring during the months of the prior year. These final counts are usually available from State or county officials about eight months after the end of the data year. The data are widely used by government, academic, private research, and commercial organizations in tracking changes in trends of family formation and dissolution. Respondents for the Annual Vital Statistics Occurrence Report Form are registration officials in each State and Territory, the District of Columbia, and New York City.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimate annualized burden hours are 211.
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
Improving the Impact of Laboratory Practice Guidelines (LPGs): A New Paradigm for Metrics- College of American Pathologists—NEW—Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services (CSELS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is funding three 5-year projects collectively entitled “Improving the Impact of Laboratory Practice Guidelines: A New Paradigm for Metrics”. An “LPG” is defined as written recommendations for voluntary, standardized approaches for medical laboratory testing that takes into account processes for test selection, sample procurement and processing, analytical methods, and results reporting for effective diagnosis and management of disease and health conditions. LPGs may be disseminated to, and used by, laboratorians and clinicians to assist with test selection and test result interpretation. The overall purpose of these cooperative agreements is to increase the effectiveness of LPGs by defining measures and collecting information to inform better LPG
The project will explore how these processes and their impediments and facilitators differ among various intended users of LPGs. Through this demonstration project, CDC seeks to understand how to customize LPG creation and promotion to better serve these intended users of LPGs. An important goal is to help organizations that sponsor the development of LPGs create a sustainable approach for continuous quality improvement to evaluate and improve an LPG's impact through better collection of information.
The CDC selected three organizations that currently create and disseminate LPGs to support activities under a cooperative agreement funding mechanism to improve the impact of their LPGs. The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), and the College of American Pathologists (CAP), will each use their LPGs as models to better understand how to improve uptake and impact of these and future LPGs. Only the CAP submission will be described in this notice.
The CAP project will address two LPGs that are important to clinical testing: immunohistochemistry test validation (IHC) and an algorithm for diagnosing acute leukemia (ALA). The ALA LPG is being co-developed with the American Society of Hematology (ASH). The intended users of the CAP's IHC LPGs will include pathologists, clinical laboratory directors, and laboratory managers overseeing the IHC staining department. For the CAP's ALA LPG the intended users are pathologists and hematologists overseeing testing for acute leukemia. Thus, all these professionals will be surveyed by CAP.
Prior to entering into this cooperative agreement project with the CDC, the CAP had already completed a baseline IHC LPG information collection from laboratories that used IHC testing. Subsequent to this information collection, the CAP created and disseminated an IHC LPG in a peer reviewed journal. Because of this prior baseline assessment, the CAP will only need to collect post-dissemination data. For their ALA LPG
The CAP hopes to achieve an 80% response rate, or 2668 out of 3335 potential respondents for the IHC LPG. This represents laboratories known to be currently performing IHC testing based upon their participation in CAP's IHC proficiency testing (PT) program and 450 additional laboratories identified by CDC using previous Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Part B reimbursement claims for IHC testing. The response rate for the baseline IHC survey was approximately 70% and more focused promotion is planned. We have identified a total of 3335 (2885 CAP–PT customers + 450 non-CAP–PT customers) laboratories that will be targeted by the IHC post-dissemination survey. Both populations represent laboratories that are CAP-accredited and non-CAP-accredited.
Laboratories that are enrolled in CAP IHC PT programs will receive surveys with their PT mailings. Non-CAP–PT-customer laboratories will be surveyed via the US postal system, with a fax-back mechanism. Only one response per laboratory will be accepted.
The CAP will need to collect both baseline and post-guideline dissemination information for the ALA LPG. CAP will allow only one response per computer internet protocol address. The CAP has a database of pathologists who have indicated specialization in hematopathology; these hematopathologists will be invited to participate. The CAP hopes to achieve an 80% response rate with their individual information collections, or 880 (80% x 1100 pathologists listed in the CAP database).
The baseline survey for the ALA guideline includes questions about individual practices for diagnosing various types of acute leukemia and individual and laboratory reporting practices. The link to the baseline survey for the ALA guideline will be disseminated via email to hematopathologists in CAP's database. The online survey will be hosted by Survey Monkey.
The CAP and CDC will strive to ensure a high response rate for their IHC and ALA surveys. CAP plans to advertise both surveys. Similarly, the CAP plans to maximize response rates for CAP–PT customer laboratories by sending reminders through the PT program. The CAP will also try to maximize response rates for the ALA survey by advertising it through various channels and sending an email reminder.
For burden calculation, we assume one response per laboratory for the IHC survey to include (1) pathologists, (2) laboratory directors, and (3) other laboratory managers of IHC laboratories, which may consist of graduate level scientists (Ph.D.s and Masters level), approximately in a 25%:25%:50% distribution, respectively. We assume respondents for the ALA surveys may include multiple responses within a laboratory of pathologists and hematologists that sign out cases, approximately in a 95%:5% distribution, respectively.
The IHC baseline survey, which was conducted prior to this CAP–CDC cooperative agreement, took 15 minutes to complete. The IHC post-dissemination survey is expected to take 20 minutes to complete. The ALA baseline survey is expected to take an average of 25 minutes to complete. The maximum times observed during pilot testing were 30 and 45 minutes, respectively. Results from the pilot tests were used to revise both surveys.
The total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours for this ICR is 1,570. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
The meeting announced below concerns Comprehensive High-Impact HIV Prevention Projects for Community-Based Organizations, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) PS15–1502, Initial Review.
This document corrects a notice that was published in the
9 a.m.–4 p.m., Panels 1–5; March 3, 2015 (Closed).
9 a.m.–4 p.m., Panels 6–12; March 6, 2015 (Closed).
Elizabeth Wolfe, Public Health Advisor, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 639–8135.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of public meeting and request for comment.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces a public meeting and an opportunity to comment on future directions for the surveillance of injuries within the agricultural production industry. To view the notice and related materials visit
A public meeting will be held on March 30, 2015, 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, or after the last public commenter has spoken, whichever occurs first. The public meeting will be held as a web-based conference only available by remote access.
Kitty Hendricks, Division of Safety Research, 1095 Willowdale Road, MS 1808, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505–2888, (304) 285–5916 (not a toll free number) or
I.
Surveillance data have also been used to show that the US agricultural production industry has changed. Over the past quarter century, both the size of the workforce and the number of injuries have declined. To maintain statistically stable injury estimates with the current approach of national-level surveys, sample sizes would need to be increased. As a result, this approach has become more resource-intensive and is no longer tenable for NIOSH.
Beginning in 2015, NIOSH will not reestablish interagency agreements with USDA–NASS and DOL to collect survey data for the agricultural injury surveillance system. This change in surveillance approach presents an opportunity for NIOSH to receive stakeholder input and rigorously examine future options for agricultural injury surveillance.
To identify and assess different options, NIOSH plans the following activities: Hold the public meeting announced in this notice to initiate a national conversation regarding future agricultural injury surveillance; seek additional public comments through this docket on the most urgent priorities for injury surveillance in production agriculture; examine what NIOSH and agricultural injury stakeholders can do to meet the overall need for agricultural injury surveillance; support a comprehensive, independent assessment of recommendations resulting from a 2007 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review and a 2012 follow-up independent panel review; continue to engage with interested parties as NIOSH plans its own future directions for agricultural injury surveillance; and seek input on the need for a follow-up public meeting in Fall 2015 to discuss NIOSH's future plans after having considered input received through the public meeting and public comment period.
NIOSH is especially interested in comments related to finding new ways of doing surveillance using smarter, more cost-effective approaches; shifting surveillance from national to regional or local approaches, in recognition of the diversity of agricultural types in different parts of the country; and examining roles that partners can take to address the need for smarter agricultural injury surveillance.
II.
Confirm your attendance to this meeting by sending an email to
Requests to make presentations at the public meeting should be emailed to
If a presenter is not in attendance when his/her presentation is scheduled to begin, the remaining presenters will be heard in order. After the last scheduled presenter is heard, those who missed their opportunity may be allowed to present, limited by time available.
Attendees who wish to speak, but did not submit a request for the opportunity to make a presentation, may be given this opportunity after the scheduled presenters are heard, at the discretion of the presiding officer and limited by time available.
The public meeting, including all presentations and slides, will be recorded, transcribed, and posted without change to
III.
•
•
All information received in response to this notice must include the agency name and docket number [CDC–2015–0005; NIOSH–281]. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of Pediatric Therapeutics (OPT), the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) are announcing a public meeting seeking input from patient groups, consumer groups, regulated industry, academia and other interested parties to obtain any recommendations or information relevant to the report to Congress that FDA is required to submit concerning pediatrics, as outlined in section 508 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (see the
The public meeting will be held on March 25, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Registration to attend the meeting should be received by March 20, 2015 (see the
The meeting will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (1503–B & C), Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Entrance for the public meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For information on parking and security procedures, please refer to
Submit either electronic or written comments by April 24, 2015. Submit electronic comments to
FDA will post the agenda approximately 5 days before the meeting at:
Terrie L. Crescenzi, Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
On July 9, 2012, the President signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112–144). Section 508 of FDASIA directs the Secretary of HHS to submit a report to Congress on the implementation of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA). The first report must be submitted to Congress by July 9, 2016, and every 5 years thereafter. FDASIA also requires FDA to obtain, at least 180 days prior to submission of the report, stakeholder input from patient groups, consumer groups, regulated industry, academia, and any other interested parties to obtain any recommendations or information relevant to the report including suggestions for modifications that would improve pediatric drug research and pediatric labeling of drugs and biological products.
The basic content of the report will include: An assessment of the effectiveness of BPCA (section 505A) and PREA (section 505B) in improving information about pediatric uses for approved drugs and biological products, including the number and type of labeling changes made since the enactment of FDASIA and the importance of such uses in the improvement of the health of children; various statistics related to both PREA and BPCA, including the Written Request referral process with the National Institutes of Health; an assessment of the timeliness and effectiveness of pediatric study plans; an assessment of studying biologics; efforts made to increase the number of studies conducted in the neonatal population; the number and importance of drugs and biologics studied in children with cancer and any recommendations for modification to the programs that would improve pediatric drug research and increase labeling of drugs and biologics; an assessment of the successes of and limitations to studying drugs for rare diseases; an assessment of the efforts to address the suggestions and options described in any prior report issued by the Comptroller General, Institute of Medicine, or the Secretary, and any stakeholder recommendations or modifications that would improve pediatric drug research and pediatric labeling of drugs and biological products.
The specific topics to be discussed at the meeting will include, but not be limited to, pediatric labeling changes, waivers and deferrals, Written Requests, pediatric study plans, programmatic activities with the NIH Written Request referral process, activities concerning neonates, pediatric cancers and rare diseases, and transparency.
If you wish to attend this meeting, visit
Persons interested in presenting comments at the meeting will be asked to indicate this in their registration. FDA will try to accommodate all participant requests to speak, however the duration of comments may be limited by time constraints.
Comments: Regardless of attendance at the public meeting, you can submit electronic or written comments to the public docket (see
Transcripts: As soon as a transcript is available, FDA will post it at
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
After Committee discussions, members of the public will have an opportunity to comment. Because of the Committee's full agenda and timeframe in which to cover the agenda topics, public comment will be limited. All public comments will be included in the record of the ACOT meeting. Meeting summary notes will be posted on the Department's organ donation Web site at
The draft meeting agenda will be posted on
The allocation of time may be adjusted to accommodate the level of expressed interest. Persons who do not file an advance request for a presentation, but desire to make an oral statement, may request it during the public comment period. Public participation and ability to comment will be limited to time as it permits.
In accordance with Section 3507(j) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for emergency review and processing of this information collection by March 7, 2015. NIAID is requesting emergency processing of this information collection, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13, because NIAID cannot reasonably comply with the normal clearance procedures which would cause a delay and likely prevent or substantially disrupt the collection of information. A delay in starting the information collection would hinder the agency in accomplishing its mission to the detriment of the public good. Public harm could result through the loss of critically needed information to understand the causes of severity of influenza and associated morbidity and mortality during the Northern hemisphere 2014–15 influenza season. The National Institutes of Health may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 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
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Dr. Diane Post, Program Officer, Respiratory Diseases Branch, NIAID, NIH 5601 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD or call non-toll-free number at 240–627–3348 or email your request, including your address to:
OMB approval is requested for 6 months. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 500.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel, March 18, 2015, 3:00 p.m. to March 18, 2015, 4:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the date of the meeting from March 18, 2015, 2:00 p.m. to March 12, 2015, 3:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH Advisory Board for Clinical Research.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended because the premature disclosure of to discuss personnel matters and the discussions would likely to significantly frustrate implementation of recommendations.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of meeting and request for comments.
Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River will hold a public listening session to present, and receive feedback on, the Missouri River Waterways Analysis and Management System (WAMS) study. The WAMS study will review and assess waterborne commerce as well as safe commercial and recreational navigation with a focus on the existing aids to navigation in
This listening session will be held in Smithville, MO on February 25, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. If all interested participants have had an opportunity to comment, the session may conclude early. Written comments and related material may also be presented to Coast Guard personnel specified at that meeting. Comments and related materials submitted after the meeting must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 10, 2015.
The listening session will be held at the Jerry Litton Visitors Center, (Smithville Lake) 16311 DD Hwy, Smithville, MO 64089.
Submit written comments identified by docket number USCG–2015–0031 using one of the listed methods, and see
•
•
•
For information about this document call or email Kevin Brensinger, Coast Guard; telephone 314–269–2548, email
We encourage you to participate in this listening session by submitting comments (or related material) on Missouri River Waterways Analysis and Management System study.
We recommend using the user survey document under docket number USCG–2015–0031 to provide comments. You should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the
Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 8
Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, may be found in our online docket at
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the listening session, contact Kevin Brensinger at the telephone number or email address indicated under the
The Waterways Analysis and Management System was implemented to ensure a complete and organized process for matching waterway attributes and services, most significantly the aids to navigation system, with user needs. The Missouri River study includes navigable waters from Sioux City, IA to St. Louis, MO and specifically targets the navigation channel, marking of the navigation channel, movement of commerce and navigation support for the diverse uses of the river. WAMS studies are conducted periodically to better understand users' needs and facilitate safe and effective waterways. Some of the aspects addressed by WAMS are:
• Are all the aids necessary?
• Should aids be added, changed or removed?
• Is the right aid being used for the job?
• Are the aids marked in a correct and visible manner?
• Are these aids being used properly by both the Coast Guard and the waterway users?
It is the intent of Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River to collect comments and materials from this listening session, along with navigation surveys and other information, to establish and preserve the reasonable needs of navigation on this river.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Inspectorate America Corporation has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of December 12, 2014.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202–344–1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Inspectorate America Corporation, 151 East Lathrop Ave., Savannah, GA 31415, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Inspectorate America Corporation is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products per the American Petroleum Institute (API) Measurement Standards:
Inspectorate America Corporation is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344–1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the John Day—Snake Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below:
The John Day—Snake RAC will hold a public meeting Wednesday March 11, and Thursday, March 12, 2015. The meeting will run from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on March 11th, and from 8 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on March 12th. The meeting will be held at the Grant County Airport Conference Room, 72000 Airport Road, John Day, Oregon 97761. A public comment period will be available on the second day of the session.
Lisa Clark, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Prineville District Office, 3050 NE. 3rd Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754, (541) 416–6864, or email
The John Day—Snake RAC consists of 15 members chartered and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Their diverse perspectives are represented in commodity, conservation, and general interests. They provide advice to BLM and Forest Service resource managers regarding management plans and proposed resource actions on public land in central and eastern Oregon. Agenda items for the March 2015 meeting include an update on the Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision, an update on the status of the John Day Basin Resource Management Plan, a proposal for a fee increase on the Lower Deschutes River, an update on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Hells Canyon Recreation Program, committee and member updates, and any other matters that may reasonably come before the John Day—Snake RAC. This meeting is open to the public. Information to be distributed to the John Day—Snake RAC is requested prior to the start of each meeting. A public comment period will be available on March 12, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. Unless otherwise approved by the John Day—Snake RAC Chair, the public comment period will last no longer than 30 minutes. Each speaker may address the John Day—Snake RAC for a maximum of 5 minutes. A public call-in number is provided on the John Day—Snake RAC Web site at
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology at the address in this notice by March 30, 2015.
Dr. Ryan J. Wheeler, Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, 180 Main Street, Andover, MA 01810, telephone (978) 749–4490, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA. The human remains were removed from Betheia Farm-Touisett Point #2 site in Warren, Bristol County, Rhode Island.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Wampanoag Repatriation Confederacy, representing the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.), the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and the Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation (a non-federally recognized Indian group).
Maurice Robbins removed human remains representing, at minimum, one individual from the Betheia Farm-Touisett Point #2 site in Warren, Bristol County, RI, which were transferred to the Phillips Academy Department of Archaeology (now the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology) (Peabody Accn. 46/6437) in 1938. The human remains are cranial fragments, a humerus, and a femur. The individual is a female juvenile or subadult, aged approximately 10 to 11 years old at time of death. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Cranial anatomy and teeth are consistent with Native American ancestry; physical anthropologist Michael Gibbons, in preparing an inventory of the remains, indicates that the individual died approximately 400+ years ago.
Information about the Betheia Farm-Touisett Point #2 site is found in the files of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and the files of the Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission (site numbers 1349 and 1350). Records at the former institution indicate that human remains washed out of the site during a storm and were collected by Robbins. The storm event may have been the “Great Hurricane” of September 1938, though a sketch map on file indicates erosion was already occurring in 1937. The site is described as a high sandy bluff facing Mount Hope Bay sitting on a very abrupt slope approximately 25 feet back from the beach. Robbins noted other artifacts from the site including points, hammerstones, fragmentary pestle, steatite bowl, and pottery fragments. Additional information may be available at the Robbins Museum of Archaeology/Massachusetts Archaeological Society in Middleborough, MA (MAS site #M–43/35), though no information was available during the preparation of this notice. Frank Speck (see his 1928 monograph “Territorial Subdivisions and Boundaries of the Wampanoag, Massachusett, and Nauset Indians,” Indian Notes and Monographs No. 44) places the area around Touisett Point within the traditional territory of the Wampanoag. There seems to be general agreement among scholars that this area was within the territory of the Wampanoag (for example, see Bert Salwen's entry “Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period” and William S. Simmons entry “Narragansett,” both appearing in the 1978 Handbook of North American Indians: Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, and Robert S. Grumet's 1995 book “Historic Contact: Indian Peoples and Colonists in Today's Northeastern United States in the Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries,” pages 117–121, 129–133). Linguistically this area is within the so-called n-dialect shared by Massachusett, Wampanoag, and Pokanoket speakers (see map and discussion in Kathleen J. Bragdon's 2009 book “Native Peoples of Southern New England, 1650–1775, pages 22–23). Mount Hope, located near Touisett Point in Bristol, Rhode Island, is identified as the home of Wampanoag leaders Massasoit and his son Metacomet (also known as King Philip). Conflict with English colonists over encroachment into traditional lands and attempts to restrict Native people to small reservations ignited Metacomet's rebellion or King Philip's War (1675–1676) when the Wampanoag were unwilling or unable to relinquish their lands. Sociopolitical and economic patterns in the coastal area of Rhode Island and Massachusetts were established by the late Woodland period circa AD 1000 and the coastal groups in this area are likely the ancestors of the Wampanoag people encountered by the English in the seventeenth century (for example, see discussion in Bragdon [2009:35–36]). Archaeology, ethnohistory, linguistics, and oral history provide multiple lines of evidence that demonstrate longstanding ties between the Wampanoag and the area around Touisett Point and affirm affiliation with the burial at the Betheia Farm-Touisett Point #2 site.
Officials of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Wampanoag Repatriation Confederacy, representing the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.), the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and, if joined, the Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation, a non-federally recognized Indian group).
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ryan J. Wheeler, Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, 180 Main Street, Andover, MA 01810, telephone (978) 749–4490, email
The Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology is responsible for notifying the Wampanoag Repatriation Confederacy, representing the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.), the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and the Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation, a non-federally recognized Indian group, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology at the address in this notice by March 30, 2015.
Dr. Ryan J. Wheeler, Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, 180 Main Street, Andover, MA 01810, telephone (978) 749–4490, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from ten sites in Massachusetts described here according to site location, county, and town, when available.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Wampanoag Repatriation Confederacy, representing the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.), and the Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation (a non-federally recognized Indian group). Inventories of human remains and associated funerary objects from Wakefield, Georgetown, Shattuck Farm, Lowell Textile School, Poznick, Call, and Indian Rock sites were shared with the Abenaki Nation of New Hampshire (a non-federally recognized Indian group) and the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi St. Francis/Sokoki Band (a non-federally recognized Indian group) in 1999, but consultation was not conducted with these groups.
William W. Taylor removed human remains representing, at minimum, one individual at an unknown site in South Dennis, Barnstable County, MA, which were acquired by the Phillips Academy Department of Archaeology (now the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology) in 1913 (Peabody Accn. 54612). The human remains are one sternum fragment. The individual is a female juvenile to subadult. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
No documentation exists for this site, other than the entries for the human remains in the museum catalog. Records indicate that two other lots of artifacts were accessioned from the same site, also acquired from William W. Taylor, including broken stone implements; most of these stone implements were deaccessioned, though one rough preform (Peabody Accn. 54613) is still at the museum. The presence of stone implements at the site corroborates the
William L. Greene removed human remains representing, at minimum, one individual at an unknown site in Wareham, Plymouth County, MA, at some time in the 1940s which were acquired by the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology prior to 2000 (Peabody Accn. 204.1). The human remains are cranial fragments. The teeth present exhibit wear on the deciduous molars and evidence of crowding with the eruption of the permanent teeth. The individual is a female juvenile, aged approximately 9–10 years old at time of death. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Cranial anatomy and teeth are consistent with Native American ancestry.
Kathryn Fairbanks and David DeMello of the Robbins Museum of Archaeology in Middleborough, MA suggested that Greene was digging in the 1940s at a site located in Wareham near the Weweantic River called Horseshoe or Conant's Hill. Craig S. Chartier, Director of the Plymouth Archaeological Discovery Project, had not heard of Greene digging in Wareham, but confirmed that Conant's Hill was the focus of burial excavations in Wareham in the 1940s. Notes dated 1982 by Maurice Robbins confirms that William Greene excavated at that part of Conant's Hill known as “Site 13” during the period 1940–1946 along with members of the Middleboro Archaeology Club (see Massachusetts Historical Commission site file for Conant's Hill #19–PL–189). A Notice of Inventory Completion published by the Harvard University Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology in 2003 reported that according to museum records a lead ring was found in association with human remains at the Conant's Hill site, indicating that at least some of the burials at the site date to the Historic/Contact period (post-A.D. 1500). The National Register of Historic Places nomination for Conant's Hill indicates occupation from 4,500 years ago through A.D. 1650. Frank Speck (see his 1928 monograph “Territorial Subdivisions and Boundaries of the Wampanoag, Massachusett, and Nauset Indians,” Indian Notes and Monographs No. 44) places the area around Wareham within the homeland of the Wampanoag.
Between 1890 and 1901, Charles Perkins removed human remains representing, at minimum, one individual at an unknown site in Wakefield, Essex County, MA, which were acquired by the Phillips Academy Department of Archaeology (now the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology) in 1912 (Peabody Accn. 58335). The human remains are three fragmentary teeth. The individual is an adult of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
No documentation exists for this site, other than the entries for the human remains in the museum catalog. Perkins collected other Native American artifacts from this site (Peabody Accn. 21201 through 21550 and 22644 through 22925), corroborating the identification of the human remains as Native American. Physical examination indicates that the remains are likely Native American. Temporal association is not possible. Frank Speck (see his 1928 monograph “Territorial Subdivisions and Boundaries of the Wampanoag, Massachusett, and Nauset Indians,” Indian Notes and Monographs No. 44) places the area around Wakefield within the homeland of the Massachusett. Speck notes that in the early seventeenth century the area north of the Charles River extending to the region of Lynn and Marblehead was controlled by the Massachusett sachem Nanepashemet. This branch of the Massachusetts had close relationships with both the Pennacook and Nipmuc. Bert Salwen's 1978 entry “Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period,” appearing in the Handbook of North American Indians: Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger states that the indigenous groups in the region extending “from Saco Bay, Maine, to the vicinity of the Housatonic River, in Connecticut, and from Long Island inland to southern New Hampshire and Vermont” shared a cultural pattern (page 160–161). Elaborating on the work of Frank T. Siebert, Jr., linguist Jessie Little Doe Baird demonstrates linguistic unity among Wampanoag, Massachusett, and Pennacook peoples in adjacent parts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, including the area around Wakefield.
Mrs. William J. Dow removed human remains representing, at minimum, one individual at an unknown site near Georgetown, Essex County, MA, which were acquired by the Phillips Academy Department of Archaeology (now the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology) in 1924 (Peabody Accn. 57205, 57206, and 57207). The human remains are fragments of a tibia, fibula, and crania. The individual is a female juvenile to subadult. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
No documentation exists for this site, other than the entries for the human remains in the museum catalog. Physical examination indicates that the remains are likely Native American. Temporal association is not possible.
In May 1914 and October 1921, human remains representing, at minimum, 6 individuals were removed from the Shattuck Farm site, Andover, Essex County, MA. The Shattuck Farm site is located on the second fluvial terrace at the “Great Bend” area on the south side of the Merrimack River. Investigations of this site were made by Warren K. Moorehead (1914) and Alfred V. Kidder (1921) on behalf of the Phillips Academy Department of Archaeology (now the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology) (Peabody Accn. 55996, 55997, 55998, 59240, 59241, and 90.121.1 through 90.121.16, and 90.122.1 through 90.122.3 and 90.124.1). Grave 1 includes two cremation burials: Burial 1 includes three fragmentary rib and other calcined bone fragments. The individual is an infant of indeterminate sex. Some of the calcined bone fragments appear to be
Information about the Shattuck Farm site is found in Barbara E. Luedtke's report “The Camp at the Bend in the River: Prehistory at the Shattuck Farm Site,” published by the Massachusetts Historical Commission in 1985, the files of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, and the files of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, (site #19–ES–196). The burials excavated by Alfred Kidder in 1921 were located on a sandy knoll near the river, and the notes on file suggest he was working on the kame terrace, probably toward the eastern edge of the site. Much of this kame terrace has been lost to bulldozing and construction and testing at the site by Luedtke in the early 1980s indicates considerable horizontal temporal variation across the site, including on remaining portions of the kame terrace. For example, Luedtke's Locus C and H sampled remaining portions of the kame terrace, but found evidence of occupation from Early through Late Woodland times (from 2,500 to 350 years ago). Artifacts found with some burials excavated by others at Shattuck Farm from the kame terrace dated to the period of European Contact, though others may have been much earlier. For example, Fred Luce, who excavated in the kame terrace burial area about the same time that Warren Moorehead was at the site described one burial as a “red paint grave,” alluding to the Moorehead Burial Tradition known from the Late Archaic. Overall, Shattuck Farm exhibits continuous use from the Late Archaic around 6,000 years ago well into the seventeenth century.
At an unknown date, unknown persons removed human remains representing, at minimum, one individual at a site located at the Lowell Textile School in Lowell, Middlesex County, MA (now the location of the North Campus of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell), which were acquired by the Phillips Academy Department of Archaeology (now the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology) in 1900 from George Sawtelle (Peabody Accn. 90.115.1 and 90.120.1). The human remains are fragmentary. The individual is an adult female, 30–35 years of age at death. The morphology of the palate and the teeth indicate Native American ancestry. No known individuals were identified. Associated funerary objects are 1 pottery sherd.
Information about the Lowell Textile School site is found in the files of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, records maintained by Eugene C. Winter, and the files of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, (site #19–MD–46). The Lowell Textile School site is located on a high bluff overlooking Pawtucket Falls on the western side of the Merrimack River. The site files of the Massachusetts Historical Commission describe the site here “as a large Native American village,” and numerous collections from the site are noted in the records. Warren Moorehead, in his 1931 report “The Merrimack Archaeological Survey: A Preliminary Paper” notes that at the Lowell Textile School burials had been found when the boiler house was erected and that numerous artifacts could still be located in the area (page 25). Research by Eugene Winter indicates that the site was likely a fishing station to take advantage of the falls and that Passaconaway, sachem of the Pawtucket, used this site as his southernmost headquarters.
In 1978, Eugene C. Winter and Richard “Scotty” MacNeish removed human remains representing, at minimum, one individual from the Poznick site in Lowell, Middlesex County, MA, under the auspices of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology (now the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology) (Peabody Accn. 90.111.1). The individual is an adult male, 40–45 years old at time of death. The human remains are fragmentary, but nearly complete. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Information about the Poznick site, or Trull Farm site, is found in Susan I. Thorstensen's 1977 article “The Poznick Site: A Preliminary Report” published in The New Hampshire Archeologist (No. 19, paes 9–16), the files of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, records maintained by Eugene C. Winter, who was involved in some excavations at the Poznick site, and the files of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, (site #19–MD–47). The Poznick site is located downstream and on the opposite bank (eastern side) of the Merrimack River from the Lowell Textile School site (see above), which has been described as the location of a Pawtucket or Pennacook village. Thorstensen's excavations, conducted prior to the discovery of the burial, revealed a long history of occupation dating back to the Middle Archaic and continuing through the Late Archaic and Early and Middle Woodland periods as well. Eugene Winter's research indicates that the Poznick site may have been on land that was reserved by English law for the Native Americans of the village of Wamesit. According to Winter, the land at the Poznick site was demarcated by a ditch dug around it (see Wilson Waters 1917 book “History of Chelmsford, Massachusetts,” page 78, which mentions a ditch constructed at Wamesit after 1660 and the merger of two or more towns, and Charles Cowley's 1868 book “A History of Lowell,” 2nd revised edition, page 12, which describes the boundary ditch that demarcated about 2,500 acres of the Wamesit Indian Reservation, still visible in the 1860s).
In 1957, Douglas Jordan and Eugene Winter removed human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals from the Call site in Billerica, Middlesex County, MA, which were transferred to the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology (now the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology) (Peabody Accn. 90.112.1, 90.112.2 and 90.119.1 through 90.119.8). The Call site is located at a sharp bend four miles upstream on the Concord River from its confluence with the Merrimack River. Fragmentary remains uncovered during road construction represent an adult male and one adult female, 35–40 years of
Information about the Call site is found in Walter A. Vossberg and J. Alfred Mansfield's 1955 article “A Preliminary Report on the Concord River Site at Billerica, Massachusetts M–11SE9” and Eugene C. Winter's 2006 article, “An Atlantic Phase Mortuary Feature at the Call Site, Billerica, MA,” both published in the Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, from the files of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, in notes by Eugene Winter dated August 23, 1992, undated field notes, and the files of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (site #19–MD–37). The Call site is described as “a large area 18 inches higher that surrounding plain above swamp to north and west which leads to river and brook.” The site is located on the east side of the Concord River. It is important to note that the remains and associated funerary objects reported here are not those described in Winter's 2006 article; those remains were excavated from the same site in 1954. Winter's 1992 notes describe the burials found initially by a Mr. Harley McCauley who was digging at the site in an area where boulders were exposed above the ground surface. Mr. McCauley's digging around the boulders exposed human remains and obscured evidence of the original burial pit, which appears to have been about 33 inches deep and may have been lined with stone cobbles. Unlike the cremation burial reported from the site in Winter's 2006 article, the two burials reported here appear to have been bundle burials; Winter suggests in his 1992 notes that the associated funerary objects reported here may have been accidental inclusions in the burial pit fill. One of the chipped stone projectile points is identified as a Levanna, dating to 1,300 to 600 years ago.
In the 1880s, James Haulton removed human remains representing, at minimum, one individual from the vicinity of Indian Rock in North Billerica, Middlesex County, MA, which were acquired by Mrs. Luther W. Faulkner and subsequently donated by her to the Billerica Historical Society; the dates of Mrs. Faulkner's acquisition and donation are unknown. The Billerica Historical Society transferred the remains to the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology in 1993 (Peabody Accn. 90.114). Indian Rock is described as a small island just north of a major bend in the Concord River in the vicinity of present-day Hampstead Avenue. The individual is an adult male, approximately 50 years old at time of death. The human remains are a cranium with anterior dentition lost during life and evidence of considerable periodontal disease. Archival material identifies the remains as those of a Native American known as Punjoe or Ponjo who was murdered by white settlers near the end of the eighteenth century. No associated funerary objects are present.
Information about the archeological sites recorded in this area are found in the files of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (site #19–MD–35) and the files of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology. Warren Moorehead, in his 1931 report “The Merrimack Archaeological Survey: A Preliminary Paper” describes this area as “a long sand ridge flanking the Concord River, and where the dam is located were originally falls, also noting that two poorly preserved burials were found in the sand ridge, each covered with a thin layer of charcoal (page 24). Additional information about Punjoe and the Indian Rock site are found in the records of the Billerica Historical Society, including an undated transcript of a letter from Mrs. Faulkner (circa late nineteenth century), and in the transcript of an address by Charles H. Kohlrausch Jr.to the Billerica Historical Society delivered June 13, 1903 titled “A Paper on the Early History of North Billerica.” A similar account is found in the February 1915 edition of the monthly leaflet “Billerica” (Volume 3, No. 9). Matthew Harvey Kohlrausch (son of Charles H. Kohlrausch Jr.) provides a slightly different version of the story in his “Billerica Recollections,” transcribed and on file with the Billerica Historical Society. Each version of the story provides a few details and all vary slightly, but agree that Punjoe was the last of the Wamesit Indians living in the Billerica area who was pursued and murdered by white settlers led by members of the Rogers family, down the Concord River after some unidentified conflict. The account published in 1915 explains that he hid on Indian Rock in order to evade his pursuers, but was discovered, shot, and buried on “a sandy knoll on the east side of the river.” The 1915 account and the 1903 paper by Charles Kohlrausch concur that Punjoe's skull and some long bones were removed from his grave and were in the possession of the Billerica Historical Society. The 1915 account states that other American Indian graves were located in the same vicinity. The society no longer had long bones in 1993 when the remains were transferred to the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology. The undated account (probably written between 1912 and 1929) by Matthew H. Kohlrausch asserts that this American Indian individual was pursued and killed by Anglo-American settlers after murdering the wife of John Rogers; he also notes that his father had the remains for some time, but that they were ultimately incinerated. It is worth noting that all of these accounts date to sometime in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries after the remains had been excavated and are not contemporary with the pursuit and murder being described.
Wamesit was established in the area now known as Chelmsford as a “Praying Indian” town in 1653 in response to a petition filed by John Eliot. Kathleen J. Bragdon, writing in her 2009 book
The Georgetown, Shattuck Farm, Lowell Textile School, Poznick, Call, and Indian Rock sites are within the homeland historically occupied by the Pennacook or Pawtucket, who lived in the Merrimack River valley and adjacent areas of northeastern Massachusetts and New Hampshire. David Steward-Smith, in his 1998 Union Institute dissertation “The Pennacook Indians and the New England Frontier, circa 1606–1733” discusses the coalescence of indigenous groups following King Philip's War (1675–1678), including the Nipmuc, Wampanoag, Pocumtuck, and Narragansett who sought refuge among the Pennacook (p. 339). The historical accounts compiled by Stewart-Smith indicate consistent alliances with Abenaki peoples to the north. Bert Salwen's 1978 entry “Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period,” appearing in the Handbook of North American Indians: Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger states that the indigenous groups in the region extending “from Saco Bay, Maine, to the vicinity of the Housatonic River, in Connecticut, and from Long Island inland to southern New Hampshire and Vermont” shared a cultural pattern (page 160–161). Elaborating on the work of Frank T. Siebert, Jr., linguist Jessie Little Doe Baird demonstrates linguistic unity among Wampanoag, Massachusett, and Pennacook peoples in adjacent parts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, including the area around the Georgetown, Shattuck Farm, Lowell Textile School, Poznick, Call, and Indian Rock sites.
Officials of the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 15 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 143 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Wampanoag Repatriation Confederacy, representing the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.), the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and, if joined, the Assonet Band of the Wampaog Nation, a non-federally recognized Indian group.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. Ryan J. Wheeler, Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, 180 Main Street, Andover, MA 01810, telephone (978) 749–4490, email
The Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology is responsible for notifying the Wampanoag Repatriation Confederacy, representing the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (previously listed as the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, Inc.), the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and the Assonet Band of the Wampaog Nation, a non-federally recognized Indian group, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Kerr County Attorney's Office has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Kerr County Attorney's Office. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, or Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Kerr County Attorney's Office at the address in this notice by March 30, 2015.
Heather Stebbins, Kerr County Attorney, 700 Main Street, Suite BA–103, Kerrville, TX 78028, telephone (830) 792–2220, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the County of Kerr, Kerr County Attorney's Office, Kerrville, TX. The human remains were removed from Kerr County, TX.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Kerr County Sheriff's Department Evidence Submission professional staff. Kerr County Justice of the Peace Precinct #4, Justice William Ragsdale has consulted with representatives of the Comanche Nation, Oklahoma, the Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico, and the Lipan Apache Band of Texas, a non-Federally recognized Indian group.
In May 2009, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from private property along a river bank in Kerr County, TX. Individuals clearing land along a dry river bank on private property discovered some fragmented bones in a niche. Believing the bones to possibly be human remains, the fragments were reported to the ranch manager, who advised that there had been other fragments removed from the same area in 2005. The Kerr County Sheriff's Department was notified, took photos, and removed additional fragments from the river bank in Kerr County, TX. The remains were then taken to the Kerr County Sheriff's Department secure evidence storage. The University of North Texas Center for Human Identification, Laboratory of Forensic Anthropology evaluated the bone fragments and prepared a report. The report concluded that the remains are historical/archeological in origin and are at least 100–200 years old. The remains were from one male individual, approximately 24 years of age, and most importantly, the remains are of Amerindian ancestry. No known individuals or specific tribal affiliation were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.
According to anthropologist Harrell Gill-King, Ph.D., D–ABFA, the Lipan Apache inhabited the entire length of the Guadalupe River basin 100 to 200 years ago. According to Daniel Castro Romero, Jr., General Council Chairman, Lipan Apache Band of Texas, the Lipan Apache have historically used this geographical area for traditional hunting and burial. Mr. Romero believes that the Apache affiliation has been verified through previous scholarship. NAGPRA affiliate, Randy Barnes, has advised Kerr County that the area in question is traditional hunting and burial area of the Lipan Apache. This particular area in the Texas Hill Country has had several known tribal groups that were in the area within the estimated time period. The Lipan Apache, the Payaya Indians, the Carrizo Indians, and possibly the Comanche utilized the niche methods of burial. The last tribe with historical affiliation in the area was the Lipan Apache Band under Chief Castro, whose sons were scouts for the Texas Rangers.
Officials of the Kerr County Attorney's Office have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Comanche Nation, Oklahoma, and the Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Heather Stebbins, Kerr County Attorney, 700 Main Street, Suite BA–103, Kerrville, TX 78028, telephone (830) 792–2220, email
The Kerr County Attorney's office is responsible for notifying the Comanche Nation, Oklahoma, the Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico, and the Lipan Apache Band of Texas, a non-Federally recognized Indian group, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Department of the Navy. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Department of the Navy at the address in this notice by March 30, 2015.
Mr. Joseph Montoya, Environmental Planning and Conservation Branch Manager, Naval Base Ventura County, Naval Base Ventura County, 311 Main Road, Building 1, Code N45V, Point Mugu, CA 93042, telephone (805) 989–3804, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Department of the Navy, Naval Base Ventura County, and in the physical custody of its partner repositories, which include the Fowler Museum at UCLA, Natural History Museum of Los
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Department of the Navy. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by the Department of the Navy officials in consultation with representatives of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California.
The human remains representing, at minimum, 469 individuals and the 436 associated funerary objects listed in this notice are in seven different locations in California. These are the Fowler Museum at UCLA, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, the Naval Base Ventura County (NBVC) San Nicolas Island Curation Facility, the San Diego Museum of Man, the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Southwest Museum of the Autry National Center of the American West, and the U.C. Berkeley Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology. These human remains and associated funerary objects are listed below, grouped under their respective repositories.
In May 1929, human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals were collected by H. H. Sheldon and donated to UCLA. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1951, human remains representing, at minimum, 5 individuals were collected by Stewart L. Peck from site CA–SNI–18 and donated to UCLA. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1951, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were collected by Stewart L. Peck and donated to UCLA. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1952, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were collected by an unknown party and donated to UCLA. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individuals were identified. The 10 associated funerary objects are 2 abalone shell fishhook blanks; 1 abalone shell fishhook fragment; 1 biface fragment; 2 modified shells; 1 stone bowl fragment; 1 stone pestle fragment; 1 lot of tarring pebbles; and 1 unmodified shell.
Prior to 1958, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals, were removed from site CA–SNI–15 by H.B. Allen and donated to UCLA. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, 33 individuals were collected during excavations conducted by Sam-Joe Townsend, Fred Reinman, Marshall McKusick, Dr. Clement Meighan and others from the UCLA Archaeological Survey. These human remains were collected from 7 SNI sites—CA–SNI–14, CA–SNI–15, CA–SNI–15W, CA–SNI–16, CA–SNI–18, CA–SNI–40, and CA–SNI–41. No known individuals were identified. The 90 associated funerary objects are 1 abalone shell “Magic Box” (made of 4 abalone shells, 2 smaller shells enclosed in 2 larger ones, forming a box containing a piece of incised green stone); 1 lot of abalone shell beads; 6 abalone shell dishes; 1 lot of abalone shell fishhook blanks; 2 abalone shell fishhooks; 1 abalone shell ornament; 1 lot of abalone shell pearls and fragments; 8 abalone shell pendants; 5 lots of abalone shell pendants; 1 lot of abalone shells with asphaltum; 1 animal tooth pendant; 1 lot of asphaltum fragments; 2 lots of asphaltum fragments with basketry impressions; 2 bone awls; 1 bone fishhook; 1 lot of burned bone and wood fragments; 1 burned and modified faunal bone; 1 ground stone object; 1 hammer stone; 1 incomplete red stone pipe with a bird bone stem; 1 large unmodified shell; 1 fragment modified abalone shell; 1 lot of modified abalone shells; 1 modified bone with asphaltum; 1 modified faunal bone; 1 modified faunal bone fragment; 5 modified faunal bones; 7 modified stones; 1 mussel shell pendant; 1 piece of ochre; 10 lots of Olivella shell beads; 1 Pismo clam shell pendant; 1 projectile point fragment; 1 sea lion tooth pendant; 2 shell beads; 3 shell pendants; 1 stone biface; 1 stone biface with asphaltum; 3 stone rings; 1 tarring pebble; 1 unmodified abalone shell; 1 unmodified Pismo clam shell fragment; 1 lot of unmodified shell and fragments; 1 lot of unmodified shells; 1 unmodified stone; 1 lot of wood fragments; and 1 fragment of yellow ochre.
Navy-controlled NAGPRA items at the Fowler Museum also include human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual that lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, the name of the collector, or the site provenience beyond their SNI origin. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
One additional group of human remains representing, at minimum, 9 individuals, that also lack specific information on the date of collection/donation or a collector, does have accompanying documentation indicating it was collected from site CA–SNI–18. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1926, human remains representing, at minimum, 49 individuals were collected from an indeterminate number of site locations during a Los Angeles Museum expedition there by Charles W. Hatton, Arthur R. Sanger, and Bruce Bryan. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In August 1933, human remains representing, at minimum, 7 individuals were collected by an individual named Rose and donated to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In July 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were excavated from site CA–SNI–150 (Woodward's N–13E) by Arthur Woodward during the Los Angeles Museum's Channel Islands Biological Survey of SNI. No known individual was identified. The 33 associated funerary objects are 1 faunal bone bead; 1 faunal bone harpoon fragment; 2 ground stone objects; 11 ground stone
In 1950, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by Mel Lincoln and donated to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were collected by Ed Mitchell and Sam-Joe Townsend and donated to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. No specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by Ed Mitchell from site CA–SNI–18 and donated to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1966, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by S. Ray Harmon and donated to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. No specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were collected by George Kritzman and Fred Reinman from sites CA–SNI–12 and CA–SNI–124 and donated to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. No known individuals were identified. The associated funerary objects are 3 cataloged lots of asphaltum fragments and unmodified shells.
Navy-controlled NAGPRA items at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County also include human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals that lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, the name of the collector, or the site provenience beyond their SNI origin. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1928, human remains representing, at minimum, 8 individuals were collected by Arthur Sanger. At an unknown date, the human remains came into the custody of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The human remains were returned to SNI holdings in 1995. Beyond their general SNI origin, these human remains lack specific information on site provenience other than Sanger's catalogue numbers, which cannot be correlated to later site numbering protocols. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 5 individuals were collected from SNI sites by UCLA. These human remains were later donated to Loyola Marymount University in 1962, which returned them to SNI holdings in 2006. The human remains were collected from 5 SNI sites—SN–9, SN–12, SN–17, SN–18, and SN–171. No known individuals were identified. The 37 associated funerary objects are 1 awl, broken; 1 shell fishhook; 2 shell fishhook blanks; 13 shell fishhook fragments; 1 flake; 1 end-battered hammer stone; 1 pendant; 1 broken pipe; 1 projectile point base; 11 unmodified fish bones; 1 unmodified mammal bone; 2 pieces unmodified shell; and 1 worked abalone shell fragment.
In 1959, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were collected during excavations conducted by Sam-Joe Townsend and Fred Reinman from the UCLA Archaeological Survey. These human remains were collected from 2 SNI sites—CA–SNI–14 and CA–SNI–15. These two individuals belong to the same collection from the 1959 excavations located in the Fowler Museum at UCLA and reported under subparagraph (i) of this notice. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In the 1960s, a comingled set of human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual was collected by an island Public Works employee, Mr. Graham. These human remains lack specific information for site provenience beyond their SNI origin. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected during excavations conducted by George Kritzman and Fred Reinman. These human remains were collected from site CA–SNI–74. No known individuals were identified. The 24 associated funerary objects are 2 pieces of hematite; 2 pieces of unmodified abalone shell; 3 stone projectile points; 1 bone awl; 1 bone tool fragment; 1 large stone with red ochre; 2 modified abalone shells; 1 modified abalone shell fragment; 2 modified faunal bone; 1 modified Olivella shell; 1 modified shell fragment; 1 lot of modified shells; 1 shell fishhook; 1 shell fishhook blank; 1 shell fishhook fragment; 1 unmodified abalone shell; 1 unmodified marine mammal tooth; and 1 lot of multiple unmodified shell fragments.
In 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, 7 individuals were collected during excavations conducted by George Kritzman and others. These human remains were collected from 5 SNI sites—CA–SNI–5, CA–SNI–11, CA–SNI–55, CA–SNI–117, and CA–SNI–146. No known individuals were identified. The 12 associated funerary objects are 1 abalone shell fishhook blank, 1 abalone shell fragment, 2 lots of asphaltum fragments with basketry impressions, 1 bone bead, 1 bone pin, 1 chunk of charcoal, 2 lots of modified shell and fragments, 1 stone projectile point, 1 lot of unmodified shells and fragments, and 1 unmodified stone.
In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected during excavations conducted by Fred Reinman and George Kritzman. These human remains were collected from site CA–SNI–16. No known individual was identified. The 8 associated funerary objects are 1 clam shell ring with a bi-conical perforation, 1 grey slate pendant, 1 incised canine tooth ornament, 1 semi-circular ground shell object, 1 side-notched projectile point fragment, 1 stone pendant with a bi-conical perforation, 1 stone pendant with two perforations, and 1 stone sea elephant effigy fragment.
In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected during excavations conducted by Fred Reinman and George Kritzman. These human remains were collected from site CA–SNI–1. No known individual was identified. The 5 associated funerary objects are 1 asphaltum fragments with basketry impressions, 1 modified shell, 1 fragment of red ochre, 1 lot of unmodified shell fragments, and 1 unmodified stone.
In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, 5 individuals were collected during excavations conducted by Crowe and Johnson. These human remains were collected from site CA–SNI–56. No known individuals were
In 1989, human remains representing, at minimum, 6 individuals were collected during excavations conducted by Steven Schwartz, George Kritzman, Audrey Schwartz, and others from the Department of the Navy's Cultural Resources management program. These human remains were collected from 3 SNI sites—CA–SNI–168, CA–SNI–214, and CA–SNI–221. No known individuals were identified. The 90 associated funerary objects are 1 lot of abalone shell fishhook blanks; 3 lots of asphaltum fragments; 2 lots of faunal bone fragments; 1 faunal bone pry; 5 lots of faunal bone pry fragments; 5 faunal bone tools; 8 faunal bone tool fragments; 1 faunal bone tool with asphaltum; 1 lot of faunal bone tools with asphaltum; 1 ground stone bowl; 3 lots of ground stone fragments; 5 ground stone pestles; 3 lots of ground stone pestle fragments; 1 ground stone tool fragment; 1 ground stone artifact with asphaltum; 1 incised stone pendant; 1 modified abalone shell with asphaltum; 2 lots of modified stone fragments; 1 stone pendant; 1 lot of stone pendant fragments; 1 quartz projectile point; 1 fragment of red ochre; 3 pieces of sandstone; 1 shell bead; 1 shell fishhook; 1 shell fishhook fragment; 1 stone adze fragment; 4 stone biface fragments; 1 lot of stone biface fragments with asphaltum; 1 lot of stone fragments; 2 stone projectile points; 6 stone projectile point fragment; 2 lots of stone projectile point fragments; 1 stone projectile point with asphaltum; 1 stone scraper; 1 lot of stone tool fragments; 2 stones with asphaltum; 1 lot of tarring pebbles; 1 unmodified abalone shell; 3 unmodified faunal bone; 1 unmodified shell; 2 unmodified stone; 1 lot of unmodified stone fragments; 3 whale bone prys; and 1 fragment of wood.
In 1994, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected during excavations conducted by Moorpark Jr. College. These human remains were collected from site CA–SNI–73. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 2000, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by Steve Schwartz and Lisa Thomas because of their exposure due to erosion. These human remains were collected from site CA–SNI–168. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 2006, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were collected by California State University Humboldt. These human remains were collected from the West Locus and East Locus of site CA–SNI–25. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
NAGPRA items in collections at the SNI Curation Facility further include human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals that lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, the name of the collector, or the site provenience beyond their SNI origin. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
An additional set of human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual, that also lacks specific information on the date of collection/donation or a collector, does have accompanying documentation indicating it was collected from site CA–SNI–171. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Another set of human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual, that also lacks specific information on the date of collection/donation or a collector, does have accompanying documentation indicating it was collected from site CA–SNI–238. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
NAGPRA items in collections at the SNI Curation Facility also include 2 funerary objects associated with the human remains located at the Southwest Museum/Autry National Center and reported under subparagraph (vi) of this notice. The first of these associated funerary objects is an unmodified abalone shell from a burial excavated in 1960 by Dr. Charles Rozaire at site CA–SNI–41. The second associated funerary object is a fragment of sea grass matting that was collected by an unknown party in 1984 at site CA–SNI–325 and donated to the Southwest Museum.
In 1899, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by Mrs. L. H. Sherman and donated to the San Diego Museum of Man. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1915, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were gifted to the San Diego Museum of Man by Charles Lummis. No collection date, primary documentation, or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. The associated funerary object is 1 lot of modified cowry shells.
In 1930, human remains representing, at minimum, 128 individuals were collected by Malcolm J. Rogers during an expedition for the San Diego Museum of Man. These human remains were excavated or surface collected from 26 SNI sites—CA–SNI–1 (Rogers' SN–7); CA–SNI–7 (Rogers' SN–1/1A); CA–SNI–11 (Rogers' SN–13); CA–SNI–12 (Rogers' SN–16); CA–SNI–15 or CA–SNI–16 (Rogers' SN–18); CA–SNI–15 or CA–SNI–16 (Rogers' SN–19); CA–SNI–25 (Rogers' SN–14); CA–SNI–55 or CA–SNI–56 (Rogers' SN–20); CA–SNI–139 (Rogers' SN–21C); and 17 areas without a known concordance to modern state trinomial site numbers (Rogers' field numbers SN–3, SN–4, SN–5, SN–6, SN–7A, SN–11, SN–12, SN–15, SN–17, SN–21, SN–21A, SN–21B, SN–22, SN–23, SN–24, SN–27, and SN–31). No known individuals were identified. The 63 associated funerary objects catalogued are 1 lot of asphaltum fragments with basketry impressions, 2 lots of burned faunal bone fragments, 1 lot of burned faunal bone tool fragments, 1 deer antler pressure flaker, 2 lots of faunal bone fragments, 1 incised stone, 4 modified faunal bones, 2 lots of modified faunal bone fragments, 1 lot of modified faunal bone tools, 1 modified keyhole limpet shell, 1 modified shell, 2 modified stones, 1 lot of stone bowl fragments, 1 stone canoe effigy, 3 lots of modified stone fragments, 1 stone pestle, 1 necklace (consisting of bone beads, one alabaster bead, and one incised steatite pendant), 1 necklace of stone and shell beads, 1 obsidian projectile point, 1 obsidian projectile point fragment, 1 lot of Olivella and keyhole limpet shell beads, 5 lots of Olivella shell beads, 2 projectile points, 1 projectile point fragment, 1 lot of root castings, 1 sandstone fishhook reamer, 5 lots of shell beads, 1 lot of unmodified shell beads, 1 shell fishhook fragment, 1 lot of square Olivella shell beads, 1 steatite bead, 3 lots of stone beads, 1 stone effigy, 1 quartzite stone for melting asphaltum, 1 stone pendant fragment, 2 stone ring fragments, 1 lot of stone spindles, 1 tufa bead, 1 lot of unmodified abalone shells, 1 lot of unmodified faunal bone fragments, 1 lot of unmodified shells, and 1 piece of yellow ochre.
In 1937, human remains representing, at minimum, 23 individuals were transferred to the San Diego Museum of Man from the San Diego Museum of Natural History. These human remains had been included with a large collection of primarily natural history specimens made by Mr. Herbert Lowe and bequeathed to the San Diego
During the summer of 1960, a cranium and mandible representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by Scott G. Shaw, and donated to the San Diego Museum of Man by Mrs. G. V. Shaw in 1961. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected and donated to the San Diego Museum of Man by T. J. Die. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individuals were identified. The 4 associated funerary objects are 1 abalone shell with asphaltum, 1 piece of charcoal, 1 faunal bone tool, and 1 lot of unmodified shells.
Navy-controlled NAGPRA items at the San Diego Museum of Man also include human remains representing, at minimum, 4 individuals that lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, name of the collector or site provenience beyond their SNI origin. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1945, human remains representing, at minimum, 16 individuals were collected by Phil Orr during excavations on SNI for the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. These human remains were excavated or surface collected from 6 SNI sites—Orr's site number 133.17, CA–SNI–5 (Orr's 133.5), CA–SNI–7 (Orr's 133.7), CA–SNI–10 (Orr's 133.10), CA–SNI–17 (Orr's 133.15), and CA–SNI–21 (Orr's 133.21). No known individuals were identified. The 10 associated funerary objects catalogued are 1 lot of asphaltum fragments with basketry impressions, 1 lot of bone points; 2 groundstone artifacts, 1 lot of ground stone beads, 1 ground stone pendant, 1 lot of Olivella shell beads, 2 lots of shell beads, and 1 unmodified faunal bone.
In 1948, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were collected by Phil Orr during excavations at Orr's site number 133.18 (associated state trinomial site number unknown) for the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. No known individuals were identified. The associated funerary object is 1 lot of shell beads.
In 1959 or 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by Thomas Bird and donated to the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1959 and 1961, human remains representing, at minimum, 3 individuals were collected by David Roy Wiser on a construction site near the Department of the Navy's island airstrip and donated to the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. No specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by Lt. Commander A. L. Bently from Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History site number 133.54 (associated state trinomial site number unknown) and donated to the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by Art McHarg and donated to the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. No specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by D. T. Hudson and J. Timbrook and donated to the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. No specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were surface collected by Frank Van Den Burgh and donated to the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. No specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Circa 1900, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by Margaret Nix and donated to the Southwest Museum. No specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Circa 1926, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by Norman Murdoch and donated to the Southwest Museum. No specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, 34 individuals were collected by Dr. Charles Rozaire, George Kritzman, and others during Southwest Museum expeditions to SNI. These human remains were excavated or surface collected from 9 SNI sites—CA–SNI–12, CA–SNI–16, CA–SNI–38, CA–SNI–41, CA–SNI–47, CA–SNI–51, CA–SNI–55, CA–SNI–97, and a location east of CA–SNI–11. No known individuals were identified. The 39 associated funerary objects catalogued are 1 lot of abalone shell pendant fragments, 2 lots of asphaltum fragments, 1 lot of bone beads, 1 lot of cordage fragments, 1 lot of faunal bone tools, 1 lot of ground stone fragments, 1 piece of hematite, 1 large unmodified shell, 1 modified bone, 1 piece of modified sandstone, 1 lot of modified shell pieces, 1 lot of modified shells and fragments, 1 lot of modified stone fragments, 4 lots of Olivella shell beads, 1 quartz crystal, 1 piece of red ochre, 1 lot of sea grass fiber fragments, 1 piece of sea grass matting, 1 lot of sea grass matting, cordage, and fibers, 1 piece of sea grass matting with an attached shell or bone fragment, 2 lots of shell beads, 2 lots of square shell beads, 1 lot of tarring pebbles, 7 unmodified abalone shells, 1 lot of unmodified abalone shells and fragments, 1 lot of unmodified shells and fragments, and 1 piece of unmodified stone.
In 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected from site CA–SNI–16 by George Kritzman, Jim Rasey, Fred Reinman, and others during California State University Los Angeles research on SNI. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected from site CA–SNI–325 by an unknown party and donated to the Southwest Museum. No known individual was identified. The 4 associated funerary objects are catalogued as 1 fossil bead, 1 lot of sea grass matting with an attached shell or bone fragment, 1 lot of sea grass matting, cordage, and fibers, and 1 lot of unmodified shells.
Navy-controlled NAGPRA items at the Southwest Museum also include human remains representing, at minimum, 5 individuals that lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, the name of the collector, or the site provenience beyond their SNI origin. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
One additional set of human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual, that also has no specific information on date of collection/donation or a collector, does have accompanying documentation indicating it was collected from site CA–SNI–11. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1901, human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals were collected by P. M. Jones and donated to the Lowie Museum of Anthropology (the predecessor of the U.C. Berkeley Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology). No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1902, human remains representing, at minimum, 24 individuals were collected by Mrs. Blanche Trask during her botanical survey of SNI and donated to the then Lowie Museum of Anthropology. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individuals were identified. The 1 associated funerary object is a large abalone shell lying atop the cranium of the individual human remains cataloged as 382–12–2187.
In 1938, human remains representing, at minimum, 1 individual were collected by Bruce Monroe Macleod and donated to the then Lowie Museum of Anthropology in 1949. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
In 1939, human remains representing, at minimum, 17 individuals were collected by Richard and Winthrop Coxe and donated to the then Lowie Museum of Anthropology. No primary documentation or specific provenience information beyond their SNI origin exists for these human remains. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Navy-controlled NAGPRA items at the U.C. Berkeley Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology also include human remains representing, at minimum, 2 individuals that lack specific information on the date of collection/donation, the name of the collector, or the site provenience beyond their SNI origin. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 469 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 436 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Mr. Joseph Montoya, Environmental Planning and Conservation Branch Manager, Naval Base Ventura County, Naval Base Ventura County, 311 Main Road, Building 1, Code N45V, Point Mugu, CA 93042, telephone (805) 989–3804, email
The U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, is responsible for notifying the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation, California, that this notice has been published.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of an investigation and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping duty investigation No. 731–TA–1269 (Preliminary) under section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from Australia of silicomanganese, provided for in subheading 7202.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation pursuant to section 732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by Monday, April 6, 2015. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by Monday, April 13, 2015.
For further information concerning the conduct of this investigation and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Michael Szustakowski ((202) 205–3169) or Keysha Martinez ((202) 205–2136), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 20) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting complainant's motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a withdrawal of complaint.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on November 14, 2013, based on a complaint filed by TRW Automotive U.S. LLC of Livonia, Michigan. 78
On January 26, 2015, complainant TRW moved to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on a withdrawal of the complaint. On January 27, 2015, respondent Magna Electronics Inc. (“Magna”) submitted a response to the motion, indicating that it “does not oppose TRW's motion to withdraw its complaint and to terminate this investigation.” Magna Resp. at 1. On January 28, 2015, the Commission investigative staff filed a response supporting the motion.
On February 3, 2015, the ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 20) granting complainant's motion to terminate. No party petitioned for review of the subject ID. The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Rescheduling of public hearing.
The Commission has rescheduled the public hearing in this investigation from April 7, 2015 to May 5, 2015, in order to allow interested parties to access more recent information in preparing their testimony and pre-hearing briefs and statements.
April 21, 2015: Deadline for filing requests to appear at the public hearing.
April 23, 2015: Deadline for filing pre-hearing briefs and statements.
May 5, 2015: Public hearing.
May 12, 2015: Deadline for filing post-hearing briefs and statements.
June 2, 2015: Deadline for filing all other written submissions.
September 24, 2015: Transmittal of Commission report to the Committees.
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leaders James Stamps (202–205–3227 or
Public Hearing: As announced in the notice of institution of the investigation published in the
By order of the Commission.
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.
60-day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 27, 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 Rebecca Bond, Chief, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, by calling (800) 514–0301 or (800) 514–0383 (TTY) (the Division's Information Line), or write her at the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section—NYA, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.
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.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 27, 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 Helen Koppe, Firearms Industry Programs Branch, 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: None.
Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Primary: Business or other for-profit.
Other: None.
Abstract: Each licensed firearms manufacturer or licensed firearms importer must legibly identify each firearm by engraving, casting, stamping (impressing), or otherwise conspicuously placing on the frame or receiver an individual serial number.
Also, ATF requires minimum height and depth requirements for identification markings placed on firearms.
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.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation Office, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that required data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
A copy of the proposed Information Collection Request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
You may submit comments by either one of the following methods:
Contact Molly Irwin by email at
I.
The evaluation of Round 4 funded by the Department of Labor will include an impact study involving random assignment and an implementation analysis. This package requests clearance for (1) collecting baseline information on participants of interventions in the Round 4 grantees selected for the impact study and (2) semi-structured fieldwork in the form of site visits to up to nine Round 4 grantees to learn from college administrators, program coordinators, faculty and instructional staff, industry and community partners, and employers.
II.
* Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
* evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
* enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
* minimize the burden of the information collection 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,
III.
Comments submitted in response to this request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Coke Oven Emissions,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 30, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Coke Oven Emissions information collection. The purpose of Coke Oven Emissions Standard and its information collection requirements, codified at 29 CFR 1910.1029, are to provide protection for workers from the adverse health effects associated with occupational exposure to coke oven emissions. Employers must monitor worker exposure, reduce worker exposure to within permissible exposure limits, and provide workers with medical examinations and training. Occupational Safety and Health of 1970 sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Women's Bureau, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection.
The Department of Labor (DOL or the Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a
Written comments must be received by the office listed in the
Send comments to Angela Adams, U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg., Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693–6730 (this is not a toll-free number). Email address is
1.
As a result of these major changes in the economic and employment landscapes, the WB is interested in conducting a Survey of Working Women (Survey) in order to identify women's current employment issues and challenges and how these issues and challenges relate to job and career decisions, particularly reasons for exiting the workforce. Understanding women's perceptions about the workplace and their participation in the workforce, as well as decision points made at the intersection of work and family obligations, will allow the WB to share valuable information and data with employers, advocates and other stakeholders in an effort to foster greater collaboration and inform policies and practices that meet women's changing needs; and also foster greater public dialogue on these key issues impacting women in today's workforce.
As part of this study of working women, the WB commissioned a thorough review of the literature and an environmental scan to examine existing research related to the realities of working women's experience to identify and highlight the research gaps. Key research gaps identified, through this extensive review, included the need for more research among specific populations of working women (
The WB is proposing to conduct a quantitative survey, which would collect information in order to identify employment issues and challenges currently facing women, including their perceptions on career choice and overall equity in the workplace, and also to explore the factors that contribute to women leaving and/or staying out of the workforce.
The Survey will address the current information needs of the WB and DOL. This research will help the WB support and meet its objectives of:
1. Expanding knowledge
2. Informing policy and practice
3. Fostering collaboration with key stakeholders and
4. Fostering public dialogue on key issues affecting women in today's workforce.
2.
* Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
* Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
* Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
* Minimize the burden of the information collection 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,
3.
The Survey will be conducted with 2700 respondents. Outlined below are estimates of the total burden hours associated with the data collection.
Comments submitted in response to this request will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “Unemployment Insurance Supplemental Budget Request Activities,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 30, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks PRA authority for the Unemployment Insurance Supplemental Budget Request Activities information collection. To monitor the progress of each State Workforce Agency in successfully implementing projects funded through Supplemental Budget Requests, this collection will request information including the funded project's title and purpose, timeline and milestones, and project implementation status narrative description. Social Security Act section 303(a)(6) authorizes this information collection.
This proposed information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Vertical Tandem Lifts for Marine Terminals,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before March 30, 2015.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Vertical Tandem Lifts for Marine Terminals information collection. The Vertical Tandem Lifts (VTLs) standards of regulations 29 CFR part 1917 require employers to develop, implement, and maintain a written plan for transporting vertically connected containers in the longshoring and marine terminal industries. The written plan is necessary for the safe transport of VTLs in the marine terminal where factors affect the stability of a VTL that has a higher center of gravity than a single container. Occupational Safety and Health of 1970 sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2015. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
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 May 6, 2014, applicable to leased workers from Aerospace Logistic Services, Butler Service, Global Contract Professionals, Iqnavigator, PDS Technical Services, S.M.A.R.T., Volt Services Group, Comforce Technical Services, Donatech Corp., Five Star Technical Services, Johnson Service Group, Strom Aviation and STS Services, working on-site at Textron, Inc., formerly known as Beechcraft Corporation, Wichita, Kansas. The Departmnet's Notice of Determination was published in the
At the request of a State Workforce Official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of aircraft.
The investigation confirmed that workers leased from Aerospace Logistic Services were employed on-site at Textron, Inc., formerly known as Beechcraft Corporation, Wichita, Kansas. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased
The amended notice applicable to TA–W–83,358 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of Textron, Inc., formerly known as Beechcraft Corporation, Wichita, Kansas, (TA–W–83,358) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 15, 2013, through May 6, 2016, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from the date of certification through May 6, 2016, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended,
AND
All on-site leased workers from Aerospace Logistic Services, Butler Service, Global Contract Professionals, IQnavigator, PDS Technical Services, S.M.A.R.T., Volt Services Group, Comforce Technical Services, Donatech Corp., Five Star Technical Services, Johnson Service Group, Strom Aviation, STS Services, working on-site at Textron, Inc., formerly known as Beechcraft Corporation, Wichita, Kansas, (TA–W–83,358A) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 31, 2012 through May 6, 2016, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from the date of certification through May 6, 2016, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.”
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than March 9, 2015.
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 March 9, 2015.
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
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met.
The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioning groups of workers are covered by active certifications. Consequently, further investigation in these cases would serve no purpose since the petitioning group of workers cannot be covered by more than one certification at a time.
The Legal Services Corporation's Institutional Advancement Committee (IAC) will meet telephonically on March 6, 2015. The meeting will commence at 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST), and will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.
John N. Erlenborn Conference Room, Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20007.
Closed. Upon a vote of the Board of Directors, the meeting may be closed to the public to consider and act on Leaders Council Prospective Members, ongoing grant possibilities, and fundraising updates.
A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed session of the Board and Institutional Advancement Committee meetings. The transcript of any portions of the closed session falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9) will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295–1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
LSC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals who need other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295–1500 or
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 sixty (60) calendar days of publication of this Notice.
Mail all comments and requests for copies of the subject form to OPIC's Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527. See
OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, (202)336–8558.
All mailed comments and requests for copies of the subject form should include form number OPIC–129 on both the envelope and in the subject line of the letter. Electronic comments and requests for copies of the subject form may be sent 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
Mail all comments and requests for copies of the subject form to OPIC's Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20527. See
OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: James Bobbitt, (202)336–8558.
All mailed comments and requests for copies of the subject form should include form number [OPIC–115] on both the envelope and in the subject line of the letter. Electronic comments and requests for copies of the subject form may be sent to
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Amended Notice of Meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a change in a meeting of the Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies. The meeting was originally noticed for February 17, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. EST, as published in the
Julie Z. Davis, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551–3460, Office of Small Business Policy, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–3628.
On February 18, 2015, the Commission approved a proposed rule change by NASDAQ Stock Market LLC to adopt new listing standards for “Paired Class Shares” as new NASDAQ Rule 5713, as well as to permit the listing and trading of “Paired Class Shares” issued by AccuShares Commodity Trust I (the “Trust”).
As the Requestors explain in the Letter, the Trust is a Delaware statutory trust that is organized into separate Funds. Each Fund will have a distinctive objective to track the movements in a specified spot commodity, commodity futures contract, or measures of price volatility of a broad-based equity index as measured by such Fund's underlying index (“Underlying Index”) during each Fund's “Measuring Period.”
The Requestors also represent, among other things, the following:
• Shares of the Funds will be listed and traded on a national securities exchange that has obtained approval of a rule change from the Commission pursuant to Rule 19b–4;
• Neither the Trust nor any of its Funds will be an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (“1940 Act”), and will not be required to register under the 1940 Act;
• Each Fund will continuously issue and redeem Shares in aggregations of at least 50,000 Shares (25,000 Up Shares and 25,000 Down Shares) in exchange for specified amounts of cash, with the objective of tracking the performance of a specified commodity or volatility index;
• Throughout the trading day, the listing exchange will publicly disseminate intra-day prices of Fund Shares and their respective Underlying Indexes;
• The market value of Shares should be in close alignment with the increases and decreases in the value of each Fund's Underlying Index which tracks one or more physical commodities, a basket of particular commodities, commodity futures contracts, other commodity derivatives, or measures of price volatility of a broad-based equity index;
• Like other exchange-traded products, the secondary market price of Shares should not vary substantially from their respective Class Values (as defined in the Letter) per Share because the redeemability and the continuous offering features of the Funds provide opportunities for arbitrage activity that should eliminate any significant disparity between the market price of Shares and their respective Class Values per Share.
• Significant disparities between the market price of each Fund's Shares and the liquidation value of the Shares and between the market price of each Fund's Shares and the value of the Underlying Index should be eliminated by the arbitrage mechanism afforded by the open-ended character of the Funds and the redeemability of their Shares;
• The “Corrective Distribution” mechanism (as described in the Letter) is designed to supplement the aforementioned arbitrage mechanism in those rare situations where the arbitrage mechanism fails;
• The presence of each Fund's pre-established Corrective Distribution Thresholds (as defined in the Letter) is also intended to aid in driving the alignment of market prices with Class Value per Share;
• Special Distributions (as defined in the Letter) will be triggered only if a Fund's Underlying Index experiences an unexpected level of volatility and exceeds a fixed rate of change (for example, 75% for the AccuShares S&P GSCI Spot and AccuShares S&P GSCI Natural Gas Spot Funds) since the beginning of the Measuring Period (as defined in the Letter);
• Special Distributions are not expected to occur regularly and will occur, if at all, only under the limited circumstances and according to the fixed formula stated in each Fund's prospectus;
• Each Fund will alert shareholders in a prominent manner on its Web site at the close of the business day during any Measuring Period when such Fund's Underlying Index first experiences a 50% increase or decrease in its level since the beginning of that Measuring Period and, if and when a Fund's Underlying Index exceeds its threshold for issuing a Special Distribution during such Measuring Period, at the close of business on such day the relevant Fund will immediately notify the listing exchange, and will thereafter issue a press release and post a notice of such event and its details on
• The Funds will provide at least three business days' notice to the listing exchange in advance of the related record date for Special Distributions and any Exempted Accompanying Distribution;
• The listing exchange has confirmed that publication of a Special Distribution Notice (as defined in the Letter) three business days in advance of a Special Distribution Record Date (as defined in the Letter) can be made in the normal course, and will not require any system changes, technology alterations or other type of reconfigurations by the exchange and that it will be able to adequately disseminate the distribution information contained in the Special Distribution Notice to its members and the investing public within the three-day time period and, as a result, the Sponsor believes that the parties transacting in Fund Shares, as well as their broker-dealers, will be able to timely reflect Special Distributions and Exempted Accompanying Distributions in the price ultimately paid; and
• The Sponsor has agreed to compile the following data and provide it to the Commission staff on a quarterly basis for each Fund during the first year of operation:
○ Daily Class Values and daily Class Values per Share;
○ Daily end of day secondary market price per Class (as defined in the Letter) per Share;
○ Per Share, the date, form (
○ Per Share, with respect to any stock split, whether it was a reverse or forward split.
While redeemable securities issued by an open-end management investment company are excepted from the provisions of Rule 101 and 102 of Regulation M, the Requestors may not rely upon that exception for the Shares as they are not issued by an open-end management investment company. However, we find that it is appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the protection of investors to grant limited exemptions from Rules 101 and 102 to persons who may be deemed to be participating in a distribution of Shares of the Funds as well as the Funds, as described in more detail below.
Generally, Rule 101 of Regulation M is an anti-manipulation rule that, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits any “distribution participant” and its “affiliated purchasers” from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase any security which is the subject of a distribution until after the applicable restricted period, except as specifically permitted in the rule. Rule 100 of Regulation M defines “distribution” to mean any offering of securities that is distinguished from ordinary trading transactions by the magnitude of the offering and the presence of special selling efforts and selling methods. The provisions of Rule 101 of Regulation M apply to underwriters, prospective underwriters, brokers, dealers, or other persons who have agreed to participate or are participating in a distribution of securities. The Shares are in a continuous distribution and, as such, the restricted period in which distribution participants and their affiliated purchasers are prohibited from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce others to bid for or purchase extends indefinitely.
Similarly, Rule 102 of Regulation M prohibits issuers, selling security holders, and any affiliated purchaser of such person from bidding for, purchasing, or attempting to induce any person to bid for or purchase a covered security during the applicable restricted period in connection with a distribution of securities effected by or on behalf of an issuer or selling security holder.
Based on the representations and facts presented in the Letter, particularly that the market value of Shares should be in close alignment with the increases and decreases in the value of each Fund's Underlying Index, that significant disparities between the market price of each Fund's Shares and the liquidation value of the Shares and between the market price of each Fund's Shares and the value of the Underlying Index should be eliminated by the arbitrage mechanism, and that the Corrective Distribution mechanism is designed to supplement the arbitrage mechanism in those rare situations where the arbitrage mechanism fails (which will be infrequent and, for most Funds, a Corrective Distribution may never occur), the concerns that the Commission raised in adopting Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M should not be implicated because these mechanisms should reduce the potential that the purchases effected during the restricted period by these distribution participants and the Funds may artificially affect the secondary market price of the Shares.
Rule 10b–17, with certain exceptions, requires an issuer of a class of publicly traded securities to give notice of certain specified actions (for example, a dividend distribution) relating to such class of securities in accordance with Rule 10b–17(b). Based on the representations from the Fund, Sponsor, and listing exchange that timely notification of the existence and timing of such Special Distributions and Exempted Accompanying Distributions will be provided to market participants and that Special Distributions and Exempted Accompanying Distributions are not expected to occur frequently and only under the limited circumstances, if at all, according to a pre-determined formula published in each Fund's prospectus, the concerns that the Commission raised in adopting Rule 10b–17 should not be implicated. As a result, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the Trust a conditional exemption from Rule 10b–17 with respect to the Special Distributions and Exempted Accompanying Distributions.
This exemptive relief is subject to modification or revocation at any time the Commission determines that such action is necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. This exemption is based on the facts presented and the representations made in the Letter. Any different facts or representations may require a different response. In the event that any material change occurs in the facts or representations in the Letter, transactions in Shares of the Funds must be discontinued, pending presentation of the facts for our consideration. In addition, persons relying on this exemption are directed to the anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions of the Exchange Act, particularly Sections 9(a) and 10(b), and Rule 10b–5 thereunder. Responsibility for compliance with these and any other applicable provisions of the federal securities laws must rest with the persons relying on this exemption. This order should not be considered a view with respect to any other question that the proposed transactions may raise, including, but not limited to the adequacy of the disclosure concerning, and the applicability of other federal or state laws to, the proposed transactions.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the BX Options Rules to extend the pilot program under Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iv), which provides for how the Exchange treats obvious and catastrophic options errors in response to the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the “Limit Up-Limit Down Plan” or the “Plan”).
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.
In April 2013,
The Exchange extended the operation of Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iv), which provides that trades are not subject to an obvious error or catastrophic error review pursuant to Chapter V, Sections 6(b) or 6(f) during a Limit State or Straddle State in 2014.
The Exchange believes the benefits to market participants from the pilot program should continue on a pilot basis to coincide with the operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan. The Exchange believes that continuing the pilot will protect against any unanticipated consequences and permit the industry to gain further experience operating the Plan.
The Exchange will conduct an analysis concerning the elimination of obvious and catastrophic error provisions during Limit States and Straddle States and agrees to provide the Commission with relevant data to assess the impact of this proposed rule change. As part of its analysis, the Exchange will: (1) Evaluate the options market quality during Limit States and Straddle States; (2) assess the character of incoming order flow and transactions during Limit States and Straddle States; and (3) review any complaints from members and their customers concerning executions during Limit States and Straddle States. Additionally, the Exchange agrees to provide to the Commission data requested to evaluate the impact of the elimination of the obvious and catastrophic error provisions, including data relevant to assessing the various analyses noted above. By May 29, 2015, the Exchange shall provide to the Commission and the public assessments relating to the impact of the operation of the obvious error rules during Limit and Straddle States as follows:
1. Evaluate the statistical and economic impact of Limit and Straddle States on liquidity and market quality in the options markets.
2. Assess whether the lack of obvious error rules in effect during the Straddle and Limit States are problematic.
Each month the Exchange shall provide to the Commission and the public a dataset containing the data for each Straddle and Limit State in optionable stocks that had at least one trade on the Exchange during a Straddle or Limit State. For each of those options affected, each data record should contain the following information:
• Stock symbol, option symbol, time at the start of the Straddle or Limit State, an indicator for whether it is a Straddle or Limit State,
• For activity on the Exchange:
• Executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread, time-weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average quoted depth at the offer,
• high execution price, low execution price,
• number of trades for which a request for review for error was received during Straddle and Limit States,
• an indicator variable for whether those options outlined above have a price change exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's Limit or Straddle State compared to the last available option price as reported by OPRA before the start of the Limit or Straddle State (1 if observe 30% and 0 otherwise). Another indicator variable for whether the option price within five minutes of the underlying stock leaving the Limit or Straddle State (or halt if applicable) is 30% away from the price before the start of the Limit or Straddle State.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Although the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan is operational, the Exchange believes that maintaining the pilot will help the industry gain further experience operating the Plan as well as the pilot provisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes the benefits to market participants should continue on a pilot basis to coincide with the operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.
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 proposal does not impose an intra-market burden on competition, because it will apply to all members. Nor will the proposal impose a burden on competition among the options exchanges, because, in addition to the vigorous competition for order flow among the options exchanges, the proposal addresses a regulatory situation common to all options exchanges. To the extent that market participants disagree with the particular approach taken by the Exchange herein, market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing venues. The Exchange believes this proposal will not impose a burden on competition and will help provide certainty during periods of extraordinary volatility in an NMS stock.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the 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 if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the obvious error pilot program to continue uninterrupted while the industry gains further experience operating under the Plan, and avoid any investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
February 20, 2015.
On November 14, 2014, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As described more fully in the Notice, FINRA proposed to adopt in the
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change would retain the core provisions of the current rules, broaden the obligations on members to identify and manage research-related conflicts of interest, restructure the rules to provide some flexibility in compliance without diminishing investor protection, extend protections where gaps have been identified, and provide clarity to the applicability of existing rules. Where consistent with protection of users of research, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change reduces burdens where appropriate.
As stated above, the Commission received four comments on the proposal. Of these, three expressed general support for the proposal,
FINRA proposed to generally maintain the definitions in current NASD Rule 2711, with a few modifications. These modifications included (1) minor changes to the definition of “investment banking services” to clarify that such services include all acts in furtherance of a public or private offering on behalf of an issuer;
One commenter requested that the proposal define the term “sales and trading personnel” as “persons who are primarily responsible for performing sales and trading activities, or exercising direct supervisory authority over such persons.”
This commenter also asked FINRA to include an exclusion from the definition of “research report” for private placement memoranda and similar offering-related documents prepared in connection with investment banking services transactions.
FINRA proposed to create a new section entitled “Identifying and Managing Conflicts of Interest.” This section contains an overarching provision that requires members to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and effectively manage conflicts of interest related to the preparation, content and distribution of research reports and public appearances by research analysts and the interaction between research analysts and persons outside of the research department, including investment banking and sales and trading personnel, the subject companies and customers.
The rule proposal thus would adopt a policies and procedures approach to identification and management of research-related conflicts of interest and require those policies and procedures to prohibit or restrict particular conduct. Commenters expressed several concerns with this approach.
Two commenters asserted that the mix of a principles-based approach with prescriptive requirements was confusing in places and posed operational challenges. In particular, the commenters recommended eliminating the minimum standards for the policies and procedures.
One commenter asked FINRA to refrain from using the concept of “reliable” research in the proposals as it may inappropriately connote accuracy in the context of a research analyst's opinions.
As proposed, the first of these minimum requirements would require that the policies and procedures prohibit prepublication review, clearance or approval of research reports by persons engaged in investment banking services activities and restrict or prohibit such review, clearance or approval by other persons not directly responsible for the preparation, content and distribution of research reports, other than legal and compliance personnel.
The proposed rule change would require that the policies and procedures restrict or limit input by the investment banking department into research coverage decisions to ensure that research management independently makes all final decisions regarding the research coverage plan.
One commenter asked FINRA to eliminate as redundant the term “independently” from the provisions permitting non-research personnel to have input into research coverage, so long as research management “independently makes all final decisions regarding the research coverage plan.”
The proposed rule change would require that the policies and procedures prohibit persons engaged in investment banking activities from supervision or control of research analysts, including influence or control over research analyst compensation evaluation and determination.
The proposed rule change would require that the policies and procedures limit determination of the research department budget to senior management, excluding senior management engaged in investment banking services activities.
The proposed rule change would require that the policies and procedures prohibit compensation based upon specific investment banking services transactions or contributions to a member's investment banking services activities.
The proposed rule change would require that the policies and procedures establish information barriers or other institutional safeguards to ensure that research analysts are insulated from the review, pressure or oversight by persons engaged in investment banking services activities or other persons, including sales and trading personnel, who might be biased in their judgment or supervision.
Some commenters suggested that “review” was unnecessary in this provision because the review of research analysts was addressed sufficiently in other parts of the proposed rule.
The proposed rule change would require that the policies and procedures prohibit direct or indirect retaliation or threat of retaliation against research analysts employed by the member or its affiliates by persons engaged in investment banking services activities or other employees as the result of an adverse, negative, or otherwise unfavorable research report or public appearance written or made by the research analyst that may adversely affect the member's present or prospective business interests.
The proposed rule change would require that the policies and procedures define quiet periods of a minimum of 10 days after an initial public offering (“IPO”), and a minimum of three days after a secondary offering, during which the member must not publish or otherwise distribute research reports, and research analysts must not make public appearances, relating to the issuer if the member has participated as an underwriter or dealer in the IPO or, with respect to the quiet periods after a secondary offering, acted as a manager or co-manager of that offering.
With respect to these quiet-period provisions, the proposed rule change would reduce the current 40-day quiet period for IPOs to a minimum of 10 days after the completion of the offering for any member that participated as an underwriter or dealer, and reduces the 10-day secondary offering quiet period to a minimum of three days after the completion of the offering for any member that has acted as a manager or co-manager in the secondary offering. The proposed rule change also eliminates the current quiet periods 15 days before and after the expiration, waiver or termination of a lock-up agreement.
Citing recent enforcement actions in the research area, one commenter did not support elimination or reduction of the quiet periods.
In addition, the proposed rule change would require firms to adopt written policies and procedures to restrict or limit activities by research analysts that can reasonably be expected to compromise their objectivity.
The proposed rule change also would add Supplementary Material .01, which would codify FINRA's existing interpretation that the solicitation provision prohibits members from including in pitch materials any information about a member's research capacity in a manner that suggests, directly or indirectly, that the member might provide favorable research coverage.
No specific comments were received on this provision.
The proposed rule would establish a new proscription with respect to joint due diligence activities—
The proposed rule would continue to prohibit investment banking department personnel from directly or indirectly directing a research analyst to engage in sales or marketing efforts related to an investment banking services transaction, and directing a research analyst to engage in any communication with a current or prospective customer about an investment banking services transaction.
No specific comments were received on this provision.
FINRA proposed to maintain the current prohibition against promises of favorable research, a particular research recommendation, rating or specific content as inducement for receipt of business or compensation.
FINRA proposed to require that firms establish written policies and procedures that restrict or limit research analyst account trading in securities, any derivatives of such securities and funds whose performance is materially dependent upon the performance of securities covered by the research analyst.
With a couple of modifications, the proposed rule change would maintain the current disclosure requirements. The proposed rule change would add a requirement that a member must establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that purported facts in its research reports are based on reliable information.
In addition, the proposed rule change would require a member to disclose in any research report at the time of publication or distribution of the report:
• If the research analyst or a member of the research analyst's household has a financial interest in the debt or equity securities of the subject company (including, without limitation, whether it consists of any option, right, warrant, future, long or short position), and the nature of such interest;
• If the research analyst has received compensation based upon (among other factors) the member's investment banking revenues;
• If the member or any of its affiliates: (i) Managed or co-managed a public offering of securities for the subject company in the past 12 months; (ii) received compensation for investment banking services from the subject company in the past 12 months; or (iii) expects to receive or intends to seek compensation for investment banking services from the subject company in the next three months;
• If, as of the end of the month immediately preceding the date of publication or distribution of a research report (or the end of the second most recent month if the publication or distribution date is less than 30 calendar days after the end of the most recent month), the member or its affiliates have received from the subject company any compensation for products or services other than investment banking services in the previous 12 months;
• If the subject company is, or over the 12-month period preceding the date of publication or distribution of the research report has been, a client of the member, and if so, the types of services provided to the issuer. Such services, if applicable, must be identified as either investment banking services, non-investment banking services, non-investment banking securities-related services or non-securities services;
• If the member or its affiliates maintain a significant financial interest in the debt or equity securities of the subject company including, at a minimum, if the member or its affiliates beneficially own 1% or more of any class of common equity securities of the subject company;
• If the member was making a market in the securities of the subject company at the time of publication or distribution of the research report;
• If the research analyst received any compensation from the subject company in the previous 12 months.
The proposed rule change would also expand upon the current “catch-all” disclosure, which mandates disclosure of any other material conflict of interest of the research analyst or member that the research analyst knows or has reason to know of at the time of the publication or distribution of a research report. The proposed rule change would go beyond the existing provision by requiring disclosure of material conflicts known not only by the research analyst, but also by any “associated person of the member with the ability to influence the content of a research report.”
The proposal would retain the general exception for disclosure that would reveal material non-public information regarding specific potential future investment banking transactions of the
One commenter opposed as overbroad the proposed expansion of the current “catch-all” disclosure requirement to include “any other material conflict of interest of the research analyst or member that a research analyst
Two commenters opposed the requirement in the equity proposal that members disclose, in an equity research report, if they or their affiliates maintain a significant financial interest in the debt of the research company.
One commenter also requested confirmation that members may rely on hyperlinked disclosures for research reports that are delivered electronically, even if these reports are subsequently printed out by customers.
The proposal groups in a separate provision the disclosures required when a research analyst makes a public appearance.
With respect to both research reports and public appearances, members and research analysts would continue to be required to comply with applicable disclosure provisions of FINRA Rule 2210 and the federal securities laws.
The proposed rule change retains with non-substantive modifications the provision in the current rules that requires a member to notify its customers if it intends to terminate coverage of a subject company.
The proposal would require firms to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that a research report is not distributed selectively to internal trading personnel or a particular customer or class of customers in advance of other customers that the firm has previously determined are entitled to receive the research report.
One commenter supported the provisions regarding different research products and services as proposed with general disclosure,
The proposal would maintain the existing third-party disclosure requirements,
FINRA stated that the proposal would continue to address qualitative aspects of third-party research reports. For example, the proposal would maintain, but in the form of policies and procedures, the existing requirement that a registered principal or supervisory analyst review and approve third-party research reports distributed by a member. To that end, the proposed rule change would require a member to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that any third-party research it distributes contains no untrue statement of material fact and is otherwise not false or misleading. For the purpose of this requirement, a member's obligation to review a third-party research report would extend to any untrue statement of material fact or any false or misleading information that should be known from reading the research report or is known based on information otherwise possessed by the member.
The proposal would maintain the existing exceptions for “independent third-party research reports.” Specifically, such research would not require principal pre-approval or, where the third-party research is not “pushed out,” the third-party disclosures.
Finally, under the proposed rule change, members would be required to ensure that a third-party research report is clearly labeled as such and that there is no confusion on the part of the recipient as to the person or entity that prepared the research report.
No specific comments were received on this provision.
The current rule exempts firms with limited investment banking activity—those that over the previous three years, on average per year, have managed or co-managed 10 or fewer investment banking transactions and generated $5 million or less in gross revenues from those transactions—from the provisions that prohibit a research analyst from being subject to the supervision or control of an investment banking department employee because the potential conflicts with investment banking are minimal.
The proposed rule change would further exempt firms with limited investment banking activity from the provisions restricting or limiting research coverage decisions and budget determination. In addition, the proposal would exempt eligible firms from the requirement to establish information barriers or other institutional safeguards to insulate research analysts from the review or oversight by investment banking personnel or other persons,
No specific comments were received on this provision.
The proposed rule change would amend the definition of “research analyst” for the purposes of the registration and qualification requirements to limit the scope to persons who produce “research reports” and whose primary job function is to provide investment research (
No specific comments were received on this provision.
The proposed rule change would delete the requirement to attest annually that the firm has in place written supervisory policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of the rules, including the compensation committee review provision. No specific comments were received on this provision.
Supplementary Material .09 clarifies the obligations of each associated person under those provisions of the proposed rule change that require a member to restrict or prohibit certain conduct by establishing, maintaining and enforcing particular written policies and procedures. Specifically, the rule provides that, consistent with FINRA Rule 0140, persons associated with a member would be required to comply with such member's policies and procedures as established pursuant to proposed FINRA Rule 2241.
Some commenters suggested FINRA eliminate language in the supplementary material that provides that the failure of an associated person to comply with the firm's policies and procedures constitutes a violation of the proposed rule itself.
The proposed rule change would provide FINRA, pursuant to the Rule 9600 Series, with authority to conditionally or unconditionally grant, in exceptional and unusual circumstances, an exemption from any requirement of the proposed rule for good cause shown, after taking into account all relevant factors and provided that such exemption is consistent with the purposes of the rule, the protection of investors, and the public interest.
One commenter opposed this provision.
One commenter asked FINRA to confirm in any Regulatory Notice announcing adoption of the proposed rule change that provisions relating to research coverage and budget decisions and joint due diligence are intended to supersede the corresponding terms of the Global Research Analyst Settlement (“Global Settlement”).
Also, one commenter requested that the implementation date be at least 12 months after Commission approval of the proposed rule change.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposals should be approved or disapproved.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is inconsistent with Sections 15A(b)(9) and 15D, or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule changes should be approved or disapproved by March 19, 2015. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 2, 2015.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program regarding Exchange Rule 1047(f)(v), which provides for how the Exchange treats obvious and catastrophic options errors in response to the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the “Limit Up-Limit Down Plan” or the “Plan”).
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.
In April 2013,
The Exchange extended the operation of Rule 1047(f)(v), which provides that trades are not subject to an obvious error or catastrophic error review pursuant to Rule 1092(a)(i) or (ii) during a Limit State or Straddle State in 2014.
The Exchange believes the benefits to market participants from the pilot program should continue on a pilot basis to coincide with the operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan. The Exchange believes that continuing the pilot will protect against any unanticipated consequences and permit the industry to gain further experience operating the Plan.
The Exchange will conduct an analysis concerning the elimination of obvious and catastrophic error provisions during Limit States and Straddle States and agrees to provide the Commission with relevant data to assess the impact of this proposed rule change. As part of its analysis, the Exchange will: (1) Evaluate the options market quality during Limit States and Straddle States; (2) assess the character of incoming order flow and transactions during Limit States and Straddle States; and (3) review any complaints from members and their customers concerning executions during Limit States and Straddle States. Additionally, the Exchange agrees to provide to the Commission data requested to evaluate the impact of the elimination of the obvious and catastrophic error provisions, including data relevant to assessing the various analyses noted above. By May 29, 2015, the Exchange shall provide to the Commission and the public assessments relating to the impact of the operation of the obvious error rules during Limit and Straddle States as follows:
1. Evaluate the statistical and economic impact of Limit and Straddle States on liquidity and market quality in the options markets.
2. Assess whether the lack of obvious error rules in effect during the Straddle and Limit States are problematic.
Each month the Exchange shall provide to the Commission and the public a dataset containing the data for each Straddle and Limit State in optionable stocks that had at least one trade on the Exchange during a Straddle or Limit State. For each of those options affected, each data record should contain the following information:
• Stock symbol, option symbol, time at the start of the Straddle or Limit State, an indicator for whether it is a Straddle or Limit State,
• For activity on the Exchange:
• executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread, time-weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average quoted depth at the offer,
• high execution price, low execution price,
• number of trades for which a request for review for error was received during Straddle and Limit States,
• an indicator variable for whether those options outlined above have a price change exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's Limit or Straddle State compared to the last available option price as reported by OPRA before the start of the Limit or Straddle State (1 if observe 30% and 0 otherwise). Another indicator variable for whether the option price within five minutes of the underlying stock leaving the Limit or Straddle State (or halt if applicable) is 30% away from the price before the start of the Limit or Straddle State.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Although the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan is operational, the Exchange believes that maintaining the pilot will help the industry gain further experience operating the Plan as well as the pilot provisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes the benefits to market participants should continue on a pilot basis to coincide with the operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.
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 proposal does not impose an intra-market burden on competition, because it will apply to all members. Nor will the proposal impose a burden on competition among the options exchanges, because, in addition to the vigorous competition for order flow among the options exchanges, the proposal addresses a regulatory situation common to all options exchanges. To the extent that market participants disagree with the particular approach taken by the Exchange herein, market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing venues. The Exchange believes this proposal will not impose a burden on competition and will help provide certainty during periods of extraordinary volatility in an NMS stock.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the 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 if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the obvious error pilot program to continue uninterrupted while the industry gains further experience operating under the Plan, and avoid any investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 14, 2014, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As described more fully in the Notice, FINRA proposed to adopt FINRA Rule 2242 to address conflicts of interest relating to the publication and distribution of debt research reports. Proposed FINRA Rule 2242 would adopt a tiered approach that FINRA believed, in general, would provide retail debt research recipients with extensive protections similar to those provided to recipients of equity research under current and proposed FINRA rules,
As stated above, the Commission received five comments on the proposal. All of these commenters expressed general support for the proposal.
The proposed rule change would adopt defined terms for purposes of proposed FINRA Rule 2242.
The proposed rule change would define the term “debt research report” as any written (including electronic) communication that includes an analysis of a debt security or an issuer of a debt security and that provides information reasonably sufficient upon which to base an investment decision, excluding communications that solely constitute an equity research report as defined in proposed Rule 2241(a)(11).
Communications that constitute statutory prospectuses that are filed as part of the registration statement would not be included in the definition of a debt research report. In general, the term debt research report also would not include a number of communications, similar to the equity proposal, if they do not include an analysis of, or recommend or rate, individual debt securities or issuers.
The proposed rule change would define the term “debt security” as any “security” as defined in Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act, except for any “equity security” as defined in Section 3(a)(11) of the Exchange Act, any “municipal security” as defined in Section 3(a)(29) of the Exchange Act, any “security-based swap” as defined in Section 3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act, and any “U.S. Treasury Security” as defined in paragraph (p) of FINRA Rule 6710.
The proposed rule change would define the term “investment banking department” as any department or division, whether or not identified as such, that performs any investment banking service on behalf of a member.
Under the proposed rule change the term “qualified institutional buyer” would have the same meaning as under Rule 144A of the Securities Act.
The proposed rule change would define “research department” as any department or division, whether or not identified as such, that is principally responsible for preparing the substance of a debt research report on behalf of a member.
One commenter requested that the proposal define the term “sales and trading personnel” as “persons who are primarily responsible for performing sales and trading activities, or exercising direct supervisory authority over such persons.”
One commenter asked FINRA to include an exclusion from the definition of “debt research report” for private placement memoranda and similar offering-related documents prepared in connection with investment banking services transactions.
One commenter suggested that FINRA revise the definition of “subject company” to specify that the term means the “
Similar to the proposed equity research rules, the proposed rule change contains an overarching provision that would require members to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and effectively manage conflicts of interest related to the preparation, content and distribution of debt research reports, public appearances by debt research analysts, and the interaction between debt research analysts and persons outside of the research department, including investment banking, sales and trading and principal trading personnel, subject companies and customers.
According to FINRA, these provisions set out the fundamental obligation for a member to establish and maintain a system to identify and mitigate conflicts to foster integrity and fairness in its debt research products and services. FINRA stated that these provisions are also intended to require firms to be more proactive in identifying and managing conflicts as new research products, affiliations and distribution methods emerge. FINRA believes this approach allows for some flexibility to manage identified conflicts, with some specified prohibitions and restrictions where disclosure does not adequately mitigate them. According to FINRA, most of the minimum requirements have been experience tested and found effective in the equity research rules.
The rule proposal thus would adopt a policies and procedures approach to identification and management of research-related conflicts of interest and require those policies and procedures to, at a minimum, prohibit or restrict particular conduct. Commenters expressed several concerns with the approach.
Two commenters asserted that the mix of a principles-based approach with prescriptive requirements was confusing in places and posed operational challenges. In particular, the commenters recommended eliminating the minimum standards for the policies and procedures.
One commenter asked FINRA to refrain from using the concept of “reliable” research in the proposal as it may inappropriately connote accuracy
As proposed, the first of these minimum requirements would require that the policies and procedures must, at a minimum, be reasonably designed to prohibit prepublication review, clearance or approval of debt research by persons involved in investment banking, sales and trading or principal trading, and either restrict or prohibit such review, clearance and approval by other non-research personnel other than legal and compliance.
The proposed rule change would require that policies and procedures must restrict or limit input by investment banking, sales and trading and principal trading personnel to ensure that research management independently makes all final decisions regarding the research coverage plan.
One commenter asked FINRA to eliminate as redundant the term “independently” from the provisions permitting non-research personnel to have input into research coverage, so long as research management “independently makes all final decisions regarding the research coverage plan.”
A member's written policies and procedures would also be required, at a minimum, restrict or limit activities by debt research analysts that can reasonably be expected to compromise their objectivity.
The proposed rule change also would prohibit investment banking personnel from directing debt research analysts to engage in sales or marketing efforts related to an investment banking services transaction or any communication with a current or prospective customer about an investment banking services transaction.
One commenter asked that FINRA modify the prohibition on debt analyst attendance at road shows to permit passive participation since there is less opportunity to meet and assess issuer management than in the equity context.
The proposed rule change would require that the policies and procedures prohibit persons engaged in investment banking activities sales and trading or principal trading activities from supervision of debt research analysts.
The proposed rule change would require that the policies and procedures establish information barriers or other institutional safeguards to ensure that debt research analysts are insulated from the review, pressure or oversight by persons engaged in investment banking services, principal trading or sales and trading activities or others who might be biased in their judgment or supervision.
Some commenters suggested that “review” was unnecessary in this provision because the review of debt research analysts was addressed sufficiently in other parts of the proposed rule.
A member's written policies and procedures would also be required to limit the determination of a firm's debt research department budget to senior
With respect to compensation determinations, a member's written policies and procedures would be required to prohibit compensation based on specific investment banking services or trading transactions or contributions to a firm's investment banking or principal trading activities and prohibit investment banking and principal trading personnel from input into the compensation of debt research analysts.
Neither investment banking personnel nor persons engaged in principal trading activities may give input with respect to the compensation determination for debt research analysts. However, sales and trading personnel may give input to debt research management as part of the evaluation process in order to convey customer feedback, provided that final compensation determinations are made by research management, subject to review and approval by the compensation committee.
One commenter requested that the proposal define the terms “principal trading activities,” “principal trading personnel,” and “persons engaged in principal trading activities” to exclude traders who are primarily involved in customer accommodation or customer facilitation trading, such as market makers that trade on a principal basis.
Under the proposed rule change, a member's written policies and procedures would be required to restrict or limit trading by a “debt research analyst account” in securities, derivatives and funds whose performance is materially dependent upon the performance of securities covered by the debt research analyst.
The proposed rule change includes Supplementary Material .10, which would provide that FINRA would not consider a research analyst account to have traded in a manner inconsistent with a research analyst's recommendation where a member has instituted a policy that prohibits any research analyst from holding securities, or options on or derivatives of such securities, of the companies in the research analyst's coverage universe, provided that the member establishes a reasonable plan to liquidate such holdings consistent with the principles in paragraph (b)(2)(J)(i) and such plan is approved by the member's legal or compliance department.
No specific comments were received on this provision.
The proposed rule change would require that the policies and procedures must prohibit direct or indirect
The proposed rule change would establish a proscription with respect to joint due diligence activities—
The proposed rule change would delineate the prohibited and permissible interactions between debt research analysts and sales and trading and principal trading personnel. The proposed rule change would require members to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prohibit sales and trading and principal trading personnel from attempting to influence a debt research analyst's opinions or views for the purpose of benefiting the trading position of the firm, a customer or a class of customers.
The proposed rule change would permit sales and trading and principal trading personnel to communicate customers' interests to a debt research analyst, so long as the debt research analyst does not respond by publishing debt research for the purpose of benefiting the trading position of the firm, a customer or a class of customers.
The proposed rule change clarifies that communications between debt research analysts and sales and trading or principal trading personnel that are not related to sales and trading, principal trading or debt research activities would be permitted to take place without restriction, unless otherwise prohibited.
One commenter asked that FINRA clarify that members that have developed policies and procedures consistent with FINRA Rule 5280 (Trading Ahead of Research Reports) would also be in compliance with the debt proposal's expectation of structural separation between investment banking and debt research, and between sales and trading and principal trading and debt research.
The commenter also asked FINRA to delete the term “attempting” in the proposed Supplementary Material .03(a)(1), the provision which would require members to have policies and procedures reasonably designed to prohibit sales and trading and principal trading personnel from “attempting to influence a debt research analyst's opinion or views for the purpose of benefitting the trading position of the firm, a customer, or a class of customers.”
The commenter further expressed concern that the term “pending” is vague in the above-cited provision.
As explained above, Supplementary Material .03(b)(3) provides that in determining what is consistent with a debt research analyst's published debt research for purposes of sharing certain views with sales and trading and principal trading personnel, members would be permitted to consider the context, including that the investment objectives or time horizons being discussed may differ from those underlying the debt analyst's published views. One commenter asked FINRA to clarify that the standard may be applied
The proposed rule change would apply standards to communications with customers and internal sales personnel. Any written or oral communication by a debt research analyst with a current or prospective customer or internal personnel related to an investment banking services transaction would be required to be fair, balanced and not misleading, taking into consideration the overall context in which the communication is made.
The proposed rule change would, in general, adopt the disclosures in the equity research rule for debt research, with modifications to reflect the different characteristics of the debt market. The proposed rule change would require members to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that purported facts in their debt research reports are based on reliable information.
Consistent with the equity rules, irrespective of the rating system a member employs, a member would be required to disclose, in each debt research report that includes a rating, the percentage of all debt securities rated by the member to which the member would assign a “buy,” “hold” or “sell” rating.
If a debt research report contains a rating for a subject company's debt security and the member has assigned a rating to such debt security for at least one year, the debt research report would be required to show each date on which a member has assigned a rating to the debt security and the rating assigned on such date. This information would be required for the period that the member has assigned any rating to the debt security or for a three-year period, whichever is shorter.
The proposed rule change would require
• If the debt research analyst or a member of the debt research analyst's household has a financial interest in the debt or equity securities of the subject company (including, without limitation, any option, right, warrant, future, long or short position), and the nature of such interest;
• if the debt research analyst has received compensation based upon (among other factors) the member's investment banking, sales and trading or principal trading revenues;
• if the member or any of its affiliates: managed or co-managed a public offering of securities for the subject company in the past 12 months; received compensation for investment banking services from the subject company in the past 12 months; or expects to receive or intends to seek compensation for investment banking services from the subject company in the next three months;
• if, as of the end of the month immediately preceding the date of publication or distribution of a debt research report (or the end of the second most recent month if the publication date is less than 30 calendar days after the end of the most recent month), the member or its affiliates have received from the subject company any compensation for products or services other than investment banking services in the previous 12 months;
• if the subject company is, or over the 12-month period preceding the date of publication or distribution of the debt research report has been, a client of the member, and if so, the types of services provided to the issuer. Such services, if applicable, shall be identified as either investment banking services, non-investment banking securities-related services or non-securities services;
• if the member trades or may trade as principal in the debt securities (or in related derivatives) that are the subject of the debt research report;
• if the debt research analyst received any compensation from the subject company in the previous 12 months; and
• any other material conflict of interest of the debt research analyst or member that the debt research analyst or an associated person of the member with the ability to influence the content of a debt research report knows or has reason to know at the time of the publication or distribution of a debt research report.
The proposed rule change would incorporate a proposed amendment to the corresponding provision in the equity research rules that expands the existing “catch all” disclosure to require disclosure of material conflicts known
The proposed equity research rules include an additional disclosure if the member or its affiliates maintain a significant financial interest in the debt or equity of the subject company, including, at a minimum, if the member or its affiliates beneficially own 1% or more of any class of common equity securities of the subject company. FINRA did not include this provision in the proposed debt research rule because, unlike equity holdings, firms do not typically have systems to track ownership of debt securities.
The proposed rule change would provide that a member would be permitted to satisfy the disclosure requirement with respect to receipt of non-investment banking services compensation by an affiliate by implementing written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the debt research analyst and associated persons of the member with the ability to influence the content of debt research reports from directly or indirectly receiving information from the affiliate as to whether the affiliate received such compensation.
The proposed rule change would adopt from the equity research rules the general exception for disclosure that would reveal material non-public information regarding specific potential future investment banking transactions of the subject company.
Like the equity research rule, the proposed rule change would permit a member that distributes a debt research report covering six or more companies (compendium report) to direct the reader in a clear manner to the applicable disclosures. Electronic compendium reports must include a hyperlink to the required disclosures. Paper-based compendium reports must provide either a toll-free number or a postal address to request the required disclosures and also may include a Web address of the member where the disclosures can be found.
One commenter opposed as overbroad the proposed expansion of the current “catch-all” disclosure requirement to include “any other material conflict of interest of the research analyst or member that a research analyst
One commenter requested confirmation that members may rely on hyperlinked disclosures for research reports that are delivered electronically, even if these reports are subsequently printed out by customers.
One commenter expressed concern about the requirements that a member disclose in retail debt research reports its distribution of all debt security ratings (and the percentage of subject companies in each buy/hold/sell category for which the member has provided investment banking services within the previous 12 months) and historical ratings information on the debt securities that are the subject of the debt research report for a period of three years or the time during which the member has assigned a rating, whichever is shorter.
The same commenter also requested that FINRA allow members to provide a hyperlink or Web address to Web-based disclosures in all debt research reports, rather than requiring the disclosures within a printed report.
The proposed rule change closely parallels the equity research rules with respect to disclosure in public appearances. Under the proposed rule, a debt research analyst would be required to disclose in public appearances:
• If the debt research analyst or a member of the debt research analyst's household has a financial interest in the debt or equity securities of the subject company (including, without limitation, whether it consists of any option, right, warrant, future, long or short position), and the nature of such interest;
• if, to the extent the debt research analyst knows or has reason to know, the member or any affiliate received any compensation from the subject company in the previous 12 months;
• if the debt research analyst received any compensation from the subject company in the previous 12 months;
• if, to the extent the debt research analyst knows or has reason to know, the subject company currently is, or during the 12-month period preceding the date of publication or distribution of the debt research report, was, a client of the member. In such cases, the debt research analyst also must disclose the types of services provided to the subject company, if known by the debt research analyst; or
• any other material conflict of interest of the debt research analyst or member that the debt research analyst knows or has reason to know at the time of the public appearance.
However, a member or debt research analyst would not be required to make any such disclosure to the extent it would reveal material non-public information regarding specific potential future investment banking transactions of the subject company.
The proposed rule change would require members to maintain records of public appearances by debt research analysts sufficient to demonstrate compliance by those debt research analysts with the applicable disclosure requirements for public appearances. Such records would be required to be maintained for at least three years from the date of the public appearance.
No specific comments were received on this provision not already discussed in connection with the disclosures that would be required in research reports.
With respect to both research reports and public appearances, the proposed rule change would require that, in addition to the disclosures required under the proposed rule, members and debt research analysts must comply with all applicable disclosure provisions of FINRA Rule 2210 (Communications with the Public) and the federal securities laws.
The proposed rule change, like the proposed amendments to the equity research rules, would codify an existing interpretation of FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) and provides additional guidance regarding selective—or tiered—dissemination of a firm's debt research reports. The proposed rule change would require firms to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that a debt research report is not distributed selectively to internal trading personnel or a particular customer or class of customers in advance of other customers that the member has previously determined are entitled to receive the debt research report.
One commenter supported the provisions as proposed with general disclosure,
Another commenter expressed concern that the proposal raises issues about the parity of information received by retail and institutional investors, and whether research provided to institutional investors could contain views that differ from those in research to retail investors.
The proposed rule change would incorporate the current standards for third-party equity research, including the distinction between independent and non-independent third-party research with respect to the review and disclosure requirements. In addition, the proposed rule change would adopt an expanded requirement in the proposed equity research rules that requires members to disclose any other material conflict of interest that can reasonably be expected to have influenced the member's choice of a third-party research provider or the subject company of a third-party research report.
No specific comments were received on this provision.
The proposed rule change would clarify the obligations of each associated person under those provisions of the proposed rule that require a member to restrict or prohibit certain conduct by establishing, maintaining and enforcing particular policies and procedures. Specifically, the proposed rule change provides that, consistent with FINRA Rule 0140, persons associated with a
Some commenters suggested FINRA eliminate this language in the supplementary material that provides that the failure of an associated person to comply with the firm's policies and procedures constitutes a violation of the proposed rule itself.
The proposed rule change would exempt members with limited principal trading activity or limited investment banking activity from the review, supervision, budget, and compensation provisions in the proposed rule related to principal trading and investment banking personnel, respectively.
One commenter questioned whether the exemptions could compromise the independence and accuracy of the analysis and opinions provided.
The proposed rule change would exempt debt research provided solely to certain eligible institutional investors from many of the proposed rule's provisions, provided that a member obtains consent from the institutional investor to receive that research and the research reports contain specified disclosure to alert recipients that the reports do not carry the same protections as retail debt research.
One commenter opposed providing any exemption for debt research distributed solely to eligible institutional investors, contending that it would deprive the market's largest participants of the important protections of the proposed rules for retail debt research.
Another commenter supported the proposed tiered approach for how institutional investors may receive research reports.
Another commenter asked that FINRA confirm that, in distributing debt research reports under the institutional debt research framework to certain non-U.S. institutional investors who are customers of a member's non-U.S. broker-dealer affiliate, the member may rely on similar classifications in the non-U.S. institutional investors' home jurisdictions.
The same commenter asked FINRA to clarify the application of the institutional debt research framework to desk analysts or other personnel who are part of the trading desk and are not “research department” personnel. In particular, the commenter suggested that proposed Rules 2242(b)(2)(H) (with respect to pressuring) and (b)(2)(L) should not apply when sales and
The proposed rule change would provide FINRA, pursuant to the FINRA Rule 9600 Series, with authority to conditionally or unconditionally grant, in exceptional and unusual circumstances, an exemption from any requirement of the proposed rule for good cause shown, after taking into account all relevant factors and provided that such exemption is consistent with the purposes of the rule, the protection of investors, and the public interest.
One commenter asked FINRA to consider amending FINRA Rule 2210 to exclude debt research reports from that rule's filing requirements, since there is an exception from the filing requirements for equity research reports that concern only equity securities that trade on an exchange.
Also, one commenter requested that the implementation date be at least 12 months after SEC approval of the proposed rule change and that FINRA sequence the compliance dates of the equity research filing and the proposed rule change in that order.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether the proposals should be approved or disapproved.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is inconsistent with Section 15A(b)(9) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b–4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule changes should be approved or disapproved by March 19, 2015. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 2, 2015.
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.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–FINRA–2014–048. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The ISE proposes to extend a pilot program under Rule 703A(d) that suspends Rule 720 regarding obvious errors during Limit and Straddle States in securities that underlie options traded on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On April 5, 2013,
The Exchange believes the benefits to market participants from this provision should continue on a pilot basis. The Exchange continues to believe that adding certainty to the execution of orders in Limit or Straddle States will encourage market participants to continue to provide liquidity to the Exchange, and, thus, promote a fair and orderly market during these periods. Barring this provision, the obvious error provisions of Rule 720 would likely apply in many instances during Limit and Straddle States. The Exchange believes that continuing the pilot will protect against any unanticipated consequences in the options markets during a Limit or Straddle State. Thus, the Exchange believes that the protections of current rule should continue while the industry gains further experience operating the Plan.
In connection with this proposed extension, each month the Exchange shall provide to the Commission, and the public, a dataset containing the data for each Straddle and Limit State in optionable stocks that had at least one trade on the Exchange. For each trade on the Exchange, the Exchange will provide (a) the stock symbol, option symbol, time at the start of the Straddle or Limit State, an indicator for whether it is a Straddle or Limit State, and (b) for the trades on the Exchange, the executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread, time-weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average quoted depth at the offer, high execution price, low execution price, number of trades for which a request for review for error was received during Straddle and Limit States, an indicator variable for whether those options outlined above have a price change exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's Limit or Straddle State compared to the last available option price as reported by OPRA before the start of the Limit or Straddle State (1 if observe 30% and 0 otherwise), and another indicator variable for whether the option price within five minutes of the underlying stock leaving the Limit or Straddle State (or halt if applicable) is 30% away from the price before the start of the Limit or Straddle State.
In addition, the Exchange will provide to the Commission, and the public, no later than May 29, 2015, assessments relating to the impact of the operation of the obvious error rules during Limit and Straddle States including: (1) An evaluation of the statistical and economic impact of Limit and Straddle States on liquidity and market quality in the options markets, and (2) an assessment of whether the lack of obvious error rules in effect during the Straddle and Limit States are problematic.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange further believes that it is necessary and appropriate in the interest of promoting fair and orderly markets to exclude transactions executed during a Limit or Straddle State from certain aspects of Rule 720. The Exchange believes the application of the current rule will be impracticable given the lack of a reliable national best bid or offer in the options market during Limit and Straddle States, and that the resulting actions (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that, by extending the expiration of the pilot, the proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the pilot and a determination of how the pilot shall be structured in the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
Because the 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 if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the obvious error pilot program to continue uninterrupted while the industry gains further experience operating under the Plan, and avoid any investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 22, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
ICC's proposed rule change would revise the ICC Risk Management Framework to, among other things, incorporate risk model changes related to Recovery Rate Sensitivity Requirements, anti-procyclicality, and ICC's Guaranty Fund allocation methodology. In order to provide the Commission with sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, the Commission finds it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter V, Regulation of Trading on NOM, to extend the pilot program under Section 3(d)(iv), which provides for how the Exchange treats obvious and catastrophic options errors in response to the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the “Limit Up-Limit Down Plan” or the “Plan”).
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.
In April 2013, the Commission approved a proposal, on a one year pilot basis, to adopt Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iv) to provide for how the Exchange will treat obvious and catastrophic options errors in response to the Plan, which is applicable to all NMS stocks, as defined in Regulation NMS Rule 600(b)(47).
The Exchange extended the operation of Chapter V, Section 3(d)(iv), which provides that trades are not subject to an obvious error or catastrophic error review pursuant to Chapter V, Sections 6(b) or 6(f) during a Limit State or
The Exchange believes the benefits to market participants from the pilot program should continue on a pilot basis to coincide with the operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan. The Exchange believes that continuing the pilot will protect against any unanticipated consequences and permit the industry to gain further experience operating the Plan.
The Exchange will conduct an analysis concerning the elimination of obvious and catastrophic error provisions during Limit States and Straddle States and agrees to provide the Commission with relevant data to assess the impact of this proposed rule change. As part of its analysis, the Exchange will: (1) Evaluate the options market quality during Limit States and Straddle States; (2) assess the character of incoming order flow and transactions during Limit States and Straddle States; and (3) review any complaints from members and their customers concerning executions during Limit States and Straddle States. Additionally, the Exchange agrees to provide to the Commission data requested to evaluate the impact of the elimination of the obvious and catastrophic error provisions, including data relevant to assessing the various analyses noted above. By May 29, 2015, the Exchange shall provide to the Commission and the public assessments relating to the impact of the operation of the obvious error rules during Limit and Straddle States as follows:
1. Evaluate the statistical and economic impact of Limit and Straddle States on liquidity and market quality in the options markets.
2. Assess whether the lack of obvious error rules in effect during the Straddle and Limit States are problematic.
Each month the Exchange shall provide to the Commission and the public a dataset containing the data for each Straddle and Limit State in optionable stocks that had at least one trade on the Exchange during a Straddle or Limit State. For each of those options affected, each data record should contain the following information:
• Stock symbol, option symbol, time at the start of the Straddle or Limit State, an indicator for whether it is a Straddle or Limit State,
• For activity on the Exchange:
• Executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread, time-weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average quoted depth at the offer,
• high execution price, low execution price,
• number of trades for which a request for review for error was received during Straddle and Limit States,
• an indicator variable for whether those options outlined above have a price change exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's Limit or Straddle State compared to the last available option price as reported by OPRA before the start of the Limit or Straddle State (1 if observe 30% and 0 otherwise). Another indicator variable for whether the option price within five minutes of the underlying stock leaving the Limit or Straddle State (or halt if applicable) is 30% away from the price before the start of the Limit or Straddle State.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Although the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan is operational, the Exchange believes that maintaining the pilot will help the industry gain further experience operating the Plan as well as the pilot provisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes the benefits to market participants should continue on a pilot basis to coincide with the operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.
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 proposal does not impose an intra-market burden on competition, because it will apply to all members. Nor will the proposal impose a burden on competition among the options exchanges, because, in addition to the vigorous competition for order flow among the options exchanges, the proposal addresses a regulatory situation common to all options exchanges. To the extent that market participants disagree with the particular approach taken by the Exchange herein, market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing venues. The Exchange believes this proposal will not impose a burden on competition and will help provide certainty during periods of extraordinary volatility in an NMS stock.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the 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 if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the obvious error pilot program to continue uninterrupted while the industry gains further experience operating under the Plan, and avoid any investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule under Exchange Rule 7018(a) with respect to transactions in securities priced at $1 or more per share.
The text of the proposed rule change is also 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
The Exchange is proposing to amend BX Rule 7018(a) to provide an additional means by which a member firm may qualify for Tier 1 of the Qualified Market Maker (“QMM”) program. The QMM program provides incentives to Exchange members to improve the market by quoting at certain levels for a minimum time. A QMM is a member firm that makes a significant contribution to market quality by providing liquidity at the national best bid and offer (“NBBO”) in a large number of stocks for a significant portion of the day. The designation reflects the QMM's commitment to provide meaningful and consistent support to market quality and price discovery by extensive quoting at the NBBO in a large number of securities. In return, qualifying members receive a reduced charge for displayed liquidity provided. There are two QMM tiers under Rule 7018(a), which provide different levels of reduced charges for providing displayed liquidity based on the contribution the QMM makes to market quality.
Currently, to qualify for Tier 1 of the QMM program, a member firm must have (i) shares of liquidity provided and (ii) total shares of liquidity accessed and provided in all securities through one or more of its NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System MPIDs that represent more than 0.40% and 0.50%, respectively, of Consolidated Volume.
Under the new Tier 1 qualification standard, a member firm must have (i) shares of liquidity provided and (ii) total shares of liquidity accessed and provided in all securities through one or more of its NASDAQ OMX BX Equities System MPIDs that represent more than 0.20% and 0.30%, respectively, of Consolidated Volume during the month. For a member qualifying under this method, the member must have at least one Qualified MPID, that is, an MPID through which, for at least 200 securities, the QMM quotes at the NBBO an average of at least 50% of the time during regular market hours (9:30 a.m. through 4:00 p.m.) during the month. The member must also provide an average daily volume of 1.5 million shares or more using orders with midpoint pegging during the month. The Exchange notes that the percentages of total shares of liquidity accessed and provided in all securities through its MPIDs is lower than both of the other two Tier 1 standards, and is higher than the related Tier 2 standard, which has no such requirement. In addition, the number of securities that the QMM must quote at the NBBO is lower than one of the Tier 1 standards and the Tier 2 standard, although it is higher than the other Tier 1 standard. Lastly, the amount of time that a member firm must quote at the NBBO in those securities is higher in the proposed new Tier 1 standard, but lower than Tier 2 standard. Unlike all of the current Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards, the new proposed Tier 1 standard requires a member firm to also provide an average daily volume of 1.5 million shares or more using orders with midpoint pegging during the month. The Exchange notes that although displayed orders are generally preferred to non-displayed orders because they assist in price discovery, the use of midpoint orders should also be encouraged through pricing incentives because they provide price improvement. Accordingly, adding an additional requirement that provides an incentive to provide midpoint pegging orders is consistent with the QMM program's goal of improving the market on BX.
The Exchange is implementing the proposed change on February 9, 2015. The calculations of the rule, however, are based on a full month's trading. As such, for the abbreviated first month that the new rule is effective, the Exchange is basing the calculations of the criteria of the new standard on the trading that occurs during the effective date through the end of the month. Otherwise, all member firms would be penalized by the shorter timeframe in which to meet the standard.
BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable because it provides a further incentive to BX member firms to enhance the quality of the market by providing meaningful improvement, to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes that the proposed criteria of the new qualification standard are both reasonable and an equitable allocation because they are comparable to the other two means of qualifying for Tier 1. Although some requirements are lower than those of the current standards, the Exchange has added an additional mid-point pegging requirement, which the Exchange believes makes the new standard as stringent as the existing standards, and more so than the Tier 2 standard. As a consequence, all member firms that qualify under the new standard will receive the benefits of the Tier and those that do qualify under the new standard have provided comparable market improvement as other member firms that qualify under the other standards of Tier 1. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable and an equitable allocation of the fee to consider only Consolidated Volume that accrued during the time that the new Tier 1 standard is effective for the month of February 2015. As noted, the Exchange is implementing the new standard on February 9, 2015. Various criteria under the new standard compare the trading that the member firm does during the month against monthly totals of Consolidated Volume for the full month. Solely for the purpose of calculating eligibility for the abbreviated month of February 2015, the Exchange is only considering the member's activity and Consolidated Volume for the time that the rule is effective on February 9th through the end of the month. The exchange believes that by doing so, all member firms will have the opportunity to qualify under the new standard without penalty for the abbreviated time to reach the levels of trading required by the rule.
Lastly, the Exchange believes that the proposed change further perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by increasing the means by which a member firm may qualify for this beneficial, market improving program. The new standard is based on an alternative mix of market-improving order activity. Accordingly, to the extent that the new standard increases the number of member firms that qualify under the tier, market quality will increase.
The Exchange 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.
In this instance, the addition of the new Tier 1 QMM standard provides an additional means for member firms to improve the market to gain the benefit of the reduced charge for adding displayed liquidity. Member firms are not compelled to participate in the program if they deem the requirements too burdensome to justify the reduced charge. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member firms or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–BX–2015–011. 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.
On December 30, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
NYSE Arca proposes to list and trade Shares of the Fund under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Shares will be offered by SSgA Active ETF Trust (“Trust”), which is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.
The Exchange has made the following representations and statements in describing the Fund and its investment strategy, including the Fund's portfolio holdings and investment restrictions.
The investment objective of the Fund will be to maximize total return. Under normal circumstances,
Under normal circumstances, the Portfolio will invest at least 80% of its net assets in a diversified portfolio of fixed income securities of any credit quality. Fixed income securities in which the Portfolio principally will invest include the following: Securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or its agencies, instrumentalities or sponsored corporations; inflation protected public obligations of the U.S. Treasury (commonly known as “TIPS”); agency and non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”); agency and non-agency commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”); agency and non-agency asset-backed securities (“ABS”);
According to the Exchange, the Portfolio intends to invest at least 20% of its net assets in mortgage-backed securities of any maturity or type guaranteed by, or secured by collateral that is guaranteed by, the U.S. government, its agencies, instrumentalities or sponsored corporations, or in privately issued mortgage-backed securities rated at the time of investment Aa3 or higher by Moody's Investor Service, Inc. (“Moody's”) or AA- or higher by Standard & Poor's Rating Service (“S&P”) or the equivalent by any other nationally recognized statistical rating organization (“NRSRO”) or in unrated securities that are determined by the Adviser to be of comparable quality.
The Portfolio may invest in corporate bonds,
The Portfolio may invest up to 15% of its net assets in securities denominated in foreign currencies, and may invest beyond this limit in U.S. dollar-denominated securities of foreign issuers. The Portfolio may invest up to 25% of its net assets in securities and instruments that are economically tied to emerging market countries.
The Portfolio may invest in U.S. government obligations.
The Portfolio may invest a substantial portion of its assets in U.S. agency mortgage pass-through securities.
The Portfolio may invest in bank loans,
The Portfolio may invest in collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”).
The Sub-Adviser will actively manage the Portfolio's asset class exposure using a top-down approach based on analysis of sector fundamentals. The Sub-Adviser will rotate Portfolio assets among sectors in various markets to attempt to maximize return. Individual securities within asset classes will be selected using a bottom up approach. Under normal circumstances, the Sub-Adviser will use a controlled risk approach in managing the Portfolio's investments. The techniques of this approach attempt to control the principal risk components of the fixed income markets and include consideration of security selection within a given sector; relative performance of the various market sectors; the shape of the yield curve; and fluctuations in the overall level of interest rates.
The Sub-Adviser also will monitor the duration of the securities held by the Portfolio to seek to mitigate exposure to interest rate risk.
The Exchange represents that while the Adviser and Sub-Adviser, under normal circumstances, will invest at
The Fund may (either directly or through its investments in its corresponding Portfolio) invest in money market instruments,
The Portfolio may invest in preferred securities traded on an exchange or over-the-counter (“OTC”).
The Portfolio may invest in exchange-traded products (“ETPs”), which include exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) registered under the 1940 Act; exchange-traded commodity trusts; and exchange-traded notes (“ETNs”).
The Portfolio may invest up to 20% of its net assets in one or more ETPs that are qualified publicly traded partnerships (“QPTPs”) and whose principal activities are the buying and selling of commodities or options, futures, or forwards with respect to commodities.
The Portfolio may invest up to 20% of its assets in derivatives, including exchange-traded futures on Treasuries or Eurodollars; U.S. exchange-traded or OTC put and call options contracts and OTC or exchange-traded swap agreements (including interest rate swaps, total return swaps, excess return swaps, and credit default swaps).
The Portfolio may invest in the securities of other investment companies, including affiliated funds, money market funds, and closed-end funds, subject to applicable limitations under Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act.
The Portfolio may invest in variable and floating rate securities.
The Portfolio may conduct foreign currency transactions on a spot (
The Portfolio may invest in foreign corporate and sovereign bonds originating from issuers in emerging market countries.
The Portfolio may invest in municipal securities,
The Portfolio may invest in repurchase agreements with commercial banks, brokers, or dealers to generate income from its excess cash balances and to invest securities lending cash collateral.
The Portfolio may invest in “Restricted Securities.”
According to the Exchange, in certain situations or market conditions, the Fund may (either directly or through the corresponding Portfolio) temporarily depart from its normal investment policies and strategies, provided that the alternative is consistent with the Fund's investment objective and is in the best interest of the Fund. For example, the Fund may hold a higher than normal proportion of its assets in cash in times of extreme market stress.
The Exchange represents that the Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A Restricted Securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser, consistent with Commission guidance, and repurchase agreements having maturities longer than seven days.
According to the Exchange, the Portfolio and Fund will each be classified as a non-diversified investment company under the 1940 Act. A “non-diversified” classification means that the Portfolio or Fund is not limited by the 1940 Act with regard to the percentage of its assets that may be invested in the securities of a single issuer. This means that the Portfolio or Fund may invest a greater portion of its assets in the securities of a single issuer than a diversified fund. The Portfolio and Fund intend to maintain the required level of diversification and otherwise conduct their operations so as to qualify as a “regulated investment company” for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Portfolio and Fund do not intend to concentrate their investments in any particular industry. The Portfolio and Fund look to the Global Industry Classification Standard Level 3 (Industries) in making industry determinations.
The Exchange represents that the Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act,
The Exchange represents that the intra-day, closing and settlement prices of common stocks and other exchange-traded equity securities (including shares of Depositary Receipts, preferred securities, convertible securities, ETPs, and QPTPs) will be readily available from the national securities exchanges trading such securities as well as automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Intra-day and closing price information for exchange-traded options and futures will be available from the applicable exchange and from major market data vendors. In addition, price information for U.S. exchange-traded options is available from the Options Price Reporting Authority. Quotation information from brokers and dealers or pricing services will be available for fixed income securities, including U.S. government obligations; TIPS; U.S. registered, dollar-denominated bonds of foreign corporations, governments, agencies and supra-national entities; sovereign debt; corporate bonds; asset-backed and commercial mortgage-backed securities; residential mortgage backed securities (either agency or non-agency); CLOs; TBA transactions; municipal securities; inverse floaters and bank loans; and short-term instruments. Price information regarding OTC-traded derivative instruments, including, options, swaps, and spot and forward currency transactions, as well as equity securities traded in the OTC market, including Rule 144A Restricted Securities, OTC-traded preferred securities and OTC-traded convertible securities, is available from major market data vendors. Pricing information regarding each asset class in which the Fund or Portfolio will invest, including investment company securities, Rule 144A Restricted Securities, repurchase agreements, and reverse repurchase agreements will generally be available through nationally recognized data service providers through subscription arrangements. The Fund's Web site will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information.
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or other reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. In addition, trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
The Exchange represents that it has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. The Exchange represents that the Adviser and Sub-Adviser are not registered as broker-dealers and that the Sub-Adviser is not affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Exchange represents, however, that the Adviser is affiliated with a broker-
The Exchange represents that it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has also made the following representations:
(1) The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) Trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws, and these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.
(4) FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, exchange-traded options, common stocks, and other exchange-traded equity securities (including shares of preferred securities, convertible securities, ETPs, certain exchange-traded Depositary Receipts, and QPTPs), and futures, with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and such exchange-traded instruments underlying the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and such exchange-traded instruments underlying the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
(5) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in a Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (i) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (ii) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (iii) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (iv) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (v) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (vi) trading information.
(6) For initial and continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A–3 under the Act,
(7) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A Restricted Securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser, consistent with Commission guidance, and repurchase agreements having maturities longer than seven days.
(8) The Fund will generally seek to invest in corporate bond issuances that have at least $100,000,000 par amount outstanding in developed countries and at least $200,000,000 par amount outstanding in emerging market countries. The Fund will invest in bank loans that are primarily senior loans, including loan participations or assignments whose loan syndication exceeds $300 million.
(9) The Portfolio: (a) May invest up to 20% of its assets in derivatives, including exchange-traded futures on Treasuries or Eurodollars; U.S. exchange-traded or OTC put and call options contracts and OTC or exchange-traded swap agreements (including interest rate swaps, total return swaps, excess return swaps, and credit default swaps); (b) will enter into CDS agreements only with counterparties that meet certain standards of creditworthiness; (c) may invest up to 20% of its net assets in the aggregate in non-agency RMBS, CMBS, and ABS (including CLOs); (d) may invest up to 25% of its net assets in corporate high yield securities; (e) may invest up to 15% of its net assets in securities denominated in foreign currencies, and may invest beyond this limit in U.S. dollar-denominated securities of foreign issuers; (f) may invest up to 25% of its net assets in securities and instruments that are economically tied to emerging market countries; and (g) may invest up to 20% of its net assets in one or more ETPs that are QPTPs and whose principal activities are the buying and selling of commodities or options,
(10) Under normal circumstances, the combined total of corporate, sovereign, non-agency and all other debt rated below investment grade will not exceed 40% of the Fund's net assets. The Sub-Adviser will strive to allocate below investment grade securities broadly by industry and issuer in an attempt to reduce the impact of negative events on an industry or issuer.
(11) Although there is no limit on the percentage of Fund assets that can be used in connection with reverse repurchase agreements, the Portfolio does not expect to engage, under normal circumstances, in reverse repurchase agreements with respect to more than 33
(12) Not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund will be invested in unsponsored ADRs. With the exception of unsponsored ADRs, all equity securities (
(13) A minimum of 100,000 Shares for the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in the Notice, and the Exchange's description of the Fund. The Commission notes that the Fund and the Shares must comply with the requirements of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 to be initially and continuously listed and traded on the Exchange.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to postpone implementation of changes to Rules 4751(h) and 4754(b) relating to the closing process.
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.
NASDAQ is proposing to delay implementation of changes to Rules 4751(h) and 4754(b) relating to the closing process, which are effective but not yet implemented. On December 16, 2014, the Exchange filed an immediately effective filing
The Exchange had originally anticipated implementing the changes in mid-February 2015, after the expiration of the 30 day operative delay provided by Rule 19b–4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of section 6 of the Act, in general, and with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
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.
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)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b–4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
This notice is to inform the public that the Secretary of State determined on February 19, 2015, pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(D) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), (Pub. L. 112–81), as amended, that as of February 19, 2015, each of the following countries: Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sri Lanka, and the United Kingdom have significantly reduced their crude oil purchases from Iran, or have maintained their crude oil purchases from Iran at zero, over the preceding 180-day period.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the ARAC.
The meeting will be held on March 19, 2015, starting at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Arrange oral presentations by March 12, 2015.
The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th floor, MacCracken Conference Room.
Renee Pocius, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267- 5093; fax (202) 267–5075; email
Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a meeting of the ARAC taking place on March 19, 2014, at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
The Agenda includes:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed in the
For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person listed in the
The public must arrange by March 12, 2015 to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to the Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the meeting.
If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under the heading
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and other Federal agencies.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans, that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Smita Deshpande, Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation District 12, Division of Environmental Analysis, 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612, during normal business hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., telephone (949) 724–2245, email
Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) assumed environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
23 U.S.C. 139(
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327, and other Federal agencies.
The FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by Caltrans that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
Smita Deshpande, Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation District 12, Division of Environmental Analysis, 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612, during normal business hours from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., telephone (949) 724–2245, email
Effective July 1, 2007, the FHWA assigned, and the Caltrans assumed environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that Caltrans has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to
1. General: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4351).
2. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401–7671 (q)).
3. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703–712).
4. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470(f)
5. Clean Water Act (Section 401) (33 U.S.C. 1251–1377).
6. Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531–1543).
7. Executive Order 11990—Protection of Wetlands.
8. Executive Order 11988—Floodplain Management.
9. Executive Order 12898—Environmental Justice.
10. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303).
11. Executive Order 13112—Invasive Species.
23 U.S.C. 139(
Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F—
B&M has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) there is no overhead traffic on the Line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending before the Surface Transportation Board or any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of a complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) to subsidize continued rail service has been received, this exemption will become effective on March 28, 2015 (50 days after the filing of the exemption), unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues and formal expressions of intent to file an OFA to subsidize continued rail service under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to B&M's representative: Robert B. Burns, Esq., Pan Am Railways, 1700 Iron Horse Park, Billerica, MA 01862.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.
Comments should be received on or before March 30, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927–5331, email at
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Under the PRA, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC 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 OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection
You should submit written comments by: April 27, 2015.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557–0243, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by electronic mail to
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 649–5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649–5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is requesting extension of OMB approval for this collection. There have been no changes to the requirements of the regulations.
The Registry is intended to aggregate and improve the flow of information to and between regulators; provide increased accountability and tracking of mortgage loan originators; enhance consumer protections; reduce fraud in the residential mortgage loan origination process; and provide consumers with easily accessible information at no charge regarding the employment history of, and the publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions against, MLOs.
Twelve CFR 1007.103(a) generally requires an MLO of an Agency-regulated Institution to register with the Registry, maintain such registration, and obtain a unique identifier. Under § 1007.103(b), an Agency-regulated Institution must require each such registration to be renewed annually and updated within 30 days of the occurrence of specified events. Section 1007.103(d) sets forth the categories of information that an employee, or the employing institution on the employee's behalf, must submit to the Registry, along with the employee's attestation as to the correctness of the information supplied and an authorization to obtain further information.
Section 1007.105(b) requires an MLO to provide the unique identifier to a consumer upon request.
Section 1007.103(e) specifies the institution and employee information that an institution must submit to the Registry in connection with the initial registration of one or more MLOs, and thereafter update.
Section 1007.105(a) requires the institution to make the unique identifier of MLOs available to consumers in a manner and method practicable to the institution.
• Section 1007.103(d)(1)(xii) requires the collection of MLO fingerprints.
• Section 1007.104 requires an institution employing MLOs to:
○ Adopt and follow written policies and procedures, at a minimum addressing certain specified areas, but otherwise appropriate to the nature, size, and complexity of their mortgage lending activities;
○ Establish reasonable procedures and tracking systems for monitoring registration compliance; and
○ Establish a process for, and maintain records related to, employee criminal history background reports and actions taken with respect thereto.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized, included in the request for OMB approval, and become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.