Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Justice Programs Office
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
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.
Office of the Secretary and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Interim rule.
This rule amends the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations that specify the conservation compliance requirements that participants in USDA programs must meet to be eligible for certain USDA benefits. The USDA benefits to which conservation compliance requirements currently apply include marketing assistance loans, farm storage facility loans, and payments under commodity, disaster, and conservation programs. The conservation compliance requirements apply to land that is either highly erodible land (HEL) or that is wetlands. This rule amends the regulations to implement the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) provisions that: make the eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy benefits subject to conservation compliance requirements; and convert the wetland mitigation banking pilot to a program and authorizes $ 10 million for the Secretary to operate a wetland mitigation banking program. This rule specifies the conservation compliance requirements, exemptions, and deadlines that apply in determining eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy from the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC). This rule also modifies easement provisions relating to mitigation banks as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill, and clarifies provisions regarding the extent of agency discretion with respect to certain violations.
Effective date: April 24, 2015.
Date to certify compliance for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for 2016 reinsurance year: June 1, 2015.
We invite you to submit comments on this interim rule. In your comment, include the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) and the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
Comments will be available online at
Daniel McGlynn; telephone: (202) 720 7641. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720–2600.
The conservation compliance provisions in the current regulations at 7 CFR part 12 were originally authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99–198, referred to as the 1985 Farm Bill). Generally, the regulations specify that a person is ineligible for certain USDA benefits if they undertake certain activities relating to HEL and wetlands, specifically those involving planting agricultural commodities on HEL or a wetland, or converting a wetland for agricultural purposes.
HEL is cropland, hayland or pasture that can erode at excessive rates. As specified in § 12.21, soil map units and the erodibility index are used as the basis for identifying HEL. The erodibility index is a numerical value that expresses the potential erodibility of a soil in relation to its soil loss tolerance value without consideration of applied conservation practices or management. A field is identified as highly erodible if it contains a critical amount of soil map units with an erodibility index of eight or more. If a producer has a field identified as HEL, that producer is required to maintain a conservation system of practices that keeps erosion rates at a substantial reduction of soil loss in order to receive certain USDA benefits. Additional information can be found at
A “wetland” is an area that has a predominance of wet soils; is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of water tolerant vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and under normal circumstances supports a prevalence of such vegetation.
The major difference between the prior regulations for conservation compliance in 7 CFR part 12 and this rule is that persons who seek eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy must comply with the conservation compliance requirements as specified in this rule. Many persons who obtain Federal crop insurance already receive benefits from other USDA programs, for example, FSA programs that also require compliance with the conservation compliance rules. Therefore, this new requirement will only be a change for those persons who will be required to comply with the conservation compliance rules for the first time because of the 2014 Farm Bill.
The amendments made by section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill to the conservation compliance rules only apply to eligibility for FCIC paid premium subsidy. In addition, the time between the final determination of a violation and the loss of eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy is different from the other conservation compliance rules as described below. Therefore, while a violation of conservation compliance rules may not trigger an immediate loss of Federal crop insurance premium
This interim rule amends the conservation compliance regulations in 7 CFR part 12 to:
(1) Implement 2014 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 113–79) provisions that make the eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies subject to conservation compliance provisions;
(2) Modify easement provisions relating to mitigation banks as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill; and
(3) Clarify provisions regarding the extent of agency discretion with respect to certain violations.
This rule also implements sections 2609 and 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill which amend provisions related to wetland mitigation banking and clarifies provisions regarding the extent of agency discretion with respect to certain violations. The provisions in this rule apply to all actions taken after February 7, 2014 (the date of enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill) by persons participating in USDA's crop insurance program.
FSA handles conservation compliance administrative functions, while technical determinations regarding HEL and wetlands are made by NRCS. The 2014 Farm Bill extends conservation compliance requirements to the eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy. Federal crop insurance is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524). The Federal crop insurance program is administered by the Risk Management Agency (RMA) on behalf of FCIC. Persons can obtain Federally subsidized crop insurance from Approved Insurance Providers (AIP), which are approved by RMA, on behalf of FCIC, to sell and service Federal crop insurance policies. The Federal crop insurance policies issued by these AIP are reinsured by FCIC in accordance with the FCIA. The FCIA also authorizes FCIC to subsidize Federal crop insurance premiums charged for the coverage provided by the Federal crop insurance policies reinsured by FCIC.
FCIC published an interim rule on July 1, 2014, (79 FR 37155–37166) that amended the Federal crop insurance regulations to implement the same conservation compliance provisions from section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill as this rule in 7 CFR parts 400, 402, 407, and 457. This rule is needed to make conforming changes to the general USDA regulations in 7 CFR part 12 that apply to programs from multiple USDA agencies.
Section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill links conservation compliance to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies paid by FCIC. Section 2611 provides exemptions and extended deadlines for certain persons to achieve compliance.
Persons who have not participated in, and were not affiliated with any person who participated in, any USDA program for which conservation compliance was a requirement will have additional time to develop and comply with an NRCS approved conservation plan for HEL. Section 2611(a)(2)(C) of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that persons who are subject to the HEL conservation requirements for the first time solely because of the linkage of conservation compliance to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy will have 5 reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.
The beginning of the 5 reinsurance year period depends on whether a HEL determination was made on any of the land in the person's farming operation and whether administrative appeal rights have been exhausted for that determination. The 5 reinsurance year period begins:
• For persons who have no land with an NRCS HEL determination, the 5 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date NRCS makes a HEL determination and the person exhausts all their administrative appeals.
• For persons who have any land for which a NRCS HEL determination has been made and all administrative appeals have been exhausted, the 5 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date the person certifies compliance with FSA to be eligible for USDA benefits subject to the conservation compliance provisions.
Any affiliated person of a person requesting benefits that are subject to HEL and wetland conservation provisions must also be in compliance with those provisions. Such affiliated persons must also file a Form AD–1026 if the affiliated person has a separate farming interest. “Affiliated persons” include, with some exceptions, the spouse and minor child of the person; the partnership, joint venture, or other enterprise in which the person, spouse, or minor child of the person has an ownership interest or financial interest; and a trust in which the individual, business enterprise, or any person, spouse, or minor child is a beneficiary or has a financial interest. In the case of a violation, the offending person and affiliated persons such as spouses and entities in which the offending person has an interest will lose benefits at all their farming operation locations, not just the locale of the violation.
In addition to the time lags and deadlines applicable to initial compliance with this new conservation compliance requirement, there are exemptions and reasonable timeframes to comply for later conservation compliance issues. The exemptions and timelines described below apply only to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies, and not compliance requirements for other USDA programs. As specified in the 2014 Farm Bill and in this rule, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy because of a conservation compliance violation, whether associated with HEL or wetlands, will apply to reinsurance years after the date of a final determination of a violation, including all administrative appeals. Reinsurance years start on July 1 of any given year and end the following June 30. As an example, suppose that USDA determines that a violation occurred during the 2017 calendar year, and the determination is final, including all administrative appeals, on November 15, 2017, which is during the 2018 reinsurance year. The person will be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy no earlier than the 2019 reinsurance year, which begins on July 1, 2018, and will remain ineligible until the violation is remedied. The person will remain eligible for a premium subsidy on any policies with a sales closing date before July 1, 2018.
In the case of wetland conservation requirements, as noted earlier, ineligibility for premium subsidy due to a violation of the wetland conservation provisions will be limited to wetland conservation violations that occur after February 7, 2014, and for which a final determination has been made and administrative appeals have been exhausted. The 2014 Farm Bill also provides a limited exemption for wetland conservation violations that occur after February 7, 2014, but before Federal crop insurance for an agricultural commodity becomes available to the person for the first time. This exemption provides up to 2 reinsurance years to mitigate such
A person that is subject to wetland conservation provisions for the first time as a result of the 2014 Farm Bill will have 2 reinsurance years after the reinsurance year in which the final determination of violation is made, including all administrative appeals, to initiate a mitigation plan to remedy or mitigate the violation before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.
Persons not subject to the wetland conservation provisions for the first time as a result of the 2014 Farm Bill will have 1 reinsurance year after the reinsurance year in which the final determination of violation is made, including all administrative appeals, to initiate a mitigation plan to remedy or mitigate the violation before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.
Persons determined ineligible for premium subsidy paid by FCIC for a reinsurance year will be ineligible for a premium subsidy on all their policies and plans of insurance, unless the specific exemptions apply.
The 2014 Farm Bill included tenant relief provisions applicable to the wetland conservation provisions, but only for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill amendments made the HEL tenant relief provisions applicable to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. In both cases, the tenant relief provisions provide that the Secretary may limit ineligibility only to the farm that is the basis for the ineligibility. Federal crop insurance policies under FCIA are constructed on the basis of persons, counties, and units, which may include multiple farms. Although the 2014 Farm Bill used the word “farm,” FCIC does not allow for differing terms of insurance on a “farm” basis, and therefore, does not provide premium subsides on such basis. Therefore, with regard to Federal crop insurance premium subsidy, application of the tenant relief provisions will be achieved through a prorated reduction of premium subsidy on all of a person's policies and plans of insurance. Specifically, a tenant's or sharecropper's premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance will be reduced, in lieu of ineligibility for all premium subsidy, when the tenant or sharecropper made a good faith effort to comply with the conservation compliance provisions, the owner of the farm refuses to allow the tenant or sharecropper to comply with the provisions, FSA determines there is no scheme or device, and the tenant or sharecropper complies with the provisions that are under their control. The reduction in premium subsidy will be determined by comparing the total number of cropland acres on the farm on which the violation occurs to the total number of cropland acres on all farms in the nation in which the tenant or sharecropper has an interest. The farms and cropland acres used to determine the reduction percentage will be the farms and cropland acres of the tenant or sharecropper for the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible. The percentage reduction will be applied to all policies and plans of insurance of the tenant or sharecropper in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible. A landlord's premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance will be prorated in the same manner when the landlord is determined in violation because of the actions or inactions of their tenant or sharecropper.
Persons who were subject to HEL conservation requirements in the past because they participated in USDA programs, stopped participating in those programs before February 7, 2014, but would have been in violation of the HEL requirements had they continued participation in such programs after February 7, 2014, have 2 reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. The 2 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date the person certifies compliance with FSA to be eligible for USDA benefits subject to the conservation compliance provisions.
For some wetland conversions that impact less than 5 acres on the entire farm, a person may regain eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy by making a payment equal to 150 percent of the cost of mitigation of the converted wetland in lieu of restoring or mitigating the lost wetland functions and values. The applicability of this exemption is at the discretion and approval of NRCS and the funds will be deposited in an account to be used later for wetland restoration. This exception is in lieu of the mitigation actions that a person would otherwise be required to conduct to restore the lost wetland functions and values of the converted wetland. While it provides flexibility to a person for how to remedy a small acreage violation, the text of the exception indicates that the intention of the 2014 Farm Bill is to limit the scope of its availability, specifying that it applies to any violation that “impacts less than 5 acres of the entire farm.” To ensure that this exception can be appropriately tracked and limit the potential for its abuse, the regulation specifies that a person is limited to only one exemption per farm. This is a discretionary change USDA is making to ensure the integrity of the intention that it impacts less than 5 acres of the entire farm and not just 5 acres per occurrence, which could add up to impacting much more than the intended 5 acres. Additionally, USDA clarifies in the regulation that the payment to the fund is not refundable, even if the person subsequently restores the wetland that had been converted. This exemption applies only to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.
For wetland conservation violations, if the person acted in good faith and without intent to commit the violation, FSA may waive the ineligibility provisions for 2 reinsurance years to allow the person to remedy or mitigate the converted wetland.
As required by section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill, all persons seeking eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy must have on file a certification of compliance (AD–1026) at the local FSA office.
For the 2016 and every subsequent reinsurance year, the deadline to file a Form AD–1026 is June 1 prior to the reinsurance year. Outreach and informational materials for the 2016 reinsurance year will include information on how to contact the local FSA office. Persons must have a Form AD–1026 on file with FSA on or before the June 1 prior to the beginning of a given reinsurance year (which begins on July 1). A person will have until the first applicable crop insurance sales closing date to provide the information for a Form AD–1026 if the person either is unable to file a Form AD–1026 by June 1 due to circumstances beyond the person's control, or the person in good faith filed a Form AD–1026 and FSA subsequently determined that additional information is needed but the person is unable to comply by July 1 due to
On Form AD–1026, persons self-certify compliance with HEL and wetland conservation requirements. If the person indicates on the form that they have conducted an activity that might lead to a violation, such as creating new drainage systems, land leveling, filling, dredging, land clearing, excavation, or stump removal since 1985 on their land, they will be asked for additional information that will be forwarded to NRCS for evaluation. If NRCS fails to complete an evaluation of the person's Form AD–1026, or successor form in a timely manner after all documentation has been provided to NRCS, the person will not be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance for a violation that occurred prior to NRCS completing the evaluation.
Failure to timely file a Form AD–1026 will result in ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for the entire reinsurance year, unless the person can demonstrate they began farming for the first time after June 1 but prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year. For example, a person who started farming for the first time on June 15, 2015, will be eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for the 2016 reinsurance year without a Form AD–1026 on file with FSA. However, in that case, the person must file Form AD–1026 with FSA on or before June 1, 2016 to be eligible for premium subsidy for the 2017 reinsurance year.
Failure to notify USDA and revise the Form AD–1026 when required may result in assessment of a monetary penalty, as determined by NRCS, but the penalty will never exceed the total amount of Federal crop insurance premium subsidy paid by FCIC for the person on all policies and plans of insurance for all years the person is determined to have been in violation. The monetary penalty is assessed for wetland conservation compliance only.
USDA Service Centers will provide additional information and assistance to persons in meeting compliance requirements. USDA will determine a person's eligibility for premium subsidy paid by FCIC at a time that is as close to the beginning of the next reinsurance year (July 1) as practical. The determination will be based on FSA and NRCS determinations regarding conservation compliance. For example, a person who has a determination of ineligibility that is final on June 1, 2015, (2015 reinsurance year) will, unless otherwise exempted, be ineligible for premium subsidy effective July 1, 2015, the start of the 2016 reinsurance year, and will not be eligible for any premium subsidy for any policies or plans of insurance during the 2016 reinsurance year. Even if the person becomes compliant during the 2016 reinsurance year, the person will not be eligible for premium subsidy until the 2017 reinsurance year, starting on July 1, 2016.
For acts or situations of non-compliance or failure to certify compliance according to this part, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies will be applied beginning with the 2016 reinsurance year for any Federally reinsured policy or plan of insurance with a sales closing date on or after July 1, 2015.
The rule also implements section 2609 of the 2014 Farm Bill, which amends provisions related to wetland mitigation banking. Wetland mitigation banking is a form of environmental market trading where wetlands are created, enhanced, or restored to create marketable wetland credits (acres and functions). The 1985 Farm Bill, the Clean Water Act, and some State wetland laws specify that negative impacts to existing wetlands can be mitigated by providing restored, enhanced, or created wetlands as compensation for the losses. The replacement of impacted wetlands with new wetlands is called wetland mitigation. Wetland mitigation banking is a type of wetland mitigation where wetlands are created, enhanced, or restored prior to impacts and the wetlands are sold to those required to compensate for the impacts. These credits are sold to others as compensation for unavoidable wetland impacts. For more information on the existing wetlands mitigation banking program, see
As specified in the current regulations, persons may maintain their payment eligibility for most USDA benefits if the wetland values, acreage, and functions of any wetland conversion activity are adequately mitigated, as determined by NRCS, through the restoration of a converted wetland, the enhancement of an existing wetland, or the creation of a new wetland. However, agricultural mitigation options are limited, and, to date, mitigation banks are not abundant nor are they readily accessible. Section 2609 of the 2014 Farm Bill provides $10 million of the USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation funds to operate a mitigation banking program and allows USDA to have third parties hold the wetland mitigation easements, rather than USDA itself.
NRCS is modifying the mitigation bank provisions in this rule to clarify who may hold title to wetland mitigation easements under the wetland conservation provisions. The existing regulations require that the person grant an easement to USDA to protect the wetland that is providing the mitigation of wetland functions and benefits. Section 2609 of the 2014 Farm Bill specifies that USDA is no longer required to hold the easements in a mitigation bank. Therefore, this rule amends 7 CFR 12.5 to authorize other qualifying entities, which are recognized by USDA, to hold mitigation banking easements granted by a person who wishes to maintain payment eligibility under the wetland conservation provision, and remove the requirement that an easement be granted to USDA for mitigation sites when part of a mitigation banking program that is operated by USDA.
To encourage the development of mitigation banks, USDA will implement a prioritized and competitive mitigation banking program through an Announcement of Program Funding that focuses on agricultural wetlands. Application selection criteria will emphasize areas with the greatest opportunities for using wetland banking mitigation for agricultural purposes.
This rule updates the general applicability section by removing unneeded references. Regulation changes in this rule do not affect past obligations and liabilities. Reference to certain former territories of the United States are removed because they were covered by 1985 Farm Bill provisions as trust territories only and no longer have that status.
This rule also makes a minor revision to the ineligibility determination for wetland conservation violations to make the regulation consistent with the statutory requirement; the change is to clarify the limited circumstances for which partial ineligibility may apply instead of complete ineligibility. Section 1221(b) of the 1985 Farm Bill (16 U.S.C. 3821) allows the Secretary to determine whether all or a part of a person's
A section with obsolete information on information collection requirements is removed.
In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the
The primary purpose of this rule is to revise USDA conservation compliance regulations to incorporate the 2014 Farm Bill provisions that make persons receiving Federal crop insurance premium subsidies subject to conservation compliance requirements. As noted above, FCIC published an interim rule on July 1, 2014, that amended Federal crop insurance regulations to implement this provision from section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill. This rule is making conforming changes to the general USDA regulations in 7 CFR part 12 that apply to programs from multiple USDA agencies.
The amendments made by section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill, and included in this rule, extend the existing conservation compliance requirements to apply to FCIC premium subsidy recipients. Section 2611 does not include any changes to the existing requirements for conservation compliance (often referred to as “Sodbuster” and “Swampbuster”) specified in the 1985 Farm Bill and in 16 U.S.C. 3801–3824, the definition of HEL, the Wetland Conservation Program, or other conservation programs. However, in the context of making the regulatory changes required by section 2611, we are requesting comments on specific changes USDA could consider making.
For example, all persons who produce agricultural commodities are required to protect all cropland classified as HEL from excessive erosion as a condition of eligibility for USDA programs. On lands which have a cropping history prior to December 23, 1985, compliance conservation systems must result in a “substantial reduction” in soil erosion. On lands converted to crop production after December 23, 1985, compliance conservation systems must result in “no substantial increase” in soil erosion. USDA has a goal of working with farmers to help them stay in compliance or bring them into compliance through progressive planning and implementation. We welcome comments on what additional steps USDA could take to achieve these goals. Agricultural production techniques have changed significantly since the passage of the 1985 Farm Bill. While conservation systems provide a substantial reduction in soil erosion, are there additional conservation activities that USDA could consider to ensure that agricultural production and soil erosion reduction goals from HEL soils are met?
As another example, since December 23, 1985, the “Swampbuster” provision helps preserve the environmental functions and values of wetlands, including flood control, sediment control, groundwater recharge, water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and esthetics. Agricultural production techniques have changed significantly since the passage of the 1985 Farm Bill. Are there additional steps USDA should consider to ensure these benefits for wetlands are retained?
In your comments, please suggest specific alternatives and provide data, if available, for the suggestion as it relates to the goals of conservation compliance. Specifically, USDA requests comments on the following questions:
• What information could USDA collect to simplify the conservation compliance process, expedite determinations, and allow the USDA to identify more complex determination requests to evaluate first?
• What information could USDA reasonably collect that would provide more information on derived conservation benefits from conservation compliance activities? What would be the burden of collecting that information?
• With the addition of new persons being subject to conservation compliance requirements, how should USDA prioritize the evaluation of the submitted Form AD–1026 information?
USDA is also requesting comments on conservation compliance for the retrospective review of regulations initiative. In accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” and Executive Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens,” USDA continues to review its existing regulations as well as its methods for gathering information. This evaluation helps USDA to measure its effectiveness in implementing its regulations. The review will continue to focus on:
• Identifying whether information technology can be used to replace paper submissions with electronic submissions;
• Streamlining or redesigning existing information collecting methods in order
• Reducing duplication through increased data sharing and harmonizing programs that have similar regulatory requirements; and
• Providing increased regulatory flexibility to achieve desired program outcomes and save money.
Please provide information on these issues in your comment as specified in the
• Explain your views as clearly as possible.
• Describe any assumptions that you used.
• Provide any technical information and data on which you based your views.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your points.
• Offer specific alternatives to the current regulations or policies and indicate the source of necessary data, the estimated cost of obtaining the data, and how the data can be verified.
• Submit your comments to be received by FSA by the comment period deadline.
The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides generally that before rules are issued by Government agencies, the rule is required to be published in the
Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and, therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. A summary of the cost-benefit analysis of this rule is provided below and the full cost benefit analysis is available on regulations.gov.
Estimated costs to persons and the government through 2020 are expected to be between $55 million and $86.5 million for the conservation compliance requirements and $10 million for the wetlands mitigation banking that reflects new authority to operate or work with third parties to operate a wetland mitigation banking program. These are the total costs, not annual costs. While the $10 million may increase wetland mitigation bank activity, the negligible amount in the agricultural context to date makes it impossible to estimate the impact this will have on conservation compliance costs.
Implementing the 2014 Farm Bill provisions for conservation compliance is expected to result in benefits of extending HEL and wetland conservation provisions to up to 1.5 million acres of HEL and 1.1 million acres of wetlands, which could reduce soil erosion, enhance water quality, and create wildlife habitat.
For the conservation compliance requirements, given that most persons who have Federal crop insurance are already subject to conservation compliance due to participation in other USDA programs, the benefits as a whole are expected to extend HEL and wetland conservation provisions to up to 1.5 million acres of HEL and 1.1 million acres of wetlands and could reduce soil erosion, enhance water quality, and create wildlife habitat. Ecological benefits could be measurable on individual properties if those properties were not previously subject to conservation compliance and were not in compliance, which is not expected to be common. We estimate that between 16,000 and 25,000 persons or entities will be impacted by the expanded requirements, and that slightly less than a third of those producers will need a conservation plan.
The conservation compliance provisions have been in place since 1985, and the interim rule will not impose any new compliance costs on persons that were already in compliance. There will be increased training and staffing costs associated with ensuring that NRCS staff conduct HEL and wetland determinations correctly for persons who receive subsidy premiums for Federal crop insurance. Government costs for making wetlands and HEL determinations, developing conservation plans for producers, providing technical assistance, and providing financial assistance with implementation costs for conservation practices, are expected to total between $19.7 million and $30.9 million between 2015 and 2020. Producers' costs for implementing conservation practices to achieve compliance are estimated at between $35.3 million and $55.5 million between 2015 and 2020, for a one-time overall cost to the government and to producers combined of $55 million to $86.5 million.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule whenever an agency is required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law to publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. All conservation compliance eligibility requirements are the same for all persons regardless of the size of their farming operation. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the Secretary of Agriculture and FSA are not required by any law to publish a proposed rule for this rulemaking initiative.
The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799). The 2014 Farm Bill mandates the expansion of current conservation compliance requirements to apply to persons who obtain subsidized Federal crop insurance under FCIA and it slightly modifies the existing wetlands “Mitigation Banking” program to remove the requirement that USDA hold easements in the mitigation program. These are mandatory provisions and USDA does not have discretion over whether or not they are implemented. We have determined that the limited discretion in the way in which the mandatory provisions can be implemented are administrative clarifications of aspects that were not
Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal Financial assistance and direct Federal development. This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published in the
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The rule has retroactive effect in that the provisions in this rule apply to all actions taken after February 7, 2014, (the date of enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill) by USDA program participants. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11, 614, and 780 must be exhausted.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
USDA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA, NRCS, or RMA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104–4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Agencies generally need to prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104–4). In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
This rule has a potential impact on participants for many programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance in the Agency Program Index under the Department of Agriculture.
Section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that regulations issued under Title II—Conservation are exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
USDA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Crop insurance, Flood plains, Loan programs—agriculture, Price support programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Soil conservation.
For the reasons explained above, USDA amends 7 CFR part 12 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 3801, 3811–12, 3812a, 3813–3814, and 3821–3824.
(a) * * *
(a) The provisions of this part apply to all land, including Indian tribal land,
(b) The rules in this part are applicable to all current and future determinations on matters within the scope of this part. Nothing in these rules relieves any person of any liability under previous versions of these rules.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, for the purpose of eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524), the provisions of this part apply to final HEL and wetland conservation determinations, including all administrative appeals, after February 7, 2014, on matters within the scope of this part.
(1) For acts or situations of non-compliance or failure to certify compliance according to this part, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies will be applied beginning with the 2016 reinsurance year for any Federally reinsured policy or plan of insurance with a sales closing date on or after July 1, 2015.
(2) [Reserved]
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) Contract payments, marketing assistance loans, and any type of price support or payment made available under the Agricultural Act of 2014, the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c), or successor Acts.
(6) Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance offered under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524).
The revision and additions read as follows:
(a)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a determination of ineligibility for benefits in accordance with the provisions of this part will be made by the agency of USDA to which the person has applied for benefits. All determinations required to be made under the provisions of this part will be made by the agency responsible for making such determinations, as provided in this section.
(2) Eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies will be based on final determinations, including all administrative appeals, made by NRCS and FSA. Neither RMA, FCIC, approved insurance providers, or any employee, agent, or contractors thereof, will make any determination regarding compliance with the highly erodible land or wetland provisions of this part, unless specifically provided for in § 12.13.
(c) * * *
(10) NRCS will operate a program or work with third parties to establish mitigation banks to assist persons in complying with §§ 12.4(c) and 12.5(b)(4). Persons will be able to access mitigation banks established or approved through this program without requiring the Secretary to hold an easement in a mitigation bank.
(f)
(1) Eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies will be based on the person's:
(i) Accurate and timely filing of a certification of compliance (Form AD–1026 or successor form) with the conservation compliance provisions; and
(ii) Compliance with the conservation compliance provisions.
(2) Ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies due to violations of the conservation compliance provisions will be based on final determinations, including all administrative appeals, made by NRCS and FSA as provided in this part.
(3) Neither RMA nor FCIC will make any determination of eligibility regarding compliance with the highly erodible land or wetland provisions in this part, unless specifically provided for in § 12.13.
(4) RMA will provide the applicable information regarding determinations made by NRCS and FSA to the appropriate approved insurance providers to ensure those determinations affecting Federal crop insurance premium subsidy eligibility are implemented according to this part.
(g)
(1) Make any determination of eligibility regarding compliance with the highly erodible land or wetland provisions of this part; or
(2) Be responsible or liable for a person's eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy under this part, except in cases of fraud, misrepresentation, or scheme and device by the approved insurance provider or any employee, agent, or contractor thereof.
The revision reads as follows:
(d)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(a)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the ineligibility of a tenant or sharecropper for:
(i) Program benefits (as specified in § 12.4) except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section will not cause a landlord to be ineligible for USDA program benefits accruing with respect to land other than those in which the tenant or sharecropper has an interest; and
(ii) Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524) will, in lieu of ineligibility for premium subsidy, result in a reduction in the amount of premium subsidy paid by FCIC on all policies and plans of insurance for the landlord.
(A) The percentage reduction will be determined by comparing the total number of cropland acres on the farm on which the violation occurred to the total number of cropland acres on all farms in which landlord has an interest, as determined by FSA.
(B) The farms and cropland acres used to determine the premium subsidy reduction percentage will be the farms and cropland acres of the landlord for the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.
(C) The percentage reduction will be applied to all policies and plans of insurance of the landlord in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.
(D) If the landlord and tenant or sharecropper are insured under the same policy, the landlord will be ineligible for premium subsidy on that policy in lieu of a percentage reduction on that policy.
(2) If the production of an agricultural commodity on highly erodible land or converted wetland by the landlord's tenant or sharecropper is required under the terms and conditions of the agreement between the landlord and such tenant or sharecropper and such agreement was entered into after December 23, 1985, or if the landlord has acquiesced in such activities by the tenant or sharecropper:
(i) The provisions of paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section will not be applicable to a landlord; and
(ii) A landlord will be ineligible for premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.
(b)
(1) If all of the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met:
(i) The ineligibility of a tenant or sharecropper, except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, may be limited to the program benefits listed in § 12.4(b) accruing with respect to only the farm on which the violation occurred; and
(ii) In lieu of ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for all policies or plans of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524), the premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance of the ineligible tenant or sharecropper will be reduced.
(A) The percentage reduction will be determined by comparing the total number of cropland acres on the farm on which the violation occurred to the total number of cropland acres on all farms in which tenant or sharecropper has an interest, as determined by FSA.
(B) The farms and cropland acres used to determine the premium subsidy reduction percentage will be the farms and cropland acres of the tenant or sharecropper for the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.
(C) The percentage reduction will be applied to all policies and plans of insurance of the tenant or sharecropper in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.
(D) If the landlord and tenant or sharecropper are insured under the same policy, the tenant or sharecropper will be ineligible for premium subsidy on that policy in lieu of a percentage reduction on that policy.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section will not apply unless all the following are met:
(i) The tenant or sharecropper shows that a good-faith effort was made to comply by developing an approved conservation plan for the highly erodible land in a timely manner and prior to any violation of the provisions of this part;
(ii) The owner of such farm refuses to apply such a plan and prevents the tenant or sharecropper from implementing certain practices that are a part of the approved conservation plan; and
(iii) FSA determines that the lack of compliance is not a part of a scheme or device as described in § 12.10.
(a)
(b)
(1) A Form AD–1026, or successor form, for the person must be on file with FSA on or before June 1 prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year (July 1) in order for the person to be eligible for any Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for the reinsurance year. Failure to file Form AD–1026, or successor form, with FSA on or before June 1 prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year (July 1) will result in ineligibility for premium subsidies for the entirety of that reinsurance year.
(2) A person will have until the first applicable crop insurance sales closing date to provide information necessary
(i) Is unable to file a Form AD–1026 by June 1 due to circumstances beyond the person's control, as determined by FSA; or
(ii) Files a Form AD–1026 by June 1 in good faith and FSA subsequently determines that additional information is needed, but the person is unable to comply by July 1 due to circumstances beyond the control of the person.
(3) A person who does not have Form AD–1026, or successor form, on file with FSA on or before June 1 prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year may be eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for the subsequent reinsurance year if the person can demonstrate they began farming for the first time after June 1 but prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year (July 1). For example, a person who started farming for the first time on June 15, 2015, will be eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for the 2016 reinsurance year without a Form AD–1026 on file with FSA. However, in that case, the person must file Form AD–1026 with FSA on or before June 1, 2016 to be eligible for premium subsidy for the 2017 reinsurance year.
(c)
(1) Unless an exemption in this section or § 12.5 applies, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524) due to a violation of the provisions of this part will:
(i) Not apply to the reinsurance year in which the violation occurred or any reinsurance year prior to the date of the final determination of a violation, including all administrative appeals of the determination, as determined by NRCS or FSA as applicable; and
(ii) Only apply to reinsurance years subsequent to the date of a final determination of a violation, including all administrative appeals of the determination, as determined by NRCS or FSA as applicable. A person who is in violation of the provisions of this part, as determined by FSA or NRCS, in a reinsurance year, will, unless otherwise exempted, be ineligible for any Federal crop insurance premium subsidy beginning with the subsequent reinsurance year. For example, a person who is determined to be in violation of the provisions of this part and has exhausted all administrative appeals on June 1, 2015, (2015 reinsurance year) will, unless otherwise exempted, be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy effective July 1, 2015, the start of the 2016 reinsurance year, and will not be eligible for any Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for any policy or plan of insurance during the 2016 reinsurance year. Even if the person becomes compliant during the 2016 reinsurance year, the person will not be eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy until the 2017 reinsurance year starting on July 1, 2016.
(2) Eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524) due to a violation of the provisions of this part will be based on FSA and NRCS final determinations, including all administrative appeals, regarding compliance with the provisions of this part.
(3) The amount of premium subsidy for an insured person will be reduced when any person with a substantial beneficial interest in the insured person is ineligible for premium subsidy under this part. The amount of reduction will be commensurate with the ineligible person's substantial beneficial interest in the insured person. The ineligible person's substantial beneficial interest in the insured person will be determined according to the policy provisions of the insured person.
(4) Administrative appeals include appeals made in accordance with § 12.12 and part 11 of this title, but do not include any judicial review or appeal, or any other legal action.
(d)
(1) Persons subject to the provisions of this part regarding highly erodible land, specifically those related to section 1211(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, for the first time solely due to amendments to that section by section 2611(a) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)(1)), will have 5 reinsurance years after the date the person is determined to have HEL and has exhausted all administrative appeals, if applicable, to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS before being ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. The additional time to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS applies only to persons who have not previously been subject to the highly erodible land conservation provisions of this part. The additional time provided in this paragraph does not apply to any person who had any interest in any land or crop, including an affiliated person, that was subject to the provisions of this part before February 7, 2014. The 5 reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS starts:
(i) For persons who have no land with an NRCS HEL determination, the 5 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date NRCS makes a HEL determination and the person exhausts all their administrative appeals; or
(ii) For persons who have any land for which an NRCS HEL determination has been made and all administrative appeals have been exhausted, the 5 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date the person certifies compliance with FSA to be eligible for USDA benefits subject to the conservation compliance provisions.
(2) Persons who meet all the following criteria will have 2 reinsurance years from the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date the person certifies compliance with FSA to be eligible for USDA benefits subject to the conservation compliance provisions to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS before being ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies:
(i) Were subject to the provisions of this part regarding highly erodible land, specifically those related to section 1211(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(a)(1)), as amended, any time before February 7, 2014;
(ii) Before February 7, 2014, stopped participating in all USDA programs subject to the provisions of this part regarding highly erodible land;
(iii) Would have been in violation of the provisions of this part regarding highly erodible land had they continued to participate in those programs after February 7, 2014; and
(iv) Are currently in violation of the provisions of this part regarding highly erodible land.
(e)
(1) Converting a wetland if the wetland conversion was completed, as determined by NRCS, before February 7, 2014; or
(2) Planting or producing an agricultural commodity on a converted
(f)
(1) In lieu of ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524) due to a wetland conversion violation or concurrent with a planned wetland conversion occurring after February 7, 2014, a person may, if approved by NRCS, pay a contribution to NRCS in an amount equal to 150 percent of the cost of mitigating the converted wetland, as determined by NRCS.
(2) A person is limited to only one exemption, as determined by NRCS, described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section per farm.
(3) NRCS will not refund this payment even if the person later conducts actions which will mitigate the earlier conversion.
(g)
(1) When a policy or plan of insurance that provides coverage for an agricultural commodity is available to the person, including as a person who is a substantial beneficial interest holder, for the first time after February 7, 2014, as determined by RMA, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for such policy or plan of insurance due to a wetland conversion violation will only apply to wetland conversions that are completed, as determined by NRCS, after the date the policy or plan of insurance first becomes available to the person.
(2) The exemption described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section:
(i) Applies only to the policy or plan of insurance that becomes available to the person for the first time after February 7, 2014, as determined by RMA;
(ii) Does not exempt or otherwise negate the person's ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies on any other policy or plan of insurance; and
(iii) Applies only if the person takes steps necessary, as determined by NRCS, to mitigate all wetlands converted after February 7, 2014, in a timely manner, as determined by NRCS, but not to exceed 2 reinsurance years.
(3) For the purposes of the paragraph (g)(1) of this section:
(i) A policy or plan of insurance is considered to have been available to the person after February 7, 2014, if, after February 7, 2014, in any county in which the person had any interest in any acreage, including as a person who is a substantial beneficial interest holder:
(A) There was a policy or plan of insurance available on the county actuarial documents that provided coverage for the agricultural commodity; or
(B) The person obtained a written agreement to insure the agricultural commodity in any county; and
(ii) Changing, adding, or removing options, endorsements, or coverage to an existing policy or plan of insurance will not be considered as a policy or plan of insurance being available for the first time to a person.
(h)
(1) A person determined to be in violation of the provisions of this part due to a wetland conversion occurring after February 7, 2014, will have 1 reinsurance year after the final determination of violation, including all administrative appeals, as determined by NRCS, to initiate a mitigation plan to remedy the violation, as determined by NRCS, before becoming ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524.). For example, if in May 2017, after NRCS has determined that a person is in violation for converting a wetland and the person has exhausted all administrative appeals, the person will have until June 30, 2018, to initiate a mitigation plan to remedy the violation before becoming ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies starting with the 2019 reinsurance year.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (h)(1) of this section, if a person determined to be in violation of the provisions of this part due to a wetland conversion occurring after February 7, 2014, as determined by NRCS, and is subject to the provisions of this part for the first time solely due to section 2611(b) of the Agricultural Act of 2014, such person will have 2 reinsurance years after the final determination of violation, including all administrative appeals, as determined by NRCS, to be implementing all practices in a mitigation plan to remedy the violation, as determined by NRCS, before becoming ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524).
(3) Administrative appeals include appeals made in accordance with § 12.12 and part 11 of this title, but do not include any judicial review or appeal, or any other legal action.
(i)
(1) A person determined by FSA or NRCS to be in violation, including all administrative appeals, of the provisions of this part due to converting a wetland after February 7, 2014, or producing an agricultural commodity on a wetland that was converted after February 7, 2014, may regain eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524) if all of the following criteria are met:
(i) FSA determines that such person acted in good faith and without the intent to violate the wetland conservation provisions of this part;
(ii) NRCS determines that the person is implementing all practices in a mitigation plan to remedy or mitigate the violation within an agreed-to period, not to exceed 2 reinsurance years; and
(iii) The good faith determination of the FSA county or State committee has been reviewed and approved by the applicable State Executive Director, with the technical concurrence of the State Conservationist; or District Director, with the technical concurrence of the area conservationist.
(2) In determining whether a person acted in good faith under paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section, FSA will consider such factors as whether:
(i) The characteristics of the site were such that the person should have been aware that a wetland existed on the subject land;
(ii) NRCS had informed the person about the existence of a wetland on the subject land;
(iii) The person has a record of violating the wetland provisions of this part or other Federal, State, or local wetland provisions; or
(iv) There exists other information that demonstrates the person acted with the intent to violate the wetland conservation provisions of this part.
(3) After the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of this section are met, FSA may waive applying the ineligibility provisions of this section to allow the person to implement the mitigation plan approved by NRCS. The
(j)
(1) Except as provided in (j)(2) of this section, the ineligibility of a tenant or sharecropper for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524) will, in lieu of ineligibility for premium subsidy, result in a reduction in the amount of premium subsidy paid by FCIC on all policies and plans of insurance for the landlord.
(i) The percentage reduction will be determined by comparing the total number of cropland acres on the farm on which the violation occurred to the total number of cropland acres on all farms in which landlord has an interest, as determined by FSA.
(ii) The farms and cropland acres used to determine the premium subsidy reduction percentage will be the farms and cropland acres of the landlord for the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.
(iii) The percentage reduction will be applied to all policies and plans of insurance of the landlord in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.
(iv) If the landlord and tenant or sharecropper are insured under the same policy, the landlord will be ineligible for premium subsidy on that policy in lieu of a percentage reduction on that policy.
(2) A landlord will be ineligible for the premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible if the production of an agricultural commodity on a converted wetland by the landlord's tenant or sharecropper is required under the terms and conditions of the agreement between the landlord and such tenant or sharecropper and such agreement was entered into after February 7, 2014, or if the landlord has acquiesced in such activities by the tenant or sharecropper.
(3) If all the requirements in paragraph (j)(4) of this section are met, in lieu of ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for all policies or plans of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524) for producing or planting an agricultural commodity on a wetland converted after February 7, 2014, the premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance of the ineligible tenant or sharecropper will be reduced.
(i) The percentage reduction will be determined by comparing the total number of cropland acres on the farm on which the violation occurred to the total number of cropland acres on all farms in which tenant or sharecropper has an interest, as determined by FSA.
(ii) The farms and cropland acres used to determine the premium subsidy reduction percentage will be the farms and cropland acres of the tenant or sharecropper for the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.
(iii) The percentage reduction will be applied to all policies and plans of insurance of the tenant or sharecropper in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible.
(iv) If the landlord and tenant or sharecropper are insured under the same policy, the tenant or sharecropper will be ineligible for premium subsidy on that policy in lieu of a percentage reduction on that policy.
(4) The provisions of paragraph (j)(3) of this section will not apply unless all the following are met:
(i) The tenant or sharecropper shows that a good-faith effort was made to comply by developing a plan, approved by NRCS, for the restoration or mitigation of the converted wetland in a timely manner and prior to any violation;
(ii) The owner of such farm refuses to apply such a plan and prevents the tenant or sharecropper from implementing the approved plan;
(iii) FSA determines the lack of compliance is not a part of a scheme or device as described in § 12.10; and
(iv) The tenant or sharecropper actively applies the practices and measures of the approved plan that are within their control.
(k)
(1) A person who properly completes, signs, and files Form AD–1026, or successor form, with FSA certifying compliance with the provisions of this part will be eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524) during the period of time such certification is being evaluated by NRCS, if an evaluation is required.
(2) A person will not be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501–1524) if:
(i) NRCS fails to complete a required evaluation of the person's Form AD–1026, or successor form in a timely manner after all documentation has been provided to NRCS; and
(ii) The person is subsequently determined to have been in violation of the provisions of this part during the time NRCS was completing the evaluation.
(3) The relief from ineligibility provided in paragraph (k)(2) of this section:
(i) Applies only to violations that occurred prior to or during the time NRCS is completing the required evaluation;
(ii) Does not apply to any violations that occur subsequent to NRCS completing the evaluation;
(iii) Does not apply if FSA or NRCS determines the person employed, adopted, or participated in employing or adopting a scheme or device, as provided in § 12.10, to evade the provisions of this part or to become eligible for the relief provided in paragraph (k)(2) of this section; and
(iv) Does not apply if the required evaluation is delayed due to unfavorable site conditions for the evaluation of soils, hydrology, or vegetation.
(l)
(1) A person who fails to notify FSA of any change that could alter their status as compliant with the provisions of this part and is subsequently determined, by FSA or NRCS, to have committed a violation of the wetland conservation provisions of this part after February 7, 2014, will be required to pay to NRCS an equitable contribution.
(2) The amount of equitable contribution will be determined by NRCS, but will not exceed the total amount of Federal crop insurance premium subsidy paid by FCIC on behalf of the person for all policies and plans of insurance for all years in which the person is determined to have been in violation.
(3) A person who fails to pay the full equitable contribution amount by the due date determined by NRCS will be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy on any policy or plan of insurance beginning with the subsequent reinsurance year. The person will be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy for the entire reinsurance year even if full payment of the equitable contribution amount is received by NRCS during the reinsurance year.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the regulations to allow, under certain conditions, the importation of commercial consignments of fresh papayas from Peru into the continental United States. The conditions for the importation of papayas from Peru will include requirements for approved production locations; field sanitation; hot water treatment; procedures for packing and shipping the papayas; and fruit fly trapping in papaya production areas. This action will allow for the importation of papayas from Peru while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests into the continental United States.
Effective May 26, 2015.
Ms. Dorothy Wayson, Senior Regulatory Coordination Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851–2036.
The regulations in “Subpart–Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56–1 through 319.56–71, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow fresh papayas (
On August 9, 2013, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending October 8, 2013. We received one comment by that date, from a private citizen. The commenter supported the risk mitigation approach in the proposed rule, but suggested that an integrated pest management approach might also be effective at managing the risk associated with
We based the proposed risk mitigations on those in § 319.56–25, which have allowed the pest-free importation of papaya from certain areas of Brazil, Central America, Colombia, and Ecuador. We are open to alternative approaches of mitigating
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 the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under
This final rule will allow the importation of fresh papaya fruit from Peru into the continental United States. Papaya is a relatively minor crop in the United States that is primarily grown in Hawaii and, to a lesser extent, in Florida. Very small acreages of papaya are found in Texas and California.
Peru is expected to ship up to 36 metric tons of fresh papaya to the United States per year. This amount will be equivalent to less than 0.03 percent of net imports of fresh papaya by the United States in 2012. With U.S. net imports estimated to be at least eight times as large as U.S. fresh papaya production, any market effects of such a relatively negligible change in papaya imports are as likely to impact foreign suppliers as they are U.S. producers. In addition, effects for the majority of U.S. papaya producers, who are located in Hawaii, will be further muted by the prohibition on entry of fresh papaya from Peru into that State. While most, if not all, U.S. papaya farms are small entities, we expect this final rule to have a very minor impact regardless of the size of operation.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule allows papayas to be imported into the continental United States from Peru. State and local laws and regulations regarding papayas imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will 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.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701–7772 and 7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Final rule.
With this final rule, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is revising its rule concerning restrictions on the sale of assets of a failed institution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act in order to clarify the purpose, scope and applicability of that rule and to make that rule more consistent with the FDIC's rule concerning restrictions on the sale of assets of a covered financial company under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
This final rule is effective July 1, 2015.
James D. Sigler, Senior Franchise and Asset Marketing Specialist, 571–858–8284; Elizabeth Falloon, Supervisory Counsel, Legal Division, 703–562–6148; Shane Kiernan, Counsel, Legal Division, 703–562–2632; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.
The FDIC promulgated part 340 in 2000 to implement section 11(p) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, (12 U.S.C. 1821(p) (section 11(p)). Under section 11(p), individuals or entities whose acts or omissions have, or may have, contributed to the failure of an insured depository institution (failed institution) cannot buy the assets of that failed institution from the FDIC. The FDIC expanded the purchaser eligibility restriction as permitted by statute when it promulgated part 340 by precluding such individuals or entities from purchasing the assets of
In March of 2014, the FDIC promulgated § 380.13 to implement section 210(r) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, (12 U.S.C. 5390(r) (section 210(r)). Section 210(r) prohibits certain sales of assets held by the FDIC in the course of liquidating a covered financial company. Because section 210(r) and section 11(p) share substantially similar statutory language, part 340 served as a model for the development of § 380.13. While many aspects of part 340 were included in § 380.13, FDIC staff identified new or different concepts to include in § 380.13 that were not already in part 340. The addition of these concepts into part 340 will improve part 340 and make it more consistent with § 380.13.
On October 21, 2014, the Board of Directors approved a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled
With this final rule, the FDIC is adopting the revisions to part 340 in substantially the same form as they were presented in the proposed rule. Part 340 is revised in a number of ways. Some revisions are significant, substantive changes and others are non-substantive, technical or conforming changes. This supplemental information section describes the substantive changes made by the final rule.
The title of part 340 is revised to clarify that part 340 applies to sales of assets of a failed institution (specifically, a failed insured depository institution). This change is made to help distinguish part 340 from § 380.13, which applies to sales of assets of a covered financial company by the FDIC. While the two rules will preclude sales to certain prospective purchasers in a very similar manner, each pertains to a separate set of asset sales by the FDIC.
The final rule amends § 340.1(b), which sets forth the purpose of part 340, to extend the restrictions on sales of assets of a failed institution to individuals or entities who are also prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC under section 210(r) and § 380.13. This ensures consistency between part 340 and § 380.13. Under § 380.13, individuals or entities prohibited from purchasing assets of a failed institution under part 340 are also prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company under § 380.13. Likewise, individuals or entities prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company under § 380.13 are prohibited from purchasing assets of a failed institution under part 340.
The final rule makes three changes to clarify part 340's scope of coverage, set forth in § 340.1(c). First, the final rule clarifies the applicability of part 340 to sales of assets by a subsidiary of a failed institution or by a bridge depository institution. Sales of assets of a failed institution's subsidiary or a bridge depository institution are not expressly subject to section 11(p). However, if the FDIC has the right to control the terms of a sale of assets of a failed institution's subsidiary or a bridge depository institution, or has the ability to control selection of the purchaser of those assets under an agency agreement or as shareholder, the restrictions set forth in section 11(p) and part 340 should apply. The FDIC has discretionary authority to expand the scope of coverage because section 11(p) sets the minimum requirements for restrictions on sales of assets, and the FDIC may prescribe further restrictions on its own accord. Under the final rule's revision of part 340, the restrictions apply to sales of assets of a failed institution's subsidiary or a bridge depository institution if the FDIC controls the terms of the sale by agreement or as shareholder.
Second, the final rule amends § 340.1 to explicitly state that part 340 does not apply to certain types of transactions involving marketable securities and other financial instruments. Under § 340.1(c)(5), a sale of a security or a group or index of securities, a commodity, or any qualified financial contract that, in each case, customarily is traded through a financial intermediary where the seller cannot control selection of the purchaser would not be covered by part 340 if the sale is to be consummated through that customary practice. For example, if the FDIC were to sell publicly-traded stocks or bonds that the failed institution held, it might engage a broker or custodian to conduct or facilitate the sale. The broker or custodian would then tender the securities to the market and accept prevailing market terms offered by another broker, a specialist, a central counterparty or a similar financial intermediary who would then sell the security to another purchaser. In this scenario, it is not possible for the FDIC to control selection of the end purchaser at the time of sale. Therefore, the transaction cannot be a sale covered by section 11(p) because the FDIC would have no way to select the prospective purchaser or determine whether that purchaser would or would not be prohibited from purchasing the asset. Moreover, a prospective purchaser of such assets will not be able to select the FDIC as the seller and therefore could not determine whether section 11(p) and part 340 apply to the transaction. The final rule defines the term “financial intermediary,” as discussed below, for the purposes of part 340. This express limitation on the scope of part 340's coverage will provide greater certainty regarding the applicability of section 11(p) and part 340 to market participants and FDIC staff who conduct asset sales.
Third, the final rule clarifies in § 340.1(c)(6) that part 340 is not applicable to a judicial sale or a trustee's sale of property securing an obligation to the FDIC if the sale is not conducted or controlled by the FDIC. Although the FDIC could have a security interest in property serving as collateral and therefore the authority to initiate a foreclosure action, the selection of the purchaser and terms of the sale are not necessarily within the FDIC's control. Rather, a court or trustee would conduct the sale in accordance with applicable state law and would select the purchaser. In this situation, the sale is not a sale by the FDIC. While the plain language of part 340 does not suggest that such a sale would fall within its scope, the FDIC makes this change for the sake of clarity. This exception does not affect sales if the FDIC is in possession of the collateral property and conducts the sale itself, however. Where the FDIC has control over the manner and terms of the sale, it will require the prospective purchaser's certification that the prospective purchaser is not prohibited under section 11(p) or part 340 from purchasing the asset.
Section 340.2 sets forth definitions for certain terms used in part 340 and several are revised by the final rule. The definition of “associated person” is revised to include limited liability companies of which an individual is a member (or was a member at the time of the occurrence of any event that would result in a restriction on sale as set forth in § 340.4) if the prospective purchaser of assets is an individual and, if the prospective purchaser is a limited liability company, to include the manager of the limited liability company. The definition of “failed institution” is revised to remove reference to entities “owned and controlled” by the failed institution because the revision to § 340.1(c), discussed above, explicitly states that sales of subsidiary assets are covered under part 340 if the FDIC controls the terms of the sale by agreement or in its role as shareholder. Additionally, references to the Resolution Trust Corporation and RTC are removed in favor of referencing the FDIC's “predecessor” agencies.
The final rule also adds a new term for use in part 340, “financial intermediary,” which is defined to mean any broker, dealer, bank, underwriter, exchange, clearing agency registered with the SEC under section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, transfer agent (as defined in section 3(a)(25) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), central counterparty or any other entity whose role is to facilitate a transaction by, as a riskless intermediary, purchasing a security or qualified financial contract from one counterparty and then selling it to another. This definition is used to
Section 340.4 sets forth the conditions under which a person (whether an individual or entity) is prohibited from acquiring assets of a failed institution from the FDIC. Those conditions are that the person, or its associated person: (1) Participated as an officer or director of a failed institution or of an affiliate of a failed institution, “in a material way in a transaction that caused a substantial loss to the failed institution” (as defined in paragraph (b) of § 340.4); (2) has been removed from a failed institution by order of a primary federal regulatory agency; (3) engaged in a “pattern or practice of defalcation” (as defined in paragraph (c) of § 340.4) with respect to obligations owed to a failed institution; or (4) committed a certain criminal offense against a financial institution and is in default on an obligation owed by that person or its associated person. The final rule adds a fifth restriction: Prohibition from purchasing assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC. As explained above, the FDIC believes part 340 should also restrict the sale of assets of a failed institution to individuals or entities who are also prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC under section 210(r) and § 380.13. This ensures consistent treatment of prospective purchasers of assets from the FDIC, whether such assets are assets of a covered financial company or of a failed institution.
The final rule amends paragraph (a) of § 340.7, which sets forth the requirement that a prospective purchaser certify that none of the restrictions set forth in part 340 apply to the sale, by adding a sentence stating that the person must also certify that it is not using a straw purchaser or other subterfuge to allow it to purchase an asset of an insured depository institution from the FDIC or benefit from such transaction if such person would otherwise be ineligible to purchase assets from the FDIC under part 340. The FDIC's form certification (the Purchaser Eligibility Certification, FDIC Form 7300/06) already includes a statement under which a prospective purchaser certifies that neither the identity nor form of the prospective purchaser, nor any aspect of the contemplated transaction, has been created or altered to allow an individual or entity who otherwise would be ineligible to purchase assets of a failed institution from the FDIC to benefit from the sale. Explicitly stating this requirement in the regulatory text itself strengthens part 340.
Paragraph (b) of § 340.7, which excepts from the self-certification requirement certain federal agencies or instrumentalities and states or political subdivisions of states, is revised in the final rule to include bridge depository institutions as well. A bridge depository institution is expected to be in compliance with part 340 because such entity is newly chartered and subject to control or oversight by the FDIC.
Finally, the final rule revises § 340.8, which provides that part 340 does not apply if the sale resolves or settles a person's obligation to the FDIC, to also except a sale that resolves a claim that the FDIC has asserted against a person. This is not intended to be a substantive change but to more closely track section 11(p), which excepts sales that resolve or settle claims as well as obligations. This change ensures that the regulation cites both bases for exception set forth in the statute. It also ensures consistency with the equivalent provision in paragraph (a)(2)(vi) of § 380.13.
The final rule's changes to part 340 ensure consistency among part 340 and § 380.13. This will facilitate efficient administration of the two rules and will help the public better understand how and when each applies. One comment submitted in response to the proposed rule noted that the revisions to part 340 will help to clarify the purpose, scope and applicability, and will make part 340 more consistent with the parallel provision in the FDIC's Orderly Liquidation Authority regulations that implements section 210(r) (§ 380.13). The comment goes on to state that the proposed revisions will improve regulatory consistency and understandability, align better with market practices, and promote the regulatory objectives and intentions under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
The substantive amendments and technical and conforming changes to part 340 that are made in the final rule are extensive. Therefore, the FDIC is revising and restating the text of part 340 in full rather than through fragmentary amendments.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The FDIC has a continuing interest in comments on paperwork burden. Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency either certify that a final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the rule and publish the analysis for comment.
Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a “small entity” includes those firms in the “Finance and Insurance” sector whose size varies from $7.5 million or less in assets (mortgage and nonmortgage loan brokers) to $550 million or less in assets (commercial banks, savings institutions, credit unions, and others).
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the final rule is not a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which provides for agencies to report rules to Congress and for Congress to review such rules.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000.
Asset disposition, Banks, banking.
For the reasons stated in the
12 U.S.C. 1819 (Tenth), 1821(p).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The restrictions in this section apply to the sale of assets of a subsidiary of a failed institution or a bridge depository institution if the FDIC controls the terms of the sale by agreement or in its role as shareholder.
(3) Unless we determine otherwise, this part does not apply to the sale of securities in connection with the investment of corporate and receivership funds pursuant to the Investment Policy for Liquidation Funds managed by the FDIC as it is in effect from time to time.
(4) In the case of a sale of securities backed by a pool of assets that may include assets of failed institutions by a trust or other entity, this part applies only to the sale of assets by the FDIC to an underwriter in an initial offering, and not to any other purchaser of the securities.
(5) The restrictions of this part do not apply to a sale of a security or a group or index of securities, a commodity, or any qualified financial contract that, in each case, customarily is traded through a financial intermediary, as defined in § 340.2, where the seller cannot control selection of the purchaser and the sale is consummated through that customary practice.
(6) The restrictions of this part do not apply to a judicial sale or a trustee's sale of property that secures an obligation to the FDIC where the sale is not conducted or controlled by the FDIC.
(d) The FDIC retains the authority to establish other policies restricting asset sales. Neither 12 U.S.C. 1821(p) nor this part in any way limits the authority of the FDIC to establish policies prohibiting the sale of assets to prospective purchasers who have injured any failed institution, or to other prospective purchasers, such as certain employees or contractors of the FDIC, or individuals who are not in compliance with the terms of any debt or duty owed to the FDIC. Any such policies may be independent of, in conjunction with, or in addition to the restrictions set forth in this part.
Many of the terms used in this part are defined in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1811,
(a)
(1) With respect to an individual:
(i) The individual's spouse or dependent child or any member of his or her immediate household;
(ii) A partnership of which the individual is or was a general or limited partner;
(iii) A limited liability company of which the individual is or was a member; or
(iv) A corporation of which the individual is or was an officer or director.
(2) With respect to a partnership, a managing or general partner of the partnership or with respect to a limited liability company, a manager; or
(3) With respect to any entity, an individual or entity who, acting individually or in concert with one or more individuals or entities, owns or controls 25 percent or more of the entity.
(b)
(1) A judgment has been rendered in favor of the FDIC or a failed institution; or
(2) In the case of a secured obligation, the property securing such obligation is foreclosed on.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1) An obligation that is delinquent for ninety (90) or more days and on which there remains an outstanding balance of more than $50,000;
(2) An unpaid final judgment in excess of $50,000 regardless of whether it becomes forgiven in whole or in part in a bankruptcy proceeding;
(3) A deficiency balance following a foreclosure of collateral in excess of $50,000, regardless of whether it becomes discharged in whole or in part in a bankruptcy proceeding;
(4) Any loss in excess of $50,000 evidenced by an IRS Form 1099–C (Information Reporting for Cancellation of Debt).
A person may not borrow money or accept credit from the FDIC in connection with the purchase of any assets of a failed institution from the FDIC if:
(a) There has been a default with respect to one or more obligations totaling in excess of $1,000,000 owed by that person or its associated person; and
(b) The person or its associated person made any fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with any such obligation(s).
(a) A person may not acquire any assets of a failed institution from the FDIC if the person or its associated person:
(1) Has participated, as an officer or director of a failed institution or of an affiliate of a failed institution, in a material way in one or more transaction(s) that caused a substantial loss to that failed institution;
(2) Has been removed from, or prohibited from participating in the affairs of, a failed institution pursuant to any final enforcement action by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, or any of their predecessors or successors;
(3) Has demonstrated a pattern or practice of defalcation regarding obligations to any failed institution;
(4) Has been convicted of committing or conspiring to commit any offense under 18 U.S.C. 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1014, 1032, 1341, 1343 or 1344 affecting any failed institution and there has been a default with respect to one or more obligations owed by that person or its associated person; or
(5) Would be prohibited from purchasing the assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC under 12 U.S.C. 5390(r) or its implementing regulation at 12 CFR part 380.13.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, a person has participated “in a material way in a transaction that caused a substantial loss to a failed institution” if, in connection with a substantial loss to a failed institution, the person has been found in a final determination by a court or administrative tribunal, or is alleged in a judicial or administrative action brought by the FDIC or by any component of the government of the United States or of any state:
(1) To have violated any law, regulation, or order issued by a federal or state banking agency, or breached or defaulted on a written agreement with a federal or state banking agency, or breached a written agreement with a failed institution;
(2) To have engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting the affairs of a failed institution; or
(3) To have breached a fiduciary duty owed to a failed institution.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, a person or its associated person has demonstrated a “pattern or practice of defalcation” regarding obligations to a failed institution if the person or associated person has:
(1) Engaged in more than one transaction that created an obligation on the part of such person or its associated person with intent to cause a loss to any insured depository institution or with reckless disregard for whether such transactions would cause a loss to any such insured depository institution; and
(2) The transactions, in the aggregate, caused a substantial loss to one or more failed institution(s).
The FDIC still has the right to make an independent determination, based upon all relevant facts of a person's financial condition and history, of that person's eligibility to receive any loan or extension of credit from the FDIC, even if the person is not in any way disqualified from purchasing assets from the FDIC under the restrictions set forth in this part.
This part does not affect the enforceability of a contract of sale and/or agreement for seller financing in effect prior to July 1, 2000.
(a) Before any person may purchase any asset from the FDIC that person must certify, under penalty of perjury,
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, and unless the Director of the FDIC's Division of Resolutions and Receiverships or designee in his or her discretion so requires, a certification need not be provided by:
(1) A state or political subdivision of a state;
(2) A federal agency or instrumentality such as the Government National Mortgage Association;
(3) A federally-regulated, government-sponsored enterprise such as the Federal National Mortgage Association or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; or
(4) A bridge depository institution.
The restrictions of §§ 340.3 and 340.4 do not apply if the sale or transfer of an asset resolves or settles, or is part of the resolution or settlement of, one or more obligations or claims that have been, or could have been, asserted by the FDIC against the person with whom the FDIC is settling regardless of the amount of such obligations or claims.
By Order of the Board of Directors, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Cando, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Cando Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.
Effective date: 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 29591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817–321–7740.
On October 28, 2014, the FAA published in the
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 6.5-mile radius of Cando Municipal Airport, Cando, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Cando Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations for SIAPs at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Cando Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E Airspace at Key Largo, FL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Ocean Reef Club Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Ocean Reef Club Airport, Key Largo, FL. Controlled airspace is required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Ocean Reef Club Airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Ocean Reef Club Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Edgeley, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Edgeley Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.
Effective date: 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817–321–7740.
On October 8, 2014, the FAA published in the
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 6.5-mile radius of Edgeley Municipal Airport, Edgeley, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Edgeley Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Edgeley Municipal Airport, Edgeley, ND.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Edgeley Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Cypress, TX. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Dry Creek Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPS at the airport.
Effective date: 0901 UTC, April 30, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817–321–7740.
On October 15, 2014, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Dry Creek Airport, Cypress, TX, to accommodate new SIAPS developed at Dry Creek Airport. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Dry Creek Airport, Cypress, TX.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Dry Creek Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E Airspace at Zephyrhills, FL, as the Zephyrhills Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at Zephyrhills Municipal Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Zephyrhills Municipal Airport.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Zephyrhills Non-Directional Beacon
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, Zephyrhills, FL.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Zephyrhills Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E Airspace at West Creek, NJ, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Eagles Nest Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 29591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.5-mile radius of Eagles Nest Airport, West Creek, NJ. Controlled airspace is required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Eagles Nest Airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Eagles Nest Airport, West Creek, NJ.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f),106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.5- mile radius of Eagles Nest Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Sonora, TX. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at JL Bar Ranch Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817–321–7740.
On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of JL Bar Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at JL Bar Ranch Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at JL Bar Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E. “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106 (f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of JL Bar Ranch Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
This action amends the legal description of the Baton Rouge, LA, VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation aid (VORTAC) located in Class E airspace at Baton Rouge, LA. The Baton Rouge VORTAC and Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field, have similar names and both share the same facility identifier but are not co-located. The FAA is renaming the Baton Rouge VORTAC as well as assigning a new facility identifier for the safety and management of aircraft operations within the Baton Rouge, LA, airspace area. This does not affect the boundaries or operating requirements of the airspace.
Effective 0901 UTC, April 30, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC, 29591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
Rebecca Shelby, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
The Baton Rouge Airport Air Traffic Control Tower has submitted a request to change the name and facility identifier of the Baton Rouge, LA, VORTAC (BTR), to Fighting Tiger VORTAC (LSU). The request is prompted by the distance of the VORTAC, which is located 8 miles outside the boundary of Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field. FAA Order 7350.9A, Location Identifiers, states in part that the navigation aid must be within the airport boundary in order to share the same identifier.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class C surface area at Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field, Baton Rouge, LA. The name of the Baton Rouge VORTAC navigation aid is changed to the Fighting Tiger VORTAC, and the facility identifier is changed from (BTR) to (LSU). This rule is meant to ensure pilots do not confuse instructions provided to them by Air Traffic Control.
This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it changes the identifier and name of the Baton Rouge VORTAC, at Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Baton Rouge, LA.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1 mile each side of the 071° radial of the Fighting Tiger VORTAC extending from a 5-mile radius of the Metropolitan, Ryan Field to 5.8 miles southwest of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E Airspace at Manchester, NH, as a new approach procedure has been developed, requiring airspace redesign at Manchester Airport. This enhances the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 25, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC, 20591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
On October 16, 2014, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6003 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class C surface area, at Manchester Airport, Manchester, NH. Airspace reconfiguration extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 8.5-miles northwest of the airport is necessary due to the development of the RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17 approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of Manchester Airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. An editorial change is made to correct the title of paragraph 6003 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, to read “Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class C Surface area”.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Manchester Airport, Manchester, NH.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.3-miles each side of the 337° bearing of Manchester Airport extending from the 5-mile radius to 8.5-miles northwest of the airport.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Fourth of July Fireworks, Tahoe City, CA in the Captain of the Port, San Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display. During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 15, will be enforced from 7 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Lieutenant Marcia Medina, Sector San Francisco Waterways Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 415–399–7442, email
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 7 a.m. until 8 a.m. on July 4, 2015, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics off of Tahoe Keys Marina in South Lake Tahoe, CA in approximate position 38°56′05″ N., 120°00′09″ W. (NAD 83). From 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 4, 2015, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Tahoe Keys Marina to the launch site off of Tahoe City, CA in approximate position 39°10′09″ N., 120°08′16″ W. (NAD 83) where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 15 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2015, the safety zone will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 1,000 feet in approximate position 39°10′09″ N., 120°08′16″ W. (NAD 83) for the Fourth of July Fireworks, Tahoe City, CA in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 15. This safety zone will be in effect from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard establishes a temporary moving safety zone on the waters of Tampa Bay in the vicinity of Tampa, Florida during the 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim. The 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim is scheduled to take place on April 25, 2015. Approximately 30 swimmers are anticipated to participate in the marathon swim event. No spectators are expected to be present during the event. The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, participant vessels, and the general public on the navigable waters of the United States during the event. The safety zone will establish a moving protective area around safety vessels including kayaks involved in the race. Persons and vessels, except those participating in the event, will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
This rule will be effective from April 24, 2015 through April 25, 2015. This rule will be enforced from 4 a.m. until 9 p.m. on April 25, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG–2015–0071]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Tyrone J. Stafford, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (813) 228–2191, email
On March 9, 2015, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim; Tampa Bay; Tampa, FL was published in the
Under
The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the swimming event.
On April 25, 2015, Distance Matters, Inc. is sponsoring The 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim. This open water swim event will be held on the waters of Tampa Bay, Tampa, Florida. Approximately 30 participants are anticipated to participate in the event. No spectator vessels are expected during the event.
This rule will establish a temporary moving safety zone that will encompass certain waters of Tampa Bay located in the vicinity of Tampa, Florida. The temporary moving safety zone will be enforced from 4 a.m. until 9 p.m. on April 25, 2015. The safety zone will establish a moving protective area around all safety vessels involved in the race. Persons and vessels, except those participating in the event, will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824–7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or on-scene designated representatives.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for seventeen hours; (2) although non-participant persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) non-participant persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and/or Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of non-participant vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone described in this regulation during the respective enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will 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 want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone that will be enforced for 17 hours total. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The following regulated area is a safety zone: All waters within a 50-yard radius around safety vessels including kayaks.
(b)
(c)
(2) Non-participant persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824–7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or on-scene designated representatives.
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near AT&T Park in support of Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display on May 22, 2015. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.
This rule is effective on May 22, 2015. This rule will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on May 22, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG–2015–0221. To view documents
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Joshua V. Dykman, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone (415) 399-3585 or email at
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule as it would be impracticable due to the short notice of the event. The Coast Guard received the information about the fireworks display on March 24, 2015, and it would be impracticable to accept comments before the fireworks display. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Public Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.
Giants Enterprises will sponsor the Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display on May 22, 2015, near Pier 48 in San Francisco, CA in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18650. From 11 a.m. until 8:50 p.m. on May 22, 2015, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. From 8:50 p.m. to 9 p.m. on May 22, 2015 the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD 83) where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. A 10 minute fireworks display is scheduled to begin at 9:20 p.m. on May 22, 2015.
The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. A restricted area around the fireworks barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with pyrotechnics.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under a fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. The safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 700 feet in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD 83) for the Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display. At the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate.
The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the launch site until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the launch site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3707; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF–23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399–3547.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Interim final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its medical regulations implementing section 101 of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which directed VA to establish a program to furnish hospital care and medical services through eligible non-VA health care providers to eligible veterans who either cannot be seen within the wait-time goals of the Veterans Health Administration or who qualify based on their place of residence (hereafter referred to as the Veterans Choice Program, or the “Program”). VA published an interim final rule implementing the Veterans Choice Program on November 5, 2014. Under current law, VA uses a straight-line or geodesic distance to determine eligibility based on place of residence. This interim final rule modifies how VA measures the distance from a veteran's residence to the nearest VA medical facility. This modified standard will consider the distance the veteran must drive to the nearest VA medical facility, rather than the straight-line or geodesic distance to such a facility.
Written comments may be submitted by email through
Kristin Cunningham, Director, Business Policy, Chief Business Office (10NB), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 382–2508. (This is not a toll-free number.)
On August 7, 2014, the President signed into law the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (“the Act,” Pub. L. 113–146, 128 Stat. 1754). Further technical revisions to the Act were made on September 26, 2014, when the President signed into law the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113–175, 128 Stat. 1901, 1906), and on December 16, 2014, when the President signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113–235, 128 Stat. 2568). Section 101 of the Act creates the Veterans Choice Program (“the Program”). Section 101 requires the Secretary to enter into agreements with identified eligible non-VA entities or providers to furnish hospital care and medical services to eligible veterans who elect to receive care under the Program. Sec. 101(a)(1)(A), Public Law 113–146, 128 Stat. 1754. Veterans are eligible for the Program if they meet eligibility criteria identified in the Act; one criterion for eligibility is that a veteran who meets initial eligibility standards (being enrolled as of August 1, 2014, or who qualifies based on being recently separated from the Armed Forces following service in a theater of combat operations) can participate in the Program if he or she resides more than 40 miles from the medical facility of the Department, including a community-based outpatient clinic, that is closest to the residence of the veteran. Sec. 101(b)(2)(B), Public Law 113–146, 128 Stat. 1754. The Act required VA to implement the Program through an interim final rule, and on November 5, 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published an interim final rulemaking implementing the Program by creating new regulations at 38 CFR 17.1500–17.1540. 79 FR 65571. Under § 17.1510(b)(2), veterans whose residence is more than 40 miles from the VA medical facility that is closest to the veteran's residence are eligible.
The Act states that a veteran must reside more than 40 miles from the medical facility of the Department that is closest to the residence of the veteran, but does not state how that distance should be calculated. When Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue—here the method for calculating distance—a Federal agency charged with implementing a statute is permitted to make a reasonable interpretation of that statute. See
The most common methodologies for calculating the distance between two places are by using a straight-line and by following the actual driving path between the two points. In the interim final rule published in November, VA determined that it would use the straight-line distance between the
VA also could have concluded that a driving distance calculation would have been a reasonable interpretation of the Act. Although the Conference Report language appeared to state the Conferees' expectation, other statements in the legislative history suggest Congress was not of one mind regarding how the 40 miles should be measured. For example, during the Senate floor debate on the final legislation just three days after the Conference Report was published, one of the bill's principal sponsors stated, “Mr. President, what we are talking about, really, is rather than get in a car or van and drive for 40 miles and hours and have that all reimbursed and paid for, a person will go to the local care provider.” See 160 Cong. Rec. S5207 (July 31, 2014). In addition, the overall purpose of the Act is to increase access to health care for veterans. As one of the Act's main sponsors in the House said during floor consideration of the bill, “This bill will expand access to non-VA care, making wait times shorter and increase convenience.” See 160 Cong. Rec. H7080 (July 30, 2014). Moreover, what affects a veteran's access when it comes to travel is how far he or she must actually travel, not the length of a straight-line route that cannot, practically speaking, be traversed. Distances are also more commonly understood in terms of travel upon actual paths, rather than along a straight line. For these reasons, the ordinary understanding of distance is also a reasonable one to adopt in this context.
This interpretation also makes sense in light of the exceptions Congress created for veterans residing 40 miles or less from the nearest VA medical facility. For example, under Sec. 101(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I), veterans are eligible if they must travel by air, boat, or ferry to reach each VA medical facility that is 40 miles or less from the residence of the veteran. Veterans also may be eligible under Sec. 101(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II) if they face an unusual or excessive burden in accessing each VA medical facility that is 40 miles or less from the residence of the veteran due to geographical challenges. Both of these criteria explicitly consider the actual means or path of travel a veteran must take. Consequently, it is reasonable for VA to make a similar consideration when determining whether or not a veteran's residence is more than 40 miles from the closest VA medical facility.
Finally, when two interpretations of an Act are permissible, the interpretation that is more beneficial to veterans is typically preferred.
We received many thoughtful comments on this topic in response to the interim final rule we published in November. More than a third of the comments we received related to how VA measures distance for purposes of determining eligibility, and many commenters specifically argued in favor of the use of driving distance to determine eligibility based on place of residence. Other commenters suggested similar changes, such as the use of driving time. These comments came from veterans as well as providers, and show a broad interest in expanding the Program to better facilitate health care options. By contrast, VA received no comments in support of the use of geodesic or straight-line distance. This indicated to us a need to revisit VA's method of measuring distance. After doing so, VA is issuing this new interim final rule adopting the use of driving distance when measuring the distance from a veteran's residence to the nearest VA medical facility. We believe based on the public comments we received in response to the interim final rule published in November that this change to a driving distance measure will have strong support from the public. We intend to address all of the comments prior to finalizing the rule but have decided to address this particular issue now.
Practical considerations also support promulgating a limited interim final rule addressing this issue now. The use of driving distance would result in more veterans being eligible than the use of straight-line distance, and as stated above, the general intent of the Act is to expand access to health care for veterans. Through the first 6 months of operating the Program, we have found this standard to be a limiting factor for participation in the Program. Actual utilization of the Program is well below projections made at the time of the interim final rule in November, and as a result, VA believes it is more likely to have additional resources remaining at the end of the Program's period of authorization unless we increase the population eligible to participate in the Program. While veterans could qualify for this Program under other eligibility criteria, 38 CFR 17.1510(b)(3)–(4), changing the methodology for calculating distance to driving distance rather than straight-line distance will allow more veterans to participate in the Program and receive care closer to home. VA also uses driving distance in the beneficiary travel program authorized by part 70 of title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This change would make the Program more consistent with another VA program that veterans know and use.
For these reasons, we are revising the method for calculating the 40 mile distance by modifying § 17.1510(e) to use the driving distance between the veteran's residence and the closest VA medical facility, rather than the straight-line distance. VA is also removing a parenthetical exception included in this paragraph that referred to a provision in the regulations pertaining to unusual or excessive burden in traveling to a VA medical facility. VA will calculate a veteran's driving distance using geographic information system (GIS) software.
VA is issuing this interim final rule under the same RIN as the initial rulemaking published on November 5, 2014. We intend to publish a single final rule that responds to the comments received from the November rulemaking and from this rulemaking. This will allow the public a total of 150 days (120 days following publication of the first interim final rule, and 30 days following publication of this interim final rule) to comment on this aspect of the Program.
This change will have residual effects on eligibility under § 17.1510(b)(3) and (b)(4), as these provisions are essentially exceptions that allow veterans who are not eligible under paragraph (b)(2) to be eligible to participate in the Choice Program. However, to the extent a veteran will now be eligible under paragraph (b)(2) when he or she would have qualified under paragraphs (b)(3) or (b)(4), there is no substantive change in that veteran's ability to participate in the Program or the benefits thereof. However, certain veterans who did not currently qualify under (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) may now qualify under (b)(2) as a result of this change.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that there is good cause that advance notice and opportunity for public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest and under 5 U.S.C.
This interim final rule changes the manner in which VA will calculate the distance requirement and will likely increase the number of veterans who are eligible for the program. Veterans who did not qualify under the straight-line methodology we previously articulated may qualify under the standard we are now establishing. In order for these veterans to have access to needed health care under the Program, it is essential that the revised driving distance requirement be made effective as soon as possible.
For the above reasons, the Secretary issues this rule as an interim final rule. However, VA will consider and address comments that are received within 30 days of the date this interim final rule is published in the
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this interim final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
This interim final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (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 this Executive Order.”
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined that this is an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's regulatory impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
This regulatory action is a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801–08, because it may result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Although this regulatory action constitutes a major rule within the meaning of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2), under 5 U.S.C. 808(2) it is not subject to the 60-day delay in effective date applicable to major rules under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3) because the Secretary finds for the reasons stated above good cause that advance notice and public procedure for this rule are impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1), VA will submit to the Comptroller General and to Congress a copy of this regulatory action and VA's Regulatory Impact Analysis.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule 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 (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year. This interim final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on participating eligible entities and providers who enter into agreements with VA. To the extent there is any such impact, it will result in increased business and revenue for them. We also do not believe there will be a significant economic impact on insurance companies, as claims will only be submitted for care that will otherwise have been received, whether such care was authorized under this Program or not. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are as follows: 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 2, 2015, for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 17 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
(e) For purposes of calculating the distance between a veteran's residence and the nearest VA medical facility under this section, VA will use the driving distance between the nearest VA medical facility and a veteran's residence. VA will calculate a veteran's driving distance using geographic information system software.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the format of materials submitted by the state of Montana that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by Montana and approved by the EPA.
This action is effective April 24, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0158. SIP Materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays, at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the
Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 303–312–6142,
This format revision will affect the “Identification of plan” section of 40 CFR part 52, as well as the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center located at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the EPA Region 8 Office.
Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and achieve certain other Clean Air Act (Act) requirements (
Each SIP revision submitted by Montana must be adopted at the state level after undergoing reasonable notice and public hearing. SIPs submitted to EPA to attain or maintain the NAAQS must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, schedules and timetables for compliance.
EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to determine if they meet the Act's requirements. If a SIP meets the Act's requirements, EPA will approve the SIP. EPA's notice of approval is published in the
We do not reproduce in 40 CFR part 52 the full text of the Montana regulations that we have approved. Instead, we incorporate them be reference or IBR. We approve a given state regulation with a specific effective date and then refer the public to the location(s) of the full text version of the state regulation(s) should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP (see I.F.,
The SIP is a dynamic document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations.
On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA announced revised procedures for IBR of federally approved SIPs. The procedures announced included: (1) A new process for IBR of material submitted by states into compilations and a process for updating those compilations on roughly an annual basis; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the compilations and the CFR; and, (3) a revised format for the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures.
We have organized into a compilation the federally-approved regulations, source-specific requirements and nonregulatory provisions we have approved into the SIP. These compilations may be found at
Each compilation contains three parts. Part one contains the state regulations that have been approved, part two contains the source-specific requirements that have been approved as part of the SIP (if any), and part three contains non-regulatory provisions that have been approved. Each compilation contains a table of identifying information for each regulation, each source-specific requirement, and each nonregulatory provision. The state effective dates in the tables indicate the date of the most recent revision to a particular approved regulation. The table of identifying information in the compilation corresponds to the table of contents published in 40 CFR part 52 for the state. The EPA Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for ensuring accuracy and updating the compilations.
EPA Region 8 developed and will maintain the compilation for Montana. An electronic copy of the compilation is contained at
In order to better serve the public, EPA has revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section in 40 CFR part 52 and included additional information to clarify the elements of the SIP.
The revised Identification of plan section for Montana contains five subsections:
1. Purpose and scope (see 40 CFR 52.1370(a));
2. Incorporation by reference (see 40 CFR 52.1370(b));
3. EPA-approved regulations (see 40 CFR 52.1370(c));
4. EPA-approved source-specific requirements (see 40 CFR 52.1370(d)); and,
5. EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions such as transportation control measures, statutory provisions, control strategies, monitoring networks, etc. (see 40 CFR 42.1370(e)).
All revisions to the applicable SIP are federally enforceable as of the effective date of EPA's approval of the respective revision. In general, SIP revisions become effective 30 to 60 days after publication of EPA's SIP approval action in the
To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and to provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, we are retaining the original Identification of plan section (see 40 CFR 52.1397). This section previously appeared at 40 CFR 52.1370. After an initial two-year period, we will review our experience with the new table format and will decide whether to retain the original Identification of plan section (40 CFR 52.1397) for some further period.
This action constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to reformat the codification of the EPA-approved Montana SIP.
EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon a finding of “good cause” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This action simply reformats the codification of provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law.
Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Likewise, there is no purpose served by delaying the effective date of this action.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in this
The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Montana SIP compilation had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” reorganization action for Montana.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) This section identifies the original “Air Implementation Plan for the State of Montana” and all revisions submitted by Montana that were federally approved prior to March 1, 2015.
(a)
(b)
(2) EPA Region 8 certifies that the rules/regulations provided by EPA in the SIP compilation at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the State Implementation Plan as of March 1, 2015.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129; Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of materials from the docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, please call the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) at (202) 566–1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go to
(c)
(d)
(e)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved on April 9, 2015, for a period for three years, an information collection for FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, contained in the Report and Order, FCC 14–50. This document is consistent with the
47 CFR 73.3700(b)(3) and FCC Form 2100, Schedule F, published at 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014, are effective on April 24, 2015.
For additional information contact Cathy Williams,
This document announces that, on April 9, 2015, OMB approved the information collection requirements for FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule F and 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(3), published at 79 FR 48442 on August 15, 2014. The OMB Control Number is 3060–0928. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the requirements. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1–C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060–0928, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on April 9, 2015, for the information collection requirements contained in the information collection 3060–0928.
Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060–0928. The foregoing document is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:
47 CFR 73.3700—Channel sharing Class A stations will need to file FCC Form 302–CA (now renamed FCC Form 2100, Schedule F) for their shared channel facility.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
At the request of Red Wolf Broadcasting Corporation, the Audio Division amends the FM Table of Allotments, by allotting Channel 233A at Sagaponack, New York, as the community's first local service. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 233A can be allotted to Sagaponack consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's Rules with a site restriction located 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) northwest of the community. The reference coordinates are 40–56–01 NL and 72–18–55 WL.
Effective May 25, 2015.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418–2700.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
Through this action NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific sardine off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. This action is necessary because the adjusted non-tribal directed harvest allocation of approximately 5084 metric tons (mt) for the third harvest allocation period from January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2015, is projected to be reached by the date of closure. From the effective date of this rule through June 30, 2015, Pacific sardine may be harvested only as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery or incidental to other fisheries; the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine is limited to 45-percent by weight of all fish per trip. Fishing vessels must cease fishing (be at shore and in the process of offloading) at or before the effective date of this closure.
Effective 12:01 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) April 28, 2015, through 11:59 p.m., June 30, 2015.
Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980–4034.
This document announces that—based on the best available information recently obtained on the status of the fishery and information on past fishing effort—the adjusted non-tribal directed fishing harvest allocation for the third harvest allocation period from January 1, through June 30, 2015, of 5,084 mt will be reached and therefore directed fishing for Pacific sardine is being closed per the final rule establishing the 2014–2015 Pacific sardine fishing season (July 25, 2014, 79 FR 43269). In accordance with that rule, the initial directed harvest allocation for the third period of 6,252 mt was adjusted to 5,084 mt to account for excess harvest in the second harvest allocation period. Fishing vessels must cease fishing (be at shore and in the process of offloading) at or before the effective date of this closure. From the effectiveness of this closure, through June 30, 2015, Pacific sardine may be harvested only as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery or incidental to other fisheries, with the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine limited to 45-percent by weight of all fish caught during a trip.
NMFS manages the Pacific sardine fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Annual specifications published in the
Under 50 CFR 660.509, if the total allocation or any specific apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, NMFS is required to close the Pacific sardine fishery via appropriate rulemaking and the fishery remains closed until it re-opens either per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. In accordance with § 660.509, the Regional Administrator shall publish a notice in the
The above in-season harvest restrictions are not intended to affect the prosecution of the live bait or tribal portions of the Pacific sardine fishery.
This action is required by 50 CFR 660.509 and is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for the closure of the directed harvest of Pacific sardine. For the reasons set forth below, notice and comment procedures are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons, NMFS also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this action. This measure responds to the best available information and is necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific sardine resource. A delay in effectiveness would cause the fishery to exceed the allocation for the directed fishery during the 2014–2015 fishing season, which is an important mechanism to prevent fishing in excess of the 2014–2105 annual catch limit. These seasonal harvest levels are important mechanisms in preventing overfishing and managing the fishery at optimum yield. The established directed and incidental harvest allocations are designed to allow fair and equitable opportunity to the resource by all sectors of the Pacific sardine fishery and to allow access to other profitable CPS fisheries, such as squid and Pacific mackerel. Many of the same fishermen who harvest Pacific sardine rely on these other fisheries for a significant portion of their income.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for importation in commercial consignments, from a pest free production site within a certified low pest prevalence area for fruit flies, and pest monitoring and trapping. The fruit would also have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador bearing an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach. This action would allow for the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests into the continental United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 23, 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
Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Regulations, Permits and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851–2352;
The regulations in “Subpart–Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56–1 through 319.56–71, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. The regulations currently do not authorize the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit to be imported from Ecuador into the continental United States.
As part of our evaluation of Ecuador's request, we have prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA), titled “Importation of Fresh Fruit of Andean Blackberry (
The PRA identified three quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit imported from Ecuador:
APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port of arrival inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by these plant pests. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador into the continental United States produced under a systems approach.
APHIS has also prepared a risk management document for the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador that identifies a systems approach of specific mitigation measures against the quarantine pests identified in the PRA and concludes that those measures, along with the general requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetables in the regulations, will be sufficient to prevent the introduction of the identified pests into the continental United States. Therefore, we are proposing to add the systems approach requirement to the regulations in a new § 319.56–73. The proposed measures are described below.
Paragraph (a) of proposed § 319.56–73 would set out general requirements for the NPPO of Ecuador and for growers and packers producing fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit for export to the continental United States.
Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed § 319.56–73 would require the NPPO of Ecuador to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO would, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of proposed § 319.56–73. An operational workplan is an agreement developed between
Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed § 319.56–73 would state that APHIS will be directly involved with the NPPO of Ecuador in monitoring and auditing implementation of the systems approach.
Paragraph (a)(3) of proposed § 319.56–73 would state that only commercial consignments of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador would be allowed to be imported into the continental United States. Commercial consignments are less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, may be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control.
Paragraph (b) of proposed § 319.56–73 would require certain mitigation measures to be taken under the systems approach at the registered production sites. Paragraph (b)(1) would require the production site to carry out any phytosanitary measures specified in the operational workplan. Examples of measures may include field monitoring, bait spraying, and trapping.
Both Andean blackberries and raspberries have been established in the scientific literature as poor hosts of
Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed § 319.56–73 would require that all production sites participating in the Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit export program be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. Such registration would facilitate traceback of a consignment of blackberry and raspberry fruit to the production site in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the port of first arrival into the United States. APHIS would reserve the right to conduct oversight visits at the production site in the event of pest interceptions or other problems.
Paragraph (b)(3) would require the NPPO of Ecuador or their designee
Paragraph (b)(4) would require that the NPPO of Ecuador maintain records of trap placement, trap checks, and any captures of
Lastly, paragraph (b)(5) would require that the NPPO of Ecuador also maintain an APHIS-approved quality control program to monitor or audit the trapping program, the details of which would be specified in the operational workplan.
Paragraph (c) of proposed § 319.56–73 would set forth requirements for mitigation and inspection measures specified under the operational workplan that would have to take place at registered packinghouses.
Paragraph (c)(1) would require that packinghouses be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador and comply with the requirements for inspecting and safeguarding fruit as specified in the operational workplan. If issues should arise, registration would allow for the traceback of a box of fruit to its place of production and packinghouse and would allow APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador to determine what remedial actions are necessary.
Paragraph (c)(2) would require that while in use for exporting Andean blackberries and raspberries to the continental United States, the packinghouses may only accept fruit from registered production sites.
Paragraph (c)(3) would state that if a single
The NPPO of Ecuador would be responsible for export certification, inspection, and issuance of phytosanitary certificates. Paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56–73 would require each consignment of Andean blackberries and/or raspberries to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador bearing an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56–73.
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 the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
The proposed rule is in response to a market access request from the Government of Ecuador for APHIS authorization to allow the importation of fresh Andean raspberries (
U.S. entities that may be impacted by the proposed rule are U.S. producers of fresh raspberries, blackberries, and loganberries, the majority of which are produced in Oregon (98 percent of U.S. blackberries and almost all loganberries), Washington (95 percent of U.S. red raspberries) and California (84 percent of all color raspberries). As a species, Andean raspberries and blackberries are similar to loganberries.
Impacts of the proposed rule on U.S. entities would be dependent upon the quantity of fresh Andean raspberries and blackberries from Ecuador. In 2005, Ecuador had approximately 10,564 acres of Andean blackberry and raspberry crops with a potential production output of 6,840 metric tons (about 15 million pounds) of fruit. Between 2000 and 2006, Ecuador exported an average of 13 metric tons (about 28,660 pounds) of Andean blackberries and raspberries. In 2007, exports of fresh Andean raspberries and Andean blackberries from Ecuador reached 90 metric tons (about 198,416 pounds). According to an Ecuadorian government estimate, the maximum quantity of fresh Andean raspberries and blackberries that could be exported to the United States is less than 182 metric tons per year or 401.24 thousand pounds.
On average, between 2008 and 2012 the United States imported 37.22 million pounds of fresh raspberries, and between 2011 and 2013 imported 63 million pounds of fresh blackberries. Compared to the total average U.S. imports of fresh raspberries and blackberries, the Ecuadorian import share would be less than 0.5 percent of the total U.S. imports for these fruits.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would allow fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will 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
Allowing the importation of fresh Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit into the continental United States from Ecuador will require an operational workplan, production site registration, packinghouse registration, a quality control program, recordkeeping, and phytosanitary certificates issued by the NPPO of Ecuador stating that the consignments were produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56–73. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments.
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.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and 7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Andean blackberries (
(a)
(2) APHIS will be directly involved with the NPPO of Ecuador in monitoring and auditing implementation of the systems approach.
(3) Andean blackberry and raspberry fruit from Ecuador may be imported into the continental United States in commercial consignments only.
(b)
(2) All places of production that participate in the export program must be approved by and registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. APHIS reserves the right to conduct oversight visits in the event of pest interceptions or other problems.
(3) The NPPO of Ecuador or their designee must conduct a fruit fly trapping program for the detection of
(4) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain records of trap placement, trap checks, and any captures of
(5) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain a quality control program, approved by APHIS, to monitor or audit the trapping program in accordance with the operational workplan.
(c)
(2) While in use for exporting Andean blackberries and raspberries to the continental United States, the packinghouses may only accept fruit from registered production sites.
(3) If a single
(d)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers into the United States from Ecuador. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements in the systems approach. This action would allow for the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 23, 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
Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Regulations, Permits and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851–2352;
The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56–1 through 319.56–71, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into
The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations in order to allow the common bell pepper (
As part of our evaluation of Ecuador's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under
The PRA, titled “Importation of Fresh Pepper Fruit—
The PRA identifies eight quarantine pests present in Ecuador that could be introduced into the United States through the importation of fresh peppers:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Andean potato mottle virus.
A quarantine pest is defined in § 319.56–2 of the regulations as a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled. Plant pest risk potentials associated with the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States were determined by estimating the consequences and likelihood of introduction of each quarantine pest into the United States and ranking the risk potential as high, medium, or low. The PRA rated six of the pests as having a high pest risk potential for following the pathway of peppers from Ecuador into the United States: The insects
APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port of arrival inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by these plant pests. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the importation of fresh peppers with stems from Ecuador into the United States produced under a systems approach. The RMD prepared for fresh peppers from Ecuador identifies a systems approach of specific mitigation measures against the quarantine pests identified in the PRA and concludes that those measures, along with the general requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetables in the regulations, will be sufficient to prevent the introduction of those pests into the United States. Therefore, we are proposing to add the systems approach to the regulations in a new § 319.56–73. The proposed measures are described below.
Paragraph (a) of proposed § 319.56–73 would require the NPPO of Ecuador to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO would, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of proposed § 319.56–73. An operational workplan is an agreement developed between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will be carried out to comply with our regulations governing the importation of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. The implementation of a systems approach typically requires an operational workplan to be developed.
Paragraph (b) of proposed § 319.56–73 would require fresh peppers from Ecuador to be imported in commercial consignments only. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control.
Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed § 319.56–73 would require that the peppers be grown in a pest-free, pest-exclusionary greenhouse or similar structure approved by and registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. Pest-free production sites have been used successfully to prevent infestation by
Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed § 319.56–73 would require that all production sites participating in the fresh pepper export program be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. Such registration would facilitate traceback of a consignment of peppers to the production site in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the port of first arrival into the United States. APHIS would reserve the right to conduct audits and
Paragraph (c)(3) of proposed § 319.56–73 would require the production sites to be inspected prior to harvest by the NPPO of Ecuador or its approved designee
Paragraph (c)(4) of proposed § 319.56–73 would require trapping for the fruit flies
Paragraph (c)(5) would state that, if a single
To ensure that the trapping is being properly conducted, paragraph (c)(6) would state that the NPPO of Ecuador would have to maintain records of trap placement, trap checks, and any quarantine pest captures in accordance with the operational workplan. Trapping records would have to be maintained for APHIS' review for at least 1 year.
Paragraph (c)(7) would state that the NPPO of Ecuador would have to maintain a quality control program, approved by APHIS, to monitor or audit the trapping program in accordance with the operational workplan.
We are proposing several requirements for packinghouse activities, which would be contained in paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56–73.
Paragraph (d)(1) would require that fresh peppers be packed in a packinghouse registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. Such registration would facilitate traceback of a consignment of peppers to the packinghouse in which it was packed in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the port of first arrival into the United States.
Paragraph (d)(2) would require that the peppers be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The peppers would have to be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. The peppers would be required to be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, for transit to the United States. These safeguards would have to remain intact until arrival in the United States or the consignment would be denied entry.
Paragraph (d)(3) of proposed § 319.56–73 would require that during the time that the packinghouse is in use for exporting fresh peppers to the United States, the packinghouse would only be allowed to accept peppers from registered production sites. This requirement would prevent such peppers intended for export to the United States from being exposed to or otherwise mixed with peppers that are not produced according to the requirements of the systems approach.
To certify that fresh peppers from Ecuador have been grown and packed in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 319.56–73, proposed paragraph (e) would require each consignment of peppers to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador bearing the additional declaration that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56–73. The shipping box would have to be labeled with the identity of the production site.
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 the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
The proposed rule would amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States when a systems approach to pest risk mitigation is used to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests. The systems approach would integrate prescribed mitigation measures that cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection.
The most recent production data available show that fresh pepper yields in Ecuador have expanded from approximately 12,522 pounds per hectare (pounds/ha) in 1996 to approximately 66,361 pounds/ha in 2006. The total quantity of fresh peppers that were exported from Ecuador in 2006 and 2007 was 96.3 metric tons (MT) and 206.5 MT, respectively. Sea shipping containers that are 40 feet in length hold approximately 20 U.S MT. Considering the total volume exported from Ecuador during these years, APHIS estimates imports of no more than 10 containers (200 MT) of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States annually. This quantity is equivalent to less than 0.02 percent of annual U.S. fresh pepper production. Similarly, the estimated quantity of fresh pepper imports from Ecuador (200 MT annually) is minimal compared to the total quantity of fresh peppers imported by the United States in recent years (800,000 MT annually).
In the United States, the average value of bell pepper production per farm in 2012 was approximately $52,300, and the average value of chili pepper production per farm was approximately $20,700. Both levels are well below the small-entity standard of $750,000. Establishments classified within NAICS 111219, including pepper farms, are considered small by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if annual sales are not more than $750,000. Accordingly, pepper growers are predominantly small entities according to the SBA standard.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would allow fresh peppers to be imported into the United States from Ecuador. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh peppers imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh vegetables are
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
APHIS is proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers into the United States from Ecuador. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for fruit fly trapping, inspections, production sites, a quality control program, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the requirements of § 319.56–73.
This action would allow for the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.
Allowing the importation of fresh peppers into the United States from Ecuador will require an operational workplan, registered production sites, trapping records, quality control program, packinghouse registrations, box labeling, and phytosanitary certificates.
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.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701–7772 and 7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Fresh peppers (
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) All production sites that participate in the pepper export program must be registered with the NPPO of Ecuador.
(3) The production sites must be inspected prior to each harvest by the NPPO of Ecuador or its approved designee in accordance with the operational workplan. If any quarantine pests are found to be generally infesting or infecting the production site, the
(4) The registered production sites must conduct trapping for the fruit flies
(5) If a single
(6) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain records of trap placement, checking of traps, and any quarantine pest captures in accordance with the operational workplan. Trapping records must be maintained for APHIS review for at least 1 year.
(7) The NPPO of Ecuador must maintain a quality control program, approved by APHIS, to monitor or audit the trapping program in accordance with the operational workplan.
(d)
(2) The peppers must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The peppers must be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. The peppers must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, for transit into the United States. These safeguards must remain intact until arrival in the United States or the consignment will be denied entry into the United States.
(3) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting peppers to the United States, the packinghouse may only accept peppers from registered approved production sites.
(e)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers into the continental United States and the Territories from Peru. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Peru with an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach. This action would allow for the importation of untreated fresh peppers from Peru while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States and the Territories.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 23, 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
Mr. George Balady, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–2240.
The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56–1 through 319.56–71, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. The regulations currently do not authorize the importation of fresh peppers from Peru.
The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations in order to allow the common chili pepper (
As part of our evaluation of Peru's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under
The PRA, titled “Importation of Fresh Pepper Fruit—
The PRA identifies four quarantine pests present in Peru that could be introduced into the continental United States and the Territories through the importation of peppers:
•
•
•
•
A quarantine pest is defined in § 319.56–2 of the regulations as a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled. Plant pest risk potentials associated with the importation of peppers from Peru into the continental United States and the Territories were determined by estimating the consequences and likelihood of introduction of each quarantine pest into the continental United States and the Territories and ranking the risk potential as high, medium, or low. The PRA determined that three of these four pests—
Based on the conclusions of the PRA and the RMD, we are proposing to allow the importation of peppers from Peru into the continental United States and the Territories subject to a systems approach. The conditions in the systems approach that we are proposing are described below. These conditions would be added to the regulations in a new § 319.56–73.
Proposed paragraph (a) of § 319.56–73 would require the NPPO of Peru to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO would, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of proposed § 319.56–73. The operational workplan would have to include and describe in detail the quarantine pest survey intervals and other specific requirements in proposed § 319.56–73.
An operational workplan is an agreement between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will be carried out to comply with our regulations governing the importation of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. The implementation of a systems approach typically requires an operational workplan to be developed.
Proposed paragraph (b) of § 319.56–73 would require peppers from Peru to be imported only in commercial consignments. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control. Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56–2, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packing, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer.
Proposed paragraph (c) of § 319.56–73 would require that the peppers be grown in a pest-free, pest-exclusionary structure approved by and registered with the Peruvian NPPO. These pest-exclusionary structures would be the only registered production sites for peppers from Peru. APHIS reserves the right to conduct audits and inspect the production sites as needed. The pest-exclusionary structures would have to be equipped with double self-closing doors to prevent inadvertent introduction of pests. In addition, any windows, vents, or openings in the pest-exclusionary structures (other than the double self-closing doors) would have to be covered with 1.6 mm screening in order to prevent the entry of pests. The 1.6 mm screening size is adequate to exclude
We would require the production sites to be inspected prior to harvest for
Proposed paragraph (c) of § 319.56–73 would also require trapping for
Traps with an approved protein bait would have to be placed inside the production sites at a density of four traps per hectare, with a minimum of at least two traps per structure. The traps would have to be serviced at least once every 7 days. If a single
Outside the production site, traps with an approved protein bait would have to be placed inside a buffer area 500 meters wide around the structure at a density of 1 trap per 10 hectares, with a minimum of 10 traps. At least one of these traps would have to be placed near the production site. These traps would have to be serviced at least once every 7 days.
Capture of 0.7 or more
To ensure that the trapping is being properly conducted, the Peruvian NPPO or its approved designee would have to maintain records of trap placement, checking of traps, and any quarantine pest captures. The Peruvian NPPO would also have to maintain an APHIS-approved quality control program to monitor or audit the trapping program. Trapping records must be maintained for APHIS' review.
We are proposing several requirements for packinghouse activities, which would be contained in paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56–73. Peppers would have to be packed for export within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse registered with the NPPO of Peru. Such registration would facilitate traceback of a consignment of peppers to the packinghouse in which it was packed in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the port of first arrival into the continental United States or the Territories. The peppers would have to be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh, screen, or plastic tarpaulin while in transit from the production site to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. The peppers would have to be packed for shipment to the continental United States or the Territories in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin. These safeguards would have to remain intact until the arrival of the peppers in the continental United States or the Territories or the consignment would not be allowed to enter the continental United States or the Territories.
During the time that the packinghouse is in use for exporting peppers to the continental United States or the Territories, the packinghouse would only be allowed to accept peppers from registered production sites. This requirement would prevent peppers intended for export to the continental United States or the Territories from being exposed to or mixed with peppers that are not produced according to the requirements of the systems approach.
To certify that peppers from Peru have been grown and packed in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 319.56–73, proposed paragraph (e) would require each consignment of peppers to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection issued by the Peruvian NPPO with an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced in accordance with the systems approach described in the proposed regulations.
We are also proposing to add a definition for
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.
The proposed rule would amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers from Peru into the continental United States and the Territories when a systems approach to pest risk mitigation is used to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests listed in the PRA. The systems approach would integrate prescribed mitigation measures that cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection.
Fresh peppers from Peru would compete with U.S. domestic production as well as with imports from other countries. Peru produced an average of about 9,600 metric tons (MT) of fresh peppers annually from 2005 through 2011. Over that same time period, fresh pepper exports from Peru ranged from 226 MT to 567 MT, accounting for between 2.6 and 7.0 percent of annual production.
Consumers base their fresh produce purchasing decisions on a number of factors besides price, including qualitative attributes such as color, shape, appearance, size, freshness, perceived health benefits, production methods, and product origin. Consumers would benefit from the additional supply of fresh peppers that imports from Peru would provide, and importers and distributors of Peruvian fresh peppers would benefit from new business opportunities. U.S. producers would face increased competition from the additional imports. However, economic effects of the proposed rule for U.S. fresh pepper producers and consumers are likely to be small. The quantity expected to be imported, less than 440 MT, is the equivalent of less than 0.03 percent of annual fresh pepper consumption in the United States.
We use a non-spatial, net trade, partial equilibrium model to quantitatively assess benefits and costs of the proposed rule. As a measure of the sensitivity of possible impacts, we assume three annual import volumes of fresh peppers from Peru: 220, 440, and 660 MT. In all cases, we find that consumer welfare gains would outweigh producer welfare losses, yielding small positive net welfare impacts. Modeled net economic gains for the United States due to fresh pepper imports from Peru range from $231,000 to $692,000. Actual
We have identified industries that could be affected by the proposed rule based on the North American Industry Classification System. Based on Small Business Administration size standards, small entities are prominent in those industries for which information on business size composition is available.
This proposed rule would allow fresh peppers to be imported into the continental United States and the Territories from Peru. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh peppers imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh vegetables are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will 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
APHIS is proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers into the continental United States and the Territories from Peru. As a condition of entry, the fruit would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. The fruit would also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Peru with an additional declaration stating that the consignment was produced in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach.
Allowing the importation of untreated fresh peppers into the continental United States and the Territories from Peru will require an operational workplan, registered production sites, trapping records, quality control program, packinghouse registrations, and phytosanitary certificates.
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 EGovernment 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.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and 7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Fresh peppers (
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) All production sites that participate in the export program must be registered with the Peruvian NPPO.
(3) The production sites must be inspected prior to harvest for
(4) The production sites must contain traps for the detection of
(i) Traps with an approved protein bait must be placed inside the production site at a density of four traps per hectare, with a minimum of two traps per structure. Traps must be serviced once every 7 days.
(ii) If a single
(iii) Traps with an approved protein bait must be placed inside a buffer area 500 meters wide around the registered production site, at a density of 1 trap per 10 hectares and a minimum of 10 traps. These traps must be checked at least once every 7 days. At least one of these traps must be near the production site.
(iv) Capture of 0.7 or more
(v) The Peruvian NPPO must maintain records of trap placement, checking of traps, and any quarantine pest captures. The Peruvian NPPO must maintain an APHIS-approved quality control program to monitor or audit the trapping program. The trapping records must be maintained for APHIS review.
(d)
(2) The peppers must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The peppers must be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. The peppers must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, for transit into the continental United States or its Territories. These safeguards must remain intact until arrival in the continental United States or its Territories or the consignment will be denied entry into the continental United States or its Territories.
(3) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting peppers to the continental United States or its Territories, the packinghouse may only accept peppers from registered approved production sites.
(e)
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting; correction.
On April 2, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published in the
John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–1692. Email:
April 24, 2015.
In the
On page 17836: Equation 2 is corrected by removing “13.46” and adding in its place “17.80”. The corrected equation reads as follows:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting; correction.
On April 1, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published in the
April 24, 2015.
Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email:
In the
1. On page 17604: Equation (6) is corrected by removing “13.46” and adding in its place “17.80”. The corrected equation reads as follows:
2. On page 17645: The equation in section II.B.1.1.1 is corrected by removing “13.46” and adding in its place “17.80”. The corrected equation reads as follows:
3. On page 17646: The equation in section III.D.1.2.1 is corrected by removing “MotorH” and adding in its place “MotorHP”. The corrected equation reads as follows:
4. On page 17648: The equation in section V.D.1.2.1 is corrected by removing “MotorHPMotorH” and adding in its place “MotorHP”. The corrected equation reads as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a rupture of a main landing gear (MLG) sliding tube axle. This proposed AD would require an inspection to identify the part number and serial number of the MLG sliding tubes installed on the airplane; and an inspection of the axle on certain MLG sliding tubes for burned areas, and replacement of the sliding tube if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the axle and (partial) detachment of the axle and wheel from the sliding tube, which could result in failure of an MLG.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 8, 2015.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For Airbus service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
For Messier-Bugatti-Dowty service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166–8910; phone: 703–450–8233; fax: 703–404–1621; Internet:
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227–1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014–0058, dated March 11, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
A main landing gear (MLG) sliding tube axle rupture occurred in service. Investigation of the affected part showed that this failure was due to an abnormal grinding operation during overhaul by a certain maintenance and repair organisation located in Singapore. A population of MLG sliding tubes was subsequently identified whose axles may have been subject to this grinding operation, which may have resulted in areas of residual stress on the axles on the MLG sliding tubes. In addition, the MSN [manufacturer serial number] of the aeroplanes which are known to have had the affected parts installed have been identified.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to cracks in the axle and (partial) detachment of axle and wheel from the sliding tube, possibly resulting in failure of a MLG with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Messier-Bugatti-Dowty, the MLG gear manufacturer, issued Service Bulletin (SB) 200–32–313 and SB 201–32–62 [both dated February 25, 2013], providing inspection instructions and criteria for removal from service of the affected MLG sliding tubes.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time Special Detailed Inspection (SDI) of the axle on the affected MLG sliding tubes and, depending on findings, replacement of the MLG sliding tube.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320–32–1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes). This service bulletin describes procedures for inspection of the MLG sliding tube axles, and replacement if necessary.
Messier-Bugatti-Dowty has issued Service Bulletin 200–32–313, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes); and Service Bulletin 201–32–62, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A321 series airplanes). These service bulletins describe procedures for inspection of the MLG axles and brake flanges, and replacement if necessary.
The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. 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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an
As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the specified service information, procedures and tests that are identified as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 18 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,590, or $1,530 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours, for a cost of $255 per product. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide part cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
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 June 8, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A318–111, –112, –121, and –122 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A319–111, –112, –113, –114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A320–211, –212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes.
(4) Airbus Model A321–111, –112, –131, –211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.
This AD was prompted by a report of a rupture of a main landing gear (MLG) sliding tube axle. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the axle and (partial) detachment of the axle and wheel from the sliding tube, which could result in failure of an MLG.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Do an inspection to identify the part number and serial number of the MLG sliding tubes installed on the airplane. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the MLG sliding tubes can be conclusively determined from that review.
An airplane with a manufacturer serial number (MSN) not listed in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD is not affected by the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, provided it can be determined that no MLG sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD has been installed on that airplane since first flight of the airplane.
For each MLG sliding tube, identified as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD: Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect each affected MLG axle and brake flange by doing a detailed visual inspection of the chromium plate for damage, and a Barkhausen noise inspection of the sliding tube axles for burned areas, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200–32–313, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes); or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201–32–62, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A321 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320–32–1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes).
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any damage is detected: Before further flight, replace the MLG sliding tube with a serviceable tube, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 200–32–313, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A318, A319, and A320 series airplanes); or Messier-Bugatti-Dowty Service Bulletin 201–32–62, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated February 25, 2013 (for Model A321 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320–32–1416, including Appendix 01, dated March 10, 2014 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes).
For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable sliding tube is defined in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD.
(1) A sliding tube having a part number and serial number not listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD.
(2) A sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD that has passed the inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes that have an MLG sliding tube installed that has a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD: After an airplane is returned to service following accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, no person may install on any airplane an MLG sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD.
(2) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD, do not have an MLG sliding tube installed that has a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD: No person may install on any airplane an MLG sliding tube having a part number and serial number listed in table 1 to paragraphs (h), (i), (k)(1), (k)(2), (l)(1), and (l)(2) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified (if the operator elects to do so), provided the MLG remains extended throughout the flight.
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2014–0058, dated March 11, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 97–07–14, for certain Airbus Model A320–111, –211, and –231 airplanes. AD 97–07–14 currently requires modification of an area on the front spar of the wing center section by installing shims and new fasteners to reinforce pressure floor fittings. Since we issued AD 97–07–14, we have determined the need for repetitive inspections on airplanes on which the modification of the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section has been done. This proposed AD would continue to require modifying the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section by installing shims and new fasteners to reinforce pressure floor fittings; and would require repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the radius of the rib flanges and vertical stiffener at frame 36, a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes of the rib flanges, repair if needed, and adding additional airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking on the rib flange area of the front spar of the wing center section, which can reduce the structural integrity of fuselage frame 36 and the wing center section.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 8, 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–227–1405; fax 425–227–1149.
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 March 27, 1997, we issued AD 97–07–14, Amendment 39–9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997). AD 97–07–14 requires modification of an area on the front spar of the wing center section by installing shims and new fasteners to reinforce pressure floor fittings on certain Airbus Model A320–111, –211 and –231 airplanes.
Since we issued AD 97–07–14, Amendment 39–9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997), we have determined the need for repetitive inspections on airplanes on which Airbus Modification 20976 (modification of the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section) was done in production, or was done using Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1013, dated April 12, 1989; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1013, Revision 1, dated September 29, 1992.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent
During full scale fatigue tests on the Airbus A320 test specimen, cracks were found in the rib flange on the front spar side perpendicular to vertical posts at frame (FR) 36. It was determined that similar cracks could develop on certain in-service aeroplanes.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the wing structural integrity.
To reduce the risk of crack initiation, two modifications for aeroplanes in production and one modification for in-service aeroplanes were developed by Airbus: Prior to [manufacturer serial number] MSN 0085, the adaptation modification (Mod) 20976 was applied in production, consisting in installing shims under the fasteners linking the rib flange, the lower corner, the front spar and its vertical stiffener; from MSN 0085 onwards, the serial Mod 20908 was applied in production, consisting in installing reinforced lower surface rib flanges at front spar level.
Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320–57–1013 for affected in-service aeroplanes, and [Directorate General for Civil Aviation] DGAC France issued AD 95–098–066 [which corresponds to FAA AD 97–07–14, Amendment 39–9988, (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997)] to require installation of shims under the fasteners linking the rib flange, the lower corner, the front spar and its vertical stiffener.
Following a recent analysis, Airbus identified the need for repetitive [HFEC and rototest] inspections for aeroplanes on which Airbus SB A320–57–1013 or production Mod 20976 has been embodied.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 95–098–066, which is superseded, and requires repetitive [HFEC and rototest] inspections of the center wing lower ribs at FR 36 and, depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.
After EASA issued PAD 14–013, it was discovered that additional work [removal of shims and fasteners on the rib flange on the front spar side and doing an HFEC inspection for cracking of the radius of the rib flanges and a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes during each inspection] to be included in Revision 01 of Airbus SB A320–57–1175, is required to accomplish the inspections. This Final [EASA] AD has been amended accordingly.
Airplanes having MSNs 001, 009, and 015 were not included in the applicability of AD 97–07–14, Amendment 39–9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997). EASA AD 2014–0053, dated March 7, 2014, expanded the applicability to all airplanes having up to MSN 0084. We included paragraph (h) of this proposed AD to require the modification for the airplanes having MSNs 001, 009, and 015.You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320–57–1175, Revision 01, including Appendix 01 and Appendix 02, dated May 28, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the radius of the rib flanges and vertical stiffener at frame 36, a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes of the rib flanges, and repair. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is reasonably available; see
The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests in the service information are required for compliance with an AD. Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in the service information identified previously include procedures and tests that are identified as RC (required for compliance) because these procedures have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the specified service information, procedures and tests identified as RC must be done to comply with the proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.
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 the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1175, Revision 01, including Appendix 01 and Appendix 02, dated May 28, 2014, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA or its delegated agent, or Airbus' EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 97–07–14, Amendment 39–9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997), and retained in this proposed AD take about 13 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $576 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 97–07–14 is $1,681 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 45 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,600 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $59,675, or $5,425 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:
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 June 8, 2015.
This AD replaces AD 97–07–14, Amendment 39–9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A320–211 and –231 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) up to MSN 0084 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by the determination that repetitive inspections are needed on airplanes on which the modification of the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section has been done. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking on the rib flange area of the front spar of the wing center section, which can reduce the structural integrity of fuselage frame 36 and the wing center section.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 97–07–14, Amendment 39–9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997). For airplanes with manufacturer serial number (MSN) 005 through 008 inclusive, MSN 010 through 014 inclusive, and MSN 016 through 042 inclusive: Prior to the accumulation of 16,000 total landings, or within 3 months after May 12, 1997 (the effective date of AD 97–07–14), whichever occurs later, modify the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section by installing shims and new fasteners to reinforce pressure floor fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1013, Revision 1, dated September 29, 1992.
Prior to the accumulation of 16,000 total landings since first flight, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, modify the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section by installing shims and new fasteners to reinforce pressure floor fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1013, Revision 1, dated September 29, 1992.
Within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the radius of the rib flanges and vertical stiffener at frame 36 and do a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes of the rib flanges and vertical stiffener, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1175, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated May 28, 2014. During each inspection, remove the shims and fasteners on the rib flange on the front spar side and do an HFEC inspection for cracking of the radius of the rib flanges and a rototest inspection for cracking of the fastener holes. If no cracking is found, oversize the holes of the rib flange and the holes of the shims, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1175, Revision 01, including Appendix 01, dated May 28, 2014. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 32,500 flight cycles or 65,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(1) For airplanes having Airbus Modification 20976 embodied: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) or (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before exceeding 47,800 flight cycles or 95,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first, since the airplane's first flight.
(ii) Within 850 flight cycles or 1,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For airplanes on which the modification of the front spar of the wing center section was accomplished using Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1013, Revision 1, dated September 29, 1992: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Before exceeding 10,700 flight cycles or 21,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the modification of the rib flange on the front spar of the wing center section was done using Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1013, Revision 1, dated September 29, 1992.
(ii) Within 850 flight cycles or 1,700 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any cracking is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
This paragraph restates the requirements of Note 2 of paragraph (g) of AD 97–07–14, Amendment 39–9988 (62 FR 16473, April 7, 1997): This paragraph provides credit for the modification of the rib flange required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before May 12, 1997 (the effective date of AD 97–07–14) using Airbus Service Bulletin A320–57–1013, dated April 12, 1989.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014–0053, dated March 7, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Headland, AL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Headland Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.
Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA–2015–0046; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–23, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1–800–647–5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–2015–0046; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–23) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2015–0046; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–23.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Headland Municipal Airport, Headland, AL., providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Headland Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of the airport would be established for IFR operations.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Headland Municipal Airport, Headland, AL.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f),106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Headland Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Highmore, SD. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Highmore Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001. You must identify the docket number FAA–2014–0744/Airspace Docket No. 14–ACE–5, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
Rebecca Shelby, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817–321–7740.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2014–0723/Airspace Docket No. 14–AGL–13.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Highmore Municipal Airport, Highmore, SD, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish controlled airspace at Highmore Municipal Airport, Highmore, SD.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Highmore Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Defuniak Springs, FL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Defuniak Springs Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA–2015–0045; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–22, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1–800–647–5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–2015–0045; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–22) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2015–0045; Airspace Docket No. 14–ASO–22.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Defuniak Springs Airport., Defuniak Springs, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Defuniak Springs Airport.. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport would be established for IFR operations.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Defuniak Springs Airport, Defuniak Springs, FL.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Defuniak Springs Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Campbellsville, KY as the Taylor County NDB has been decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at Taylor County Airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–000; Telephone: 1–800–647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA–2015–0458; Airspace Docket No. 15–ASO–02, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–2015–0458; Airspace Docket No. 15–ASO–02) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Taylor County Airport, Campbellsville, KY. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 7.7-mile radius of the airport, with an extension from the airport to 11.3 miles northeast of the airport is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Taylor County NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Taylor County Airport, Campbellsville, KY.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Taylor County Airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 050° bearing of the airport extending from the 7.7-mile radius to 11.3 miles northeast of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Greenville, SC as new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed at Greenville Downtown Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.
Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800–647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA–2015–0044; Airspace Docket No. 15–ASO–3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202–267–8783.
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305–6364.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–2015–0044; Airspace Docket No. 15–ASO–3) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2015–0044; Airspace Docket No. 15–ASO–3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Greenville Downtown Airport, Greenville, SC. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 9.3-mile radius of the airport is necessary to support new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Greenville Downtown Airport, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It,
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Greenville Downtown Airport, Greenville, SC.
This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.3-mile radius of Greenville Downtown Airport, and within a 10-mile radius of Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport, and within a 6.7-mile radius of Donaldson Center Airport, and within 4 miles northwest and 8 miles southeast of of the 224° bearing from the DYANA NDB extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 16 miles southwest of Donaldson Center Airport.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the comment period for the proposed rule that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule published February 6, 2015 (80 FR 6802). Submit either electronic or written comments on the proposed rule by June 8, 2015.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
Submit written submissions in the following ways:
•
Janice L. Weiner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6268, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–3601.
In the
The Agency has received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the proposed rule. Each request conveyed concern that the current 90-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the proposed rule.
FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period for the proposed rule for 30 days, until June 8, 2015. The Agency believes that a 30-day extension of the comment period for the proposed rule allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying rulemaking on these important issues.
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding this document to
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document contains proposed regulations that provide guidance regarding when a foreign insurance company's income is excluded from the definition of passive income under section 1297(b)(2)(B). The proposed regulations affect the U.S. shareholders of foreign corporations. This document also invites comments from the public on all aspects of the proposed rules and provides the opportunity for the public to request a public hearing.
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by July 23, 2015.
Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–108214–15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. 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–108214–15), 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, Josephine Firehock, (202) 317–4932; concerning submissions of comments or requests for a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor at (202) 317–6901 (not toll-free numbers).
The Department of Treasury (Treasury) and the IRS are aware of situations in which a hedge fund establishes a purported foreign reinsurance company in order to defer and reduce the tax that otherwise would be due with respect to investment income. Such foreign corporations may be Passive Foreign Investment Companies (PFICs). For a description of the recent trends and legislative proposals to address the issue, see “Background and Data with Respect to Hedge Fund Reinsurance Arrangements,” JCT (July 31, 2014) (2014 JCT Report); see also Notice 2003–34, 2003–23 IRB 990 (May 9, 2003).
Under section 1297 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), a foreign corporation is a PFIC if either 75 percent or more of its gross income for the taxable year is passive income (“passive income test”), or on average 50 percent or more of its assets produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income (“passive asset test”). Section 1297(b)(1) generally defines the term “passive income” to mean any income of a kind that would be “foreign personal holding company income” as defined in section 954(c). In general, an asset is characterized as passive if it generates (or is reasonably expected to generate in the reasonably foreseeable future) passive income as defined in section 1297(b). Assets that generate both passive and non-passive income in a taxable year are treated as partly passive and partly non-passive assets in proportion to the relative amounts of income generated by those assets in that year. See Notice 88–22, 1988–1 CB 489 (February 26, 1988).
For purposes of applying the passive income test, section 1297(b)(2)(B) provides that, except as provided in regulations, the term “passive income” does not include any income that is derived in the active conduct of an insurance business by a corporation which is predominantly engaged in an insurance business and which would be subject to tax under subchapter L as an insurance company if the corporation were a domestic corporation. As the terms “active conduct” and “insurance business” are not defined in section 1297, Treasury and the IRS are proposing regulations to clarify the circumstances under which investment income earned by a foreign insurance company is derived in the active conduct of an insurance business for purposes of determining whether the income is passive income, and thus the extent to which the company's assets are treated as passive assets for purposes of determining whether the company is a PFIC.
The proposed regulations provide that the term “active conduct” has the same meaning as in § 1.367(a)–2T(b)(3), except that officers and employees are not considered to include the officers and employees of related entities. The proposed regulations define the term “insurance business” to mean the business activity of issuing insurance and annuity contracts and the reinsuring of risks underwritten by insurance companies, together with investment activities and administrative services that are required to support or are substantially related to insurance contracts issued or reinsured by the foreign insurance company.
The proposed regulations do not set forth a method to determine the portion of assets held to meet obligations under insurance and annuity contracts. Comments are requested on appropriate methodologies for determining the extent to which assets are held to meet obligations under insurance and annuity contracts.
The proposed regulations also do not define what it means to be “predominantly engaged” in an insurance business. Prior to 1984, the Code did not define an insurance company. Section 1.801–3(a) of the regulations, however, provides in relevant part that an insurance company is a company whose primary and predominant business activity during the taxable year is the issuing of insurance or annuity contracts or the reinsuring of risks underwritten by insurance companies.
In 1984, Congress enacted a definition of an “insurance company” that applied only to life insurance companies, and in 2004, a conforming amendment was made to apply the same definition to non-life insurance companies. See sections 816(a) and 831(c). Under this definition, in order for a corporation to be subject to tax as an insurance company under subchapter L, more than half of its business during the taxable year is required to be the issuing of insurance or annuity contracts or the reinsuring of risks underwritten by insurance companies. By requiring that more than half of the company's business activity, rather than its predominant business activity, be insurance activity, the current subchapter L statutory rules adopt a stricter and more precise standard than the “primary and predominant” regulatory standard under prior law.
These regulations are proposed to apply on the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the 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, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these 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 “Addresses.” Treasury and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed rules. Comments specifically are requested with regard to how to determine the portion of a foreign insurance company's assets that are held to meet obligations under insurance contracts issued or reinsured by the company. For example, assets could be considered as held to meet obligations under insurance or annuity contracts issued or reinsured by the corporation to the extent the corporation's assets in the calendar year do not exceed a specified percentage of the corporation's total insurance liabilities for the year (for example, the sum of the corporation's “total reserves” (as defined in section 816(c)) plus (to the extent not included in total reserves) the items referred to in paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of section 807(c)). Comments are requested with regard to what percentage would be appropriate. Also, comments are requested with regard to whether other methods would be more appropriate to determine the portion of assets that are held to meet obligations under insurance and annuity contracts.
All comments will be available at
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Josephine Firehock of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.1297–4 is also issued under 26 U.S.C. 1297(b)(2)(B) and 1298(g).
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i) An investment activity is any activity engaged in by the foreign corporation to produce income of a kind that would be foreign personal holding company income as defined in section 954(c); and
(ii) Investment activities are required to support or are substantially related to insurance and annuity contracts issued or reinsured by the foreign corporation to the extent that income from the activities is earned from assets held by the foreign corporation to meet obligations under the contracts.
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve the New Hampshire November 15, 2012 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions that are intended to ensure that the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs are consistent with the federal PSD and NNSR program requirements. In a letter dated March 20, 2015, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) committed to revising its regulations no later than one year from the date when EPA publishes a notice of final conditional approval, and to submitting the revised regulations to EPA for approval into the SIP. EPA is also proposing to fully approve a July 1, 2003 SIP revision that clarifies two definitions related to New Hampshire's permitting programs. These actions are being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Written comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0796 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's proposed approval and technical support document are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Air Resources Division, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302–0095.
Brendan McCahill, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone number (617) 918–1652, Fax number (617) 918–0652, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
EPA is proposing three actions in this document. First, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the New Hampshire PSD program under PART Env-A 619, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration.” EPA originally proposed approval of the State's PSD program revisions on January 21, 2015. See 80 FR 2860. EPA is reproposing to approve the State's PSD program as a conditional approval because subsequent to EPA's January 21, 2015
EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve revisions to New Hampshire's NNSR program SIP submitted on November 15, 2012. The approval is conditioned on New Hampshire submitting in a timely manner two requirements missing from its rules: (1) Provisions that meet the federal regulations for “reasonable possibility,” applicable to projects at major stationary sources that are not major modifications based on the actual-to-projected actual test but have a “reasonable possibility” of resulting in a significant emission increase; and (2) provisions stating that approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan and any other requirements under local, state or federal law. In a letter dated March 20, 2015, the NH DES committed to revising its NNSR regulations to include the requirements above and to submitting the revised regulations to EPA for approval into the SIP.
Finally, EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's July 1, 2003 SIP revision that modifies two definitions in PART Env-A 101, “Permit definitions:” (1) “minor permit amendment,” and (2) “state permit to operate.” These revisions are intended to clarify the State's definitions relevant to certain permitting transactions and to render them consistent with the requirements in the State's permitting rules.
EPA's original proposal to approve the November 15, 2012 revisions to New Hampshire's PSD program is described in detail in the January 21, 2015
EPA received one comment from Earthjustice during the comment period for the proposed approval of the PSD program. Earthjustice commented that EPA's January 21, 2015 document proposing approval for the State's PSD program was confusing and should have more clearly stated that New Hampshire
New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal also included revisions to the State's NNSR program at PART Env-A 618, “Nonattainment New Source Review.” The revisions incorporated by reference into the State's regulations, at PART Env-A 618 “Nonattainment New Source Review,” consist of many of the
New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal adopting provisions from the July 1, 2011 edition of 40 CFR 51.165 (with the exceptions mentioned above and described in more detail in EPA's TSD) into the SIP, involves the addition of several major changes to the State's NNSR rules since EPA last approved the State's NNSR program on July 27, 2001. As mentioned earlier, the exact provisions of the federal regulations which are and are not being incorporated by reference into the New Hampshire SIP in this action are contained in EPA's TSD for this rulemaking. The new NNSR provisions,
EPA issued a Final Rule entitled, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR): Baseline Emissions Determination, Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology, Plantwide Applicability Limitations, Clean Units, Pollution Control Projects” (67 FR 80185, December 31, 2002). The rule made a number of changes to the applicability requirements of the federal NNSR rule including the following:
• A new definition of “actual emission baseline” that defines an emission unit's pre-modification actual emissions;
• New “Applicability Procedures” under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2) that define the test method used to calculate the emission increase from the construction or modification of new or existing emission units;
• The expansion of the “Actual-to-Projected Actual” applicability test to determine if projects at non-Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (non-EUSGU) are major modifications. (The pre-2002 federal NSR regulations restricted the Actual-to-Projected Actual applicability test to EUSGUs only);
• New procedures requiring stationary sources to monitor, keep records and report emissions from projects at existing emission units if there is a reasonable possibility (as defined in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6)(vi)) that a project that is determined pre-construction not to be a major modification may actually in the future result in a significant emission increase; and
• The addition of the optional “Plantwide Applicability Test” (PAL) for all source categories.
The
The final document for the December 2002 NSR rule at
EPA issued a Final Rule governing the implementation of NSR for PM
The rule also identified the following list of pollutants that contribute to PM
• Direct emissions of PM
• Sulfur dioxide (SO
• Nitrogen oxides (NO
• Volatile organic compounds (VOC)—not regulated under the NNSR rule unless the state demonstrates that VOC emissions are a significant contributor to the formation of PM
• Ammonia—not regulated under the NNSR rule unless the state demonstrates that ammonia emissions are a significant contributor to the formation of PM
The rule also identifies the following significant emission rates used to determine if increases in direct emissions of PM
• Direct PM
• SO
• NO
• VOC emissions (if regulated) 40 tpy unless the state demonstrates that a lower rate is appropriate.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA a plan which provides for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS. These plans, generally referred to as the SIP, include numerous air quality monitoring, emission inventory, and emission control requirements designed to obtain and maintain the NAAQS within the state. The CAA requires states to adopt SIP revisions into state regulations and to submit the revisions to EPA for approval into the state's SIP. Section 110(
New Hampshire's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal added or revised the following provisions to its NNSR Program under PART Env-A 618
The following is a description of each section.
PART Env-A 618.01
PART Env-A 618.02
The section also requires projects to use emission calculations described in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(ii)(A) through (F) to determine if the project is a new major stationary source or new major modification.
In addition, if a new stationary source or modification is determined to be a major stationary source or major modification solely by virtue of a relaxation in any enforceable limitation established after August 7, 1980 on the capacity of the stationary source or modification otherwise to emit a pollutant, such as a restriction on hours of operation, then the provisions of this part shall apply to the stationary source or modification as though construction had not yet commenced on the stationary source or modification.
PART Env-A 618.03
PART Env-A 618.04
• The owner or operator of any new major stationary source or major modification subject to this part shall comply with LAER;
• obtain offsets for the increase in emissions for the project in accordance with PART Env-A 618.07; and
• obtain a NNSR permit prior to commencement of construction.
In addition, the owner or operator of an existing major stationary source with a Plantwide applicability limit (PAL) shall comply with the provisions of its PAL.
PART Env-A 618.05
PART Env-A 618.06
PART Env-A 618.07
The section also states that offsets shall not include: (1) Any reductions from compliance, or scheduled compliance, with applicable rules in effect prior to the permit application of the new or modified stationary source; (2) Reductions required to meet RACT or acid deposition provisions of the Act, as stipulated in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13553, III.G.2.e; or 3) Reductions required to meet any other provisions of Env-A 100
PART Env-A 618.08
The section also requires stationary sources obtaining offsets from outside New Hampshire to file documentation with the NH DES verifying that the offset stationary source has obtained a federally enforceable permit or other federally enforceable documentation for the emission reduction control measures pertaining to the offsets for the new stationary source.
The section also allows the use of emission reduction credits (ERCs) in accordance to PART Env-A 3006.04 to satisfy NNSR emissions offset requirements. Stationary sources may also use discrete emission reductions (DERs) to meet the offset requirements provided the DERs comply with the requirements of section 173 of the Act, 40 CFR 51.165(a) and PART Env-A 3108.02.
Env A 618.09
PART Env-A 618.10
With the exception of the definitions of the terms “Baseline actual emissions” and “Reasonable period,” the NH DES's November 15, 2012 SIP submittal incorporated by reference into the State regulation the definitions for a SIP-approved nonattainment NSR program under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1) and the definitions for PALs under 40 CFR 51.165(f)(2). The submittal also included five additional definitions: “Emission offset,” “Emission offset ratio,” “Northeast Ozone Transport Region,” “Offset source,” and “Ozone season” for the purpose of clarifying the State's NNSR requirements. The definitions for “Emission offset,” “Emission offset ratio” and “Ozone season” were previously approved by EPA into the SIP and clarify the offset requirements under New Hampshire's NNSR program. The definition for the “Northeast Ozone Transport Region” was also previously approved by EPA into the SIP and means the same geographical area as defined under Section 184(a) of the CAA. The definition of “Offset source” replaces the previously approved SIP definition of “Offset donor source” and identifies potential sources of emissions from which a new or modified stationary source may obtain emission offsets. The additional definitions help clarify the offset requirements under New Hampshire's NNSR program and are consistent with all federal requirements under the CAA for approval into the SIP.
By incorporating by reference the federal provisions under 40 CFR 51.165 (with the exceptions noted earlier and in EPA's TSD) the vast majority of the State's proposed SIP revisions satisfy the existing SIP-approved NNSR program requirements approved on July 27, 2001, the December 31, 2002 NSR Improvement Rule, and the May 16, 2008 PM
The NH DES submittal also expanded upon the emissions offset provisions previously approved into the SIP. As noted, the submittal includes a new definition for “Emission offset” under PART Env-A 618.03 requiring reductions in pollutants achieved at an existing stationary source to meet criteria specified in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3). The NH DES also included two new sections in the NNSR program; Env 618.07, “Emission Offset Requirements” and Section PART Env-A 618.08, “Procedure for Acquiring and Implementing Emissions Offsets.”
As described above, PART Env-A 618.07 identifies the specific provisions applicable to all offset emissions. These provisions include requirements that offsets: (1) Be surplus; (2) obtained from an area designated with an equal or higher nonattainment classification; (3) obtained in an amount equal to or exceeding a one-to one ratio, or another
PART Env-A 618.08 identifies the procedures for documenting emission reductions used for offsets. Among other requirements, the section allows stationary sources subject to the offset provisions to use ERCs in accordance with PART Env-A 3006.04. The section also allows DERs to meet the offset requirements, provided the DERs comply with the requirements of section 173 of the CAA, 40 CFR 51.165(a) and PART Env-A 3108.02. As explained below, EPA previously has allowed the use of DERs to meet a CAA emissions requirement. EPA has determined, given the procedures that will apply to the use of DERs and ERCs to meet the NNSR emissions offset requirements, that it is appropriate and consistent with CAA requirements to approve these provisions into New Hampshire's SIP.
In EPA's approval of New Hampshire's Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Nitrogen Oxide (NO
Similar to the RACT rule, since PART Env-A 3000 and PART Env-A 3100 have not been approved by EPA into the SIP, any NNSR permit issued by New Hampshire that allows for the use of ERCs and/or DERs to meet an offset requirement would first need the ERC or DER offset to be approved by EPA into the SIP
The “Baseline actual emissions” definition is used in all major stationary source applicability tests and defines the actual emissions from a stationary source before the project. The difference between the pre-project “actual emission baseline” and the post-project “projected actual emissions” determines the emission increase from a project.
The federal definition of “Baseline actual emissions” at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) defines separate baseline emissions calculations for existing electric utility steam generating units (EUSGU) and all other existing emission units other than EUSGU. The key elements of the definition relevant to this document are as follows:
• Existing EUSGU: The owner/operator may select any consecutive 24-month period for each pollutant, without the need for a demonstration, within the 5-year period immediately preceding when the owner/operator begins actual construction of the project. The reviewing authority may allow the use of a different time period upon a determination showing the time period is more representative of normal stationary source operations. A different consecutive 24-month period can be used for each regulated pollutant.
• All other existing emission units: The owner/operator may select any consecutive 24-month period in the 10-year period immediately preceding either the date the owner/operator begins actual construction or the date a completed permit application is received by the reviewing authority for a permit, whichever is earlier. No other different time period is allowed. A different consecutive 24-month period can be used for each regulated pollutant.
The NH DES definition tracks the requirements in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv) except for the following differences:
• Unlike the federal definitions, the State uses the same definition for EUSGUs and non-EUSGUs.
• Under the State's definition, in establishing baseline actual emissions for a project, the owner/operator presumptively shall select the same consecutive 24-month period for all pollutants; and the consecutive 24-month period shall be selected from within the 5-year period immediately preceding the date when the owner/operator begins actual construction of the project. However, the NH DES shall allow the use of a different consecutive 24-month time period for all pollutants, up to 10 years immediately preceding the date when the owner/operator begins actual construction of the project, or allow the use of a different consecutive 24-month period for different pollutants within that 10 year period, upon determining (after adequate demonstration by the applicant) that the alternative time period is more representative of normal stationary source operations.
Forty CFR 51.165(a)(1) requires that all state plans use the specific definitions as promulgated by EPA. Deviations from the federal wording for each definition will be approved only if the state specifically demonstrates that the submitted definition is more stringent, or at least as stringent in all respects, as the corresponding federal definition.
As part of the December 2002 NSR final rule, EPA prepared a November 21, 2002, “Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules (Supplemental Analysis).” The Supplemental Analysis provided a description of the NSR reform rules and an analysis demonstrating that the reform rule's environmental benefits were equivalent to or more stringent than the existing pre-reform rules. For the addition of the definition of “Baseline actual emissions,” EPA concluded that the use of a 10 year period to select a baseline is a reasonable period considering the variability of different business cycles. EPA believes the effect from the new definition is small and would not alter the baseline for 90% of the stationary sources. For the remaining 10%, EPA cannot draw general conclusions about how many stationary sources would or would not receive an alternative baseline nor estimate what emission consequences would result. EPA's complete analysis of the definition of “Baseline Actual Emissions” can be found at
The NH DES included as part of its SIP submittal a November 16, 2012 memorandum entitled “Supplemental Information for SIP Revision Request Parts of PART Env-A 600, Statewide Permit System.” Similar to the EPA's study and analysis summarized above in the previous paragraph, the State's memorandum described the differences between the federal and state “Baseline actual emissions” definitions and described an emissions study that compares the effects of the state and
• Use of an alternative 24-consecutive month period selected from the period between 5 to 10 years immediately preceding beginning actual construction, and
• use of different 24-consecutive month periods for different regulated pollutants, within the period between 5 and 10 years immediately preceding beginning actual construction.
For the majority of changes occurring at any type of stationary source, the State's presumptive or default baseline actual emissions method (using a 24-consecutive month period during the 5 year period immediately preceding beginning actual construction) resulted in the same or lower baseline emissions as compared to the federal definition. For owner/operators that could demonstrate that normal stationary source operations were better represented by 24 consecutive months selected from the 5 to 10 year period preceding beginning actual construction or that different consecutive 24-month periods for different regulated pollutants better represent normal stationary source operations, the analysis showed that the State's definition resulted in baseline emissions that were at least as stringent in all cases to the federal definition.
EPA therefore concludes that the NH DES's definition of “Baseline actual emissions” is as stringent in all respects as the federal definition. The State's definition results in the same emission baseline for new emission units, changes to existing EUSGUs, and changes at existing units that emit one pollutant and with high utilization rates within the last 5 years. For all other changes, the State's definition allows the use of baselines selected outside of 5 years (but before 10 years) and baselines for each regulated pollutant where appropriately demonstrated to be as stringent. As a result, any difference in the application of the state and federal definitions on the selection of baseline actual emissions would be insignificant at worst and would therefore result in permit applicability decisions, emissions limitations or emissions control requirements that are equally stringent.
The NH DES's submittal also revised the definition for “Reasonable period.” The term “Reasonable period” is used in the definition for “Net emissions increase” and defines the contemporaneous period for the emission increases and decreases that are used in the calculation determining applicability of the NNSR regulations to a particular project. Under § 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(C)(1), the reviewing authority is authorized to specify the applicable “Reasonable period.” Reviewing authorities typically use the period defined in the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. That period begins five years before the date construction of the project commences and ends when the emissions increase from the project actually occurs.
The NH DES's definition for “reasonable period” uses a period that begins five years from the date the NH DES receives a complete permit application for a project and ends upon the “expiration date” of the pre-construction permit issued for the project (at which time a NH DES-issued state operating permit for the project becomes effective). A “Reasonable period” based on a fixed date (
Under the federal definition, the 5-year period is based on the date construction commences, a date that may change significantly based on the many factors that could delay construction. As a result, the five year contemporaneous period would also be delayed. Emission increases previously within the contemporaneous period could fall outside the contemporaneous period and change the applicability of the stationary source or modification. In addition, the NH DES version of “Reasonable period” extends out to the expiration date of the “temporary” or preconstruction air permit issued for the project, a date compatible with the NH DES's air permitting program. Under the NH DES's permit program, the initial preconstruction permit required before construction begins is referred to as a temporary permit. Temporary permits expire after 18 months. Before expiration, stationary sources must complete construction and begin operational testing or, if construction has not commenced with the 18 months, reapply for a new temporary permit. For those cases where a stationary source has completed construction and has begun to operate, the state and federal terms provide equivalent results. However, for stationary sources and permitting agencies that may have difficulty determining when a new stationary source has begun operating due to various stationary source startup issues, defining the end date of reasonable period in relation to a fixed permit expiration date (and corresponding permit to operate issuance date) ensures the state agency and the stationary source that NNSR program applicability will not change after initial permit decisions have been reviewed and approved. Considering the benefits of the NH DES's version of “Reasonable period” noted above, EPA concludes the State's term for “reasonable period” is approvable and is as stringent as the federal definition.
The State's proposed SIP revision did not include two provisions that preclude EPA from fully approving the State's proposed NNSR SIP revisions. The first missing provision applies to any regulated NSR pollutant emitted from projects at existing emission units at a major stationary source (other than projects at a source with a PAL) in circumstances where there is a reasonable possibility, within the meaning of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6)(vi), that a project not a part of a major modification may result in a significant emissions increase of such pollutant, and the owner or operator elects to use the projected actual method specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(xxviii)(B)(
The second missing provision from NH DES's submittal is the requirement at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) that a State approval to construct shall not relieve any owner or operator of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the plan and any other requirements under local, State or Federal law. This provision, originally part of the SIP and unintentionally left out of the November 15, 2012 SIP submittal, affirms that sources subject to the NNSR program must continue to comply with all other applicable state and federal requirements. The NH DES has committed by letter dated March 20, 2015 to submit for EPA approval into the SIP in a timely manner provisions that meet the requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i) so that EPA may at that time fully approve the NH DES's NNSR program.
New Hampshire July 23, 2003 SIP submittal clarifies how the State addresses minor changes to the permit terms contained in “Temporary Permits” (
To address such minor changes to existing permit terms, the SIP submittal included definitions for the terms for “minor permit amendment” and “state permit to operate.” The term “minor permit amendment” provides for minor changes to conditions in permits other than Title V permits (which are not issued pursuant to SIP regulations). The term “state permit to operate” means a non-Title V operating permit issued prior to operation or material modification of a stationary source, area stationary source or device. Both definitions are consistent with all federal requirements under the CAA for approval into the SIP.
EPA is proposing to
EPA is also proposing to conditionally approve PART Env-A 618 “Nonattainment New Source Review,” because the NH DES must submit to EPA in a timely manner additional provisions that comply with 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and (a)(7) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(i),
Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a State's plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year from the date of final conditional approval. By letter dated March 20, 2015 New Hampshire has committed to revising its regulations to be consistent with EPA's regulations not later than one year after EPA's publication of a notice of final conditional approval. If the State fails to do so in a timely manner, this conditional approval will, by operation of law, become a disapproval one year from publication of that notice of final conditional approval. At that time, the conditionally approved SIP revisions would not be part of New Hampshire's approved SIP. If that were to occur, EPA would then also notify the State by letter. EPA subsequently would publish a notice in the
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following NH DES rules: the PSD rules at PART Env-A 619, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (originally proposed on January 21, 2015) as discussed in Section IV of the preamble; the NNSR rules at PART Env-A 618, “Nonattainment New Source Review” discussed in Section V of the preamble; and the definitions for “minor permit amendment” and “state permit to operate” under PART Env-A 101, “Permit Definitions” as discussed in section VI of the preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is announcing an extension of the public comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) requesting public comment and information on revisions to the EPA's “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.” The EPA published the NPRM on January 26, 2015 in the
Written comments must be received on or before May 27, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0788, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ingrid Rosencrantz, EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air; telephone number: (202) 343–9286; email address:
1.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number, subject heading,
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be reproduced.
• Illustrate your concerns with specific examples and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0788. The EPA has also developed a Web site for the NPRM at:
In response to requests for an extension, we are extending the public comment period for this NPRM through May 27, 2015. This extension will provide the public additional time to provide comment on updating this standard.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Warren Havens, on behalf of Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC., and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before May 11, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before May 19, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
Paul Murray, Office of Engineering and Technology Bureau, (202) 418–0688, or email:
This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3019, released April 16, 2015. The full text of Report No. 3019 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The Commission will not send a copy of this
Subjects: In the Matter of Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and equipment approval, ET Docket No. 03–201, published at 79 FR 40678, July 14, 2014, and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e) of the Commission's rules.
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration.
A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Joseph P. Benkert, P.C., on behalf of the Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority.
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before May 11, 2015. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before May 19, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Dana Zelman, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 202–418–0546,
This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3020, released April 21, 2015. The full text of Report No. 3020 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC. The Commission will not send a copy of this
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking filed by WJAR Licensee, LLC (the Licensee), the licensee of WJAR(TV), channel 51, Providence, Rhode Island, requesting the substitution of channel 50 for channel 51 at Providence. While the Commission instituted a freeze on the acceptance of full power television rulemaking petitions requesting channel substitutions in May 2011, it subsequently announced that it would lift the freeze to accept such petitions for rulemaking seeking to relocate from channel 51 pursuant to a voluntary relocation agreement with Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees. The Licensee has entered into such a voluntary
Comments must be filed on or before May 11, 2015, and reply comments on or before May 19, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Clifford M. Harrington, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Jeremy Miller,
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 15–98, adopted April 21, 2015, and released April 21, 2015. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC, 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by May 26, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015, 9:00 a.m.–10:45 a.m. EDT.
Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.
Notice of meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) will be meeting at the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent agenda consisting of the minutes of its February 18, 2015 meeting. The Board will receive a report from the Interim Chief Executive Officer and Director of BBG. The Board will also receive a review of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting.
This meeting will be available for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public Web site at
The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address listed above as seating capacity permits. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting in person must register at
Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203–4545.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Texas Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held on Friday, May 8, 2015, at the Lone Star Legal Aid, 1415 Fannin Street, Houston, TX 77002.
The meeting is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:00 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is for the members of the Committee to receive an orientation regarding state advisory committee procedures and to plan future activities.
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by June 8, 2015. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Angelica Trevino, Civil Rights Analyst, Western Regional Office, at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The United States Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the Department of Commerce's (DOC) International Trade Administration (ITA) are organizing the Joint Millennium Challenge Corporation and Department of Commerce Energy Sector Business Development Mission to Tanzania, to be held May 31- June 2, 2015, in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. This mission is a component of the Administration's Doing Business in Africa (DBIA) campaign and was proposed by MCC during the Africa Leaders' Summit in Washington, DC on August 5, 2014.
The fee to participate on the mission is $3,000 for the first representative and $1,000 for one additional representative. For small or medium-sized enterprises (SME)
Business or entry visas may be required to participate on the mission. Applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas.
The application deadline is Friday, April 17, 2015. Applications received after the April 17th deadline, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. The Department of Commerce (with input from the Millennium Challenge Corporation) will evaluate all applications and inform applicants of selection decisions by April 24, 2015.
Conditions for Participation: An applicant must submit a completed mission application, together with supplemental application materials, including adequate information on its products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. Applicants must satisfy all of the conditions of participation in order to be eligible for consideration. Applications will be evaluated on the applicant's ability to best satisfy the participation criteria below. If the Department of Commerce receives an incomplete application, the Department may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the applications.
Each applicant must certify that the products or services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51 percent U.S. content of the value of the finished product or service.
Each applicant must also certify that:
• The export of its goods, software, technology, and services would be in compliance with U.S. export control laws and regulations, including those administered by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security;
• It has identified any matter pending before any bureau or office of the Department of Commerce;
• It has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Department of Commerce;
• It and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with its involvement in this Mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials; and
• It meets the minimum requirements as stated in the Recruitment Announcement.
Millennium Challenge Corporation, 875 Fifteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20005–2221,Tel: 202–521–7234, Email:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“Department”) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations made between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, inclusive. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter.
Brenda E. Waters, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–4735.
The Department's regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the
Mexico.
Requestor: Productos Laminados, S.A. de C.V.; Certain types of black tubing manufactured by Productos Laminados to American Society of Testing and Materials standard A–513 are “mechanical tubing,” which is outside the scope of the order; December 3, 2014 (Preliminary).
Requestor: Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC (Delphi); The products at issue were four models of core tubes used for automotive heating and cooling systems (also referred to as HVAC systems). The four models are distinguished only by their length and profile. All four models are comprised of extruded hollow, tubular aluminum articles that are bent and end-formed based on customer designs. Delphi imports the core tubes for use in automotive HVAC systems for specific brands of vehicles. The Department found the core tubes inside the scope of the order because they comprised entirely of extruded aluminum and, thus, do not qualify for the finished merchandise exclusion; October 14, 2014.
Requestor: Core Industries LLC (dba Star Trac) (hereinafter referred to as Star Trac); The products at issue were an E–TRx treadmill base kit, E–RB recumbent bike base kit, E–UB upright bike base kit, and eSpinner bike universal base kit. All four models at issue were mainly comprised of non-aluminum materials along with some extruded aluminum components. The Department found that the eSpinner bike universal
Requestor: Core Industries LLC (dba Star Trac) (hereinafter referred to as Star Trac); The product at issue was a max rack kit which, when assembled, is designed to be used for a variety of strength exercises, including pull-ups, squats, and bench presses. The max rack kit is mainly comprised of non-aluminum materials as well as extruded aluminum parts. The Department found the product met the exclusion criteria for a finished goods kit because it contained non-extruded aluminum parts that went beyond mere fasteners and screws and because the kit contained, at the time of importation, all of the necessary parts to fully assemble a final finished good; October 27, 2014.
Requestor: KIK Custom Products (“KIK”); KIK's telescoping poles, which are composed of aluminum extrusion poles (Aluminum Association alloy series 6063), a plastic handle, a plastic cap, a plastic connector(s) and a plastic peg(s) to hold the telescoping poles in place when extended, are outside the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because they are finished goods containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry; November 3, 2014.
Requestor: Danfoss LLC; Danfoss LLC's micro channel heat exchangers, consisting of connections, headers or baffles, tubes with micro channels, and fins, are outside the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because they consist of both extruded aluminum and non-extruded aluminum components (other than fasteners). Danfoss LLC's micro channel heat exchangers are fully assembled finished goods that are permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry and are ready for installation into a downstream product with no further finishing or fabrication subsequent to importation; November 3, 2014.
Requestor: Unger Enterprises, Inc. (Unger). The products at issue were eight models of grabbers designed to allow users to grasp objects in difficult to reach places. Each model of grabber was comprised of extruded aluminum and non-aluminum materials. The Department found that each model of grabber met the exclusion criteria for finished merchandise because they contained extruded aluminum as well as non-extruded aluminum materials and because they enter the United States as grabbers that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry, and are ready for use as imported; November 4, 2014.
Requestor: Pacific Product Solutions (“Pacific Product”); Pacific Product's motorized arm sets, which are composed of two motorized arms and all hardware necessary for installation of the arms to the RV or Trailer (not imported with the awning or roller bar) and contain non-extruded aluminum components beyond fasteners, are outside the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because they are finished good kits containing all of the components needed to fully assemble a final finished good, requiring no further finishing or fabrication prior to installation in the ultimate downstream product; November 4, 2014.
Requestor: Clik-Clik Systems Inc.; Clik-Clik Systems Inc.'s MagPoles, which are telescoping extension poles consisting of aluminum extrusion tubes, fiberglass tubes, plastic handles, plastic/copper buttons, steel springs, steel rolling pins, zinc end pieces, aluminum rivets, rubber bumpers, and paper labels, are outside the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because they are finished goods containing aluminum extrusions as parts that are fully and permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry; November 19, 2014.
Requestor: JED Pool Tools, Inc. (JED); The products at issue were eight models of telescopic pool poles; two models of detachable skimmer poles; three models of leak skimmers; and six models of leaf rakes. The products are used in the cleaning of swimming pools. The telescopic pool poles vary in size but all consist of separate hollow pieces of extruded aluminum tubes that are connected by a plastic threaded locking mechanism and plastic handle. The detachable skimmer poles are telescopic extruded aluminum poles with plastic locking mechanism and plastic handle. The leaf skimmers and rakes consist of a plastic frame, extruded aluminum handle, and nylon net. The Department found that the products at issue met the exclusion criteria for finished merchandise. The Department found that the leaf skimmers and rakes are permanently assembled and completed at the time of entry and are ready for use as hand held cleaning tools at the time of importation, and therefore constitute excluded finished merchandise. Concerning the telescopic pool poles and detachable skimmer poles, the Department found that the products constitute excluded finished merchandise because they are permanently assembled and completed merchandise that are designed to work with removable/interchangeable attachments; November 24, 2014.
Requestor: ECCO Group (“ECCO”); ECCO's heat sinks for light-emitting-diode (“LED”) light bars are within the scope of the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because ECCO failed to demonstrate that its heat sinks for LED light bars, which are solid profiles of series 6063 extruded aluminum, meet the two criteria to qualify for the finished heat sink exclusion in the scope,
Requestor: Circle Glass Co.; Circle Glass Co.'s screen and storm door grille, consisting of an extruded aluminum frame that has been permanently combined with a non-extruded aluminum mesh grille made of aluminum wire, with extruded aluminum mounting brackets riveted to the frame (and screws), is outside the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because it is a fully assembled subassembly that is completed at the time of entry and is ready for immediate installation in a larger system. Circle Glass Co.'s patio door kits without the screen are within the scope of the scope of the orders on aluminum extrusions from the PRC because Circle Glass Co.'s patio door kits consist of an extruded aluminum door frame, a plastic handle, a steel latch, a strike, rivets, screws, and four steel door roller/corner combination units, but do not contain a screen. Thus, they do not qualify for the finished goods kit exclusion, which only applies to kits containing, at the time of importation, all the parts necessary to construct a complete finished good; December 5, 2014.
Requestor: Alex Toys, Inc.; Alex Toys, Inc.'s “Paint A Canvas”/“Color A Canvas” preprinted, paint-it-yourself artist canvases (whether or not imported as part of kits) are outside the scope of the order because the canvases are pre-printed paint-it-yourself canvases with copyrighted designs, that fall within the exclusion for “paint-by-number” or “paint-it-yourself” artist canvases with a copyrighted preprinted outline; November 18, 2014.
Requestor: West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind; West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind's orange flexible pencils made of polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) with a black carbon material writing core are outside the scope of the order because the outside sheath of the flexible pencils is not rigid; October 27, 2014.
Requestor: Banker's Pen (1991) Inc. (“Bankers Pen”); Bankers Pen's notebook, style number ST4191, is comprised of black polyurethane cover and measures 8 inches by 11 inches. The notebook meets the exclusion criteria for case bound books and, thus is outside the scope of the order; December 11, 2014.
Requestor: The Companion Group; The Companion Group's rectangular and round drip pans are within the scope of the antidumping duty Order because the products: (1) Are constructed of steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses; (2) do not have self-contained electric heating elements; and (3) are used as cooking ware; December 10, 2014.
Requestor: Lamrite West Inc. dba Darice Inc. (Darice); Darices's DTP908 David Tutera Tissue Tassels and POM100 Tissue Poms are within the scope of the antidumping duty order because the physical characteristics of these (
Requestor: KidKraft, LP; Austin and Raleigh model toy boxes are not covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order because the Austin model meets the scope exclusion for toy boxes and the Raleigh model has nearly all of the physical characteristics of excluded toy boxes and has characteristics consistent with excluded benches/seating furniture; November 21, 2014.
Requestor: Maxim Company Taiwan, Ltd.; construction vehicle toddler beds resembling a toy front-end loader are not covered by the scope of the antidumping duty order because they are designed to use a standard crib mattress and they conform to ASTM F 1821–13; November 19, 2014.
Requestor: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, Hilex Poly Co., LLC and Superbag Corp.; Certain unfinished polyethylene retail carrier bags from Taiwan that appear ready to undergo the final processing of cutting the unfinished polyethylene retail carrier bag to length, sealing the bottoms, and die-cutting the unfinished polyethylene retail carrier bags to create the handles of the finished polyethylene retail carrier bags are circumventing the antidumping duty order. The unfinished polyethylene retail carrier bags subject to this determination may or may not have printing and may be of different dimensions as long as they meet the description of the scope of the order; October 9, 2014.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope and anticircumvention inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., APO/Dockets Unit, Room 1870, Washington, DC 20230.
This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 19, 2014, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate products (CTL plate) from the Republic of Korea (Korea).
Yang Jin Chun, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance,
On December 19, 2014, the Department published the
The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain CTL plate. Imports of CTL plate are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 7208.40.30.30, 7208.40.30.60, 7208.51.00.30, 7208.51.00.45, 7208.51.00.60, 7208.52.00.00, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.13.00.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.45, 7211.90.00.00, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00, 7225.40.30.50, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.50.60.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
The comments received in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
We made no changes from the
For the final results of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2013, through January 31, 2014.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., which we selected for individual examination, we will calculate an importer-specific assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
For entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd., for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Consistent with the
For the companies not selected for individual examination, Bookuk Steel Co., Ltd., and SM Solution Co. Ltd., we have based their weighted-average dumping margins on the margin established for Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. We will instruct CBP to apply the rates listed above to all entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by those firms.
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of CTL plate from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins determined in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 0.98 percent,
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 42 assessment process webinars for Gulf of Mexico Red Grouper.
The SEDAR 42 assessment of Gulf of Mexico Red Grouper will consist of a series of webinars. This notice is for a webinar associated with the Assessment portion of the SEDAR process. See
The final assessment webinar for SEDAR 42 will be held on Tuesday, May 12, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; phone: (843) 571–4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; and (2) a series of assessment webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Webinar Process is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses; and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: Data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:
1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.
2. Panelists will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; extension of public comment period; request for comments.
On March 26, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced the availability for public review of a proposed evaluation
Comment period of the notice published at 80 FR 15984, March 26, 2015, is extended. Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific time on May 4, 2015.
Written comments on the proposed evaluation and draft EA should be addressed to the NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, 510 Desmond Dr., Suite 103, Lacey, WA 98503, or faxed to (360) 753–9517. Comments may be submitted by email. The mailbox address for providing email comments is:
Tim Tynan at (360) 753–9579 or email:
Steelhead (
Chinook salmon (
Chum salmon (
Bull trout (
The WDFW, with the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, the Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Tribe, the Stillaguamish Tribes, and the Tulalip Tribes as the
Consideration of these three HGMPs, particularly pursuant to NEPA, is not being conducted as a substitute for the withdrawn Puget Sound Draft Environmental Impact Statement (80 FR 15986, March 26, 2015).
As specified in the July 10, 2000, ESA 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead (65 FR 42422) and updated June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160), NMFS may approve an HGMP if it meets criteria set forth in 50 CFR 223.203(b)(5)(i)(A) through (K). Prior to final approval of an HGMP, NMFS must publish notification announcing its availability for public review and comment.
Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is required to adopt such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. Limit 6 of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(b)(6)) further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(a)) do not apply to activities associated with a joint state/tribal artificial propagation plan provided that the joint plan has been determined by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005).
We also issue this notice in accordance with the requirements of NEPA as amended (42 U.S.C 4371
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Pelagics Plan Team (PPT) and a joint meeting of the Hawaii Members of the PPT, Advisory Panel (AP), Non-Commercial Fisheries Advisory Committee (NCFAC) and Fishing Industry Advisory Panel (FIAP), in Honolulu, HI, to discuss fishery issues and develop recommendations for future management.
The meeting of the PPT will be held May 12–13 2015, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The joint meeting of the Hawaii Members of the PPT, AP, NCFAC and FIAP will be held on May 14, 2015 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The meetings will be held at the Council Office Conference Room,
Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; telephone: (808) 522–8220.
The order in which the agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522–8220 (voice) or (808) 522–8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Plan Development Team and Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9 a.m.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492.
Recipients of recent Scallop RSA awards will provide a status update and summary of preliminary findings to the Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT) and Advisory Panel (AP). Presentations will include RSA projects that have not yet been used directly in the scallop management process. This meeting is
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 13 to Friday, May 15,
The meeting will be held in the Pacific Room, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037.
Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820–2422.
The primary purpose of the meeting is to review analyses and prepare a report to the Council on its Swordfish Fishery Management and Monitoring Plan. The Plan contains options for managing and monitoring the California large mesh drift gillnet (DGN) fishery including high priority protected species hard caps, fishery performance objectives, and monitoring goals. If available, the Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) may review preliminary exempted fishing permit applications that would be submitted or resubmitted to the Council at its June meeting. The HMSMT will also review updates to the Highly Migratory Species Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report. The HMSMT may also plan reports for other HMS items on the Council's June agenda, including international issues and the planned management strategy evaluation for North Pacific albacore tuna to be conducted by the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in the North Pacific Ocean.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820–2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds a product and services to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and a service from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202–4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
On 3/13/2015 (80 FR 13351–13352), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and services are added to the Procurement List:
On March 20, (80 FR 14973), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in connection with the products and service deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following products and service are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to and Deletion from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a service previously furnished by such agency.
Comments must be received on or before: May 25, 2015.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149.
Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51–2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:
The following service is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Department of the Army announces the availability of the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) for Activities and Operations at Yuma Proving Ground (YPG). This document analyzes and evaluates potential environmental impacts associated with short-term and long-term proposed construction projects and proposed changes to YPG's testing and training mission. The potential for environmental impacts is greatest for the following resource areas: Soils, air quality, solid and hazardous materials/waste, vegetation, and wildlife. Best management practices and other mitigation measures were identified in the FPEIS.
The waiting period will end 30 days after publication of the NOA in the
For questions concerning the FPEIS, please contact Mr. Sergio Obregon, U.S. Army Garrison Yuma Proving Ground, National Environmental Policy Act Coordinator, IMYM–PWE, Yuma, AZ 85365–9498. Questions may be mailed to that address or emailed to
Mr. Chuck Wullenjohn, Yuma Proving Ground Public Affairs Office, at (928) 328–6189, Monday through Thursday from 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mountain Time.
YPG consists of approximately 840,000 acres of DoD-managed land in the Sonoran Desert in southwestern Arizona. The Department of the Army prepared a FPEIS to analyze potential impacts from new construction, changes in testing and training, and activities conducted under private industry partnerships.
Two alternatives were analyzed in the FPEIS: (1) No Action, which describes the resulting conditions if there were no changes in testing and training activities conducted at YPG and (2) the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, which includes new construction and associated demolition, testing and training activities occurring on YPG, and new testing and training proposed by tenants to meet anticipated testing or training needs. The Preferred Alternative was determined after consideration of Native American concerns and feedback from agencies and resulted in reduction of the proposed impact areas for four projects.
The FPEIS addressed the following types of activities:
• Short-term, well-defined activities at known locations that could be implemented without additional NEPA analysis once a decision is made.
• Short-term, less well-defined activities for which locations are not known or for which additional information regarding site-specific implementation must be developed that would receive additional site-specific NEPA analysis prior to project implementation.
• Long-term, less well-defined activities that would occur later in time and would receive additional site-specific NEPA analysis prior to project implementation.
The FPEIS provided thorough analysis under NEPA for the short-term well-defined projects and allows less well-defined projects to be implemented following a focused, site-specific NEPA analysis that would tier from this analysis.
The Army is not seeking to expand the boundaries of YPG and all proposed activities would be conducted within the boundaries of the installation or its currently authorized airspace. No changes were proposed to ongoing military activities conducted at off-post areas in Arizona and California that are used for specific military testing activities under conditions not found at YPG. Therefore, activities conducted in these areas were not included in the analysis in the FPEIS.
The potential for environmental impacts is greatest for the following resource areas: soils, air quality, solid and hazardous materials/waste, vegetation, and wildlife. Impacts to these resources may occur as a result of converting existing land use to support military testing and training or from increasing the scope or magnitude of testing activities. Best management practices and other mitigation measures were identified in the FPEIS.
The Army will observe a waiting period of 30 days following the publication of the Notice of Availability for the FPEIS in the
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Department of the Army announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed lease of land and granting of easements on Schofield Barracks and Wheeler Army Airfield to Hawaiian Electric Company (Hawaiian Electric) for the construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of a 50-megawatt (MW) capacity, biofuel-capable power generation plant, referred to as the Schofield Generating Station, and associated power poles, high-tension power lines, and related equipment and facilities. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the DEIS analyzes the environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Schofield Generating Station and associated infrastructure. The Army has determined that there are historic properties nearby, but that the undertaking will have no effect upon them as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(i). The Draft EIS documents this finding and it is now being made available for public review. The Draft EIS comment process is also an opportunity for public to provide input about the effects of the proposed actions on historic property, for consideration in Army decision making.
The public comment period will end 45 days after publication of the Notice of Availability in the
Please send written comments by mail to the Department of the Army, Directorate of Public Works, United States Army Garrison, Hawaii, ATTN: IMHW–PWE (L. Graham), 947 Wright Avenue, Wheeler Army Airfield, Schofield Barracks, HI 96857–5013; or by email to
For more information please contact Ms. Lisa Graham, NEPA Coordinator, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii. Ms. Graham can be reached by phone at (808) 656–3075, or by email at
The Proposed Action, referred to as the Schofield Generating Station Project (SGSP), consists of:
(1) The Army's lease of 8.13 acres of land and the related granting of a 2.5-acre interconnection easement on Schofield Barracks and Wheeler Army Airfield to Hawaiian Electric to construct, operate, and maintain a 50–MW capacity renewable energy power plant to include associated power poles, high-tension power lines, and related equipment and facilities.
(2) The State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources granting of a 1.28-acre easement and a 0.7-acre conservation district authorization to Hawaiian Electric allowing for the construction of a 46 kilovolt (kV) electrical power transmission line between the SGSP site and the existing Wahiawa Substation.
(3) Hawaiian Electric's construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of a 50 MW capacity, biofuel-capable power generation plant and 46 kV sub-transmission line required to connect the Schofield Generating Station to the Hawaiian Electric grid.
The primary purpose of the Proposed Action is two-fold: to provide improved energy security to the U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii at Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Field Station Kunia and to provide new secure, firm, flexible, and renewable energy generation to the grid on Oahu, Hawaii.
The need for the Proposed Action are to increase energy security for the Army and Oahu; assist the Army in supporting renewable energy-related laws and Executive Orders and meeting its renewable energy goals; assist Hawaiian Electric in meeting the Hawaii Renewable Portfolio Standard goals; and improve future electrical generation on Oahu.
The electricity produced by the SGSP would normally supply power to all Hawaiian Electric customers through the island-wide electrical grid. During outages that meet the criteria specified in the Operating Agreement, SGSP output would first be provided to Army facilities at Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Field Station Kunia up to their peak demand of 32 MW, to meet their missions, and would additionally support the grid up to the station's full capacity. If there were a full island outage, the power plant could be used to restart other plants on the island.
Under the No Action Alternative, the Army would not lease the property or grant the easement and Hawaiian Electric would not construct and operate the SGSP.
The DEIS evaluates the impacts on land use; airspace use; visual resources; air quality, including climate and greenhouse gasses; noise; traffic and transportation; water resources; geology and soils; biological resources; cultural resources; hazardous and toxic substances; socioeconomics, including environmental justice; and utilities and infrastructure.
Impacts were assessed assuming full-time operation of the generating facility (24 hours a day, 365 days a year). Under normal conditions, the facility would likely operate less than full-time, so projected impacts could be less.
Anticipated impacts would be less than significant for all resources. All activities would fall within existing regulations, permits, and plans. Best management practices and design measures that would avoid or minimize adverse effects would be implemented for these resources: visual, air quality, noise, traffic and transportation, water, geology and soils, biological resources, cultural resources, and hazardous and toxic substances.
All government agencies, special interest groups, and individuals are invited to attend the public meetings and/or submit their comments in writing. Information on the dates, times, and locations of the public meetings will be published locally.
The DEIS is available for review at the Sergeant Rodney J. Yano Main Library (on Schofield Barracks); Fort Shafter Library; Wahiawa Public Library; Mililani Public Library; Waialua Public Library; University of Hawaii libraries including Thomas H. Hamilton Library, Edwin H. Mookini Library, Maui College Library, and Kauai Community College Library; Hawaii State libraries including Kaimuki Regional Library, Kaneohe Regional Library, Pearl City Regional Library, Hawaii Kai Regional Library, Hilo Regional Library, Kahului Regional Library, and Lihue Regional Library, and the Hawaii State Library Documents Center; the Legislative Reference Bureau Library; and the City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services Municipal Library. The DEIS can also be viewed at the following Web site:
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open Subcommittee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center Board of Visitors, a subcommittee of the Army Education Advisory Committee. This meeting is open to the public.
The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) Board of Visitors Subcommittee will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on June 10 and 11, 2015.
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, Building 326, Weckerling Center, Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944.
Dr. Robert Savukinas, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the subcommittee, in writing at Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center, ATFL–APAS–AA, Bldg. 634, Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944, by email at
The subcommittee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.150.
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Committee during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least seven business days in advance to the subcommittee's Alternate Designated Federal Official, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board will take place. This meeting will be open to the public.
The Lewis and Clark Center, Arnold Conference Room, Room 3501, 100 Stimson Avenue, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027.
The Executive Director of the Defense Health Board is Ms. Christine Bader, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, (703) 681–6653, Fax: (703) 681–9539,
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102–3.150, and in accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Additional information, including the agenda and electronic registration, is available at the DHB Web site,
The purpose of the meeting is to conduct decision briefings for deliberation and provide progress updates on specific taskings before the DHB. In addition, the DHB will receive information briefings on current issues or lessons learned related to military operational programs, health policy, health research, disease/injury prevention, health promotion, and healthcare delivery.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102–3.140 through 102–3.165 and subject to availability of space, the DHB meeting is open to the public from 8:30 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. and 1:35 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on May 12, 2015. The DHB anticipates deliberating a decision briefing from the subgroup on Continuing Health Education for Military and Civilian Health Professionals. The DHB also anticipates receiving a progress update from the Neuro/Behavioral Health Subcommittee on Population Normative Values for Post-Concussive Computerized Neurocognitive Assessments. In addition, U.S. Army briefings on the Combined Arms Center, the Human Dimension, and the Army University will be provided to the Board.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102–3.140 through 102–3.165 and subject to availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Ms. Kendal Brown at the number listed in the section
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Kendal Brown at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the DHB may do so in accordance with 41 CFR 102–
Individuals desiring to provide comments to the DHB may do so by submitting a written statement to the DHB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (see
If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.
The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DHB President and ensure they are provided to members of the DHB before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the President and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The DFO, in consultation with the DHB President, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Defense Health Board.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub. L. 104–164 dated July 21, 1996.
Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601–3740.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 15–03 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
The Government of Egypt has requested a possible sale of 356 AGM–114K/R3 Hellfire II Air-to-Ground missiles with containers, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost is $57 million.
This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.
Egypt will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. While this potential sale would be the first transfer of the R variant of this missile to Egypt, Egypt already has the F and K variants in its inventory and will have no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, Florida. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of the proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Egypt.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AGM–114K/R Hellfire II is an air-to-ground missile used against heavy and light armored targets, thin skinned vehicles, urban structures, bunkers, caves and personnel. The new AGM–114R missile is Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) based, with a variable delay fuse and improved safety and reliability.
2. The highest level for release of the AGM–114K/R Hellfire II is Secret, based upon the software. The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is Secret; the highest level that must be disclosed for production, maintenance, or training is Confidential. Vulnerability data, countermeasures, vulnerability/susceptibility analyses, and threat definitions are classified up to Secret.
3. If a technologically advance adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent system with might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Government of Egypt can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Egypt.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice; correction.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) published a document in the
Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004–2901, (800) 788–4016. This is a toll-free number.
In the
The Board is setting aside time at the end of Session II for presentations and comments from the public. The public will be given one final opportunity for comment before the Board begins deliberations in Session IV.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
Applications Available: April 24, 2015. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 23, 2015. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 24, 2015.
This priority is:
Projects that include the following required activities:
(a) Establishing a Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success on the campus of the institution to provide a single point of contact to coordinate comprehensive support services for veteran students;
(b) Establishing a veteran student support team, including representatives from the offices of the institution responsible for admissions, registration, financial aid, veterans benefits, academic advising, student health, personal or mental health counseling, career advising, disabilities services, and any other office of the institution that provides support to veteran students on campus;
(c) Providing a coordinator whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the model program;
(d) Monitoring the rates of veteran student enrollment, persistence, and completion; and
(e) Developing a plan to sustain the Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success after the grant period.
This priority is:
Projects that detail specific steps that will be taken to recruit, retain, and graduate veterans from groups with college completion rates that are below the national average—such as English language learners and homeless veterans—as well as veterans who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in postsecondary education based on race, color, national origin, gender, or disability.
20 U.S.C. 1161t.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
3.
1.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.116G.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria, the absolute priority and the invitational priority that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We have established mandatory page limits. You must limit the section of the application narrative that addresses:
• The selection criteria to no more than 25 pages.
• The absolute priority to no more than 5 pages.
• The invitational priority to no more than 5 pages, if you address it.
Accordingly, under no circumstances may the application narrative exceed 35 pages.
Please include separate headings for the absolute priority and, if you choose to address it, the invitational priority.
For the purpose of determining compliance with the page limits, each page on which there are words will be counted as one full page. Applicants must use 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,
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). However, you may use a 10 point font in charts, tables, figures, graphs, footnotes, and endnotes.
• 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 Part I, the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) and the Department of Education Supplemental Information for
If you include any attachments or appendices not specifically requested, these items will be counted as part of the application narrative for purposes of the page-limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria and priorities in the application narrative.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit.
3.
Applications Available: April 24, 2015.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 23, 2015.
Applications for grants under this program 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
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 24, 2015.
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 two to five 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 information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
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 Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success, CFDA number 84.116G, 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 Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success 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
• 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 any 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;
• 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: Kelly Harris, Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6161, Washington, DC 20006–8544. FAX: (202) 502–7877.
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 84.116G), 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 84.116G), 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.
1. The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.
2. The extent to which the proposed project will provide services or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of educational failure.
b.
1. The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population.
2. The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project.
c.
1. The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
2. The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
3. The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.
4. The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.
d.
1. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
2. In addition, the Secretary considers:
(a) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.
(b) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.
As stated in the absolute priority for this competition, a proposed Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success must have a coordinator whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the model program. In response to this selection criterion, the application must describe the qualifications of this individual, the members of the veteran student support team described in the absolute priority, and any other individuals who will help carry out the proposed project. The grant project director may or may not be the coordinator of the Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success.
e.
1. The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.
2. The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.
3. The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to such support.
A budget summary and budget narrative attached to your proposal should itemize the support you are requesting through the Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success Program.
f.
1. The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
2. The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.
3. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide timely guidance for quality assurance.
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.
These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project.
If funded, you will be required to collect and report data in your project's annual performance report (34 CFR 75.590).
Kelly Harris, Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 6161, Washington, DC 20006–8544. Telephone: (202) 219–7083 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 an open meeting of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories (Commission). The Commission was created pursuant section 319 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Public Law 113–76, and in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. This notice is provided in accordance with the Act.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 10:00 a.m.–3:30 p.m.
Hilton at Mark Center, Walnut Conference Room, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.
Karen Gibson, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 586–3787; email
Tentative Agenda: The meeting will start at 10:00 a.m. on April 22. The
Those not able to attend the meeting or who have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement to Karen Gibson, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC 20585, or to email
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available on the Commission Web site at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities 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:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX)(Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1831.06, OMB Control No. 2060–0391) 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 May 26, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0066, 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
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
The U.S. Department of Transportation's, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has adopted the U.S. Air Force's FEIS #20140334, filed with the USEPA on 11/19/2014. FAA was a cooperating agency on the project and recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ Regulations.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's FEIS #20140302, filed with the U.S. EPA on 10/08/2014. DOE was a cooperating agency on the project and recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(c) of the CEQ Regulations.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40 CFR part 60, subpart BB) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1055.11, OMB Control No. 2060–0021) 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 May 26, 2015.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OECA–2014–0034, 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 (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Oxides of Nitrogen Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Review Panel to peer review EPA's
The CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel meeting will be on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) and on Wednesday, June 3, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
Any member of the public wishing to obtain information concerning the public meeting may contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564–2050 or at
The CASAC was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to review air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend any new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be appropriate. The CASAC shall also provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to the criteria for air quality standards, research related to air quality, sources of air pollution, and of adverse effects which may result from various strategies to attain and maintain air quality standards. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires that the Agency periodically review and revise, as appropriate, the air quality criteria and the NAAQS for the six “criteria” air pollutants, including oxides of nitrogen. EPA is currently reviewing the primary (health-based) NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO
Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel will hold a public meeting to peer review EPA's
The CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel previously peer reviewed EPA's
Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for EPA. Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral information on the topic of this advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the CASAC to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for CASAC panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for nominations to the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) advisory committee.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates with expertise in the area of human health risk assessment (hygienist) or in environmental epidemiology with expertise in exposure analysis to be considered for appointment to its Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) advisory committee. The anticipated vacancy will be filled by September 1, 2015. Sources in addition to this
Submit nominations by May 15, 2015.
Submit your nominations by May 15, 2015, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–ORD–2015–0239, by any of the following methods:
Jim Downing, Designated Federal Official, Office of the Science Advisor, Mail Code 8105R, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564–2468, fax number: (202) 564–2070, email:
On February 6, 2006, the Agency published a final rule for the protection of human subjects in research (71 FR 24 6138) that called for creating a new, independent human studies review board (
HSRB members serve as special government employees or regular government employees. Members are
The qualifications of nominees for membership on the HSRB will be assessed in terms of the specific expertise sought for the HSRB. Qualified nominees who agree to be considered further will be included in a “Short List”. The Short List of nominee names and biographical sketches will be posted for 14 calendar days for public comment on the HSRB Web site:
Members of the HSRB are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, each nominee will be asked to submit confidential financial information that fully discloses, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The information provided is strictly confidential and will not be disclosed to the public. Before a candidate is considered further for service on the HSRB, EPA will evaluate each candidate to assess whether there is any conflict of financial interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality, or prior involvement with matters likely to be reviewed by the Board.
Nominations will be evaluated on the basis of several criteria, including: the professional background, expertise and experience that would contribute to the diversity of perspectives of the committee; interpersonal, verbal and written communication skills and other attributes that would contribute to the HSRB's collaborative process; consensus building skills; absence of any financial conflicts of interest or the appearance of a lack of impartiality, or lack of independence, or bias; and the availability to participate in meetings and administrative sessions, participate in teleconferences, develop policy recommendations to the Administrator, and prepare recommendations and advice in reports.
Nominations should include a resume or curriculum vitae providing the nominee's educational background, qualifications, leadership positions in national associations or professional societies, relevant research experience and publications along with a short (one page) biography describing how the nominee meets the above criteria and other information that may be helpful in evaluating the nomination, as well as the nominee's current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number. Interested candidates may self-nominate.
To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, nominees are requested to inform the Agency of how you learned of this opportunity.
Final selection of HSRB members is a discretionary function of the Agency and will be announced on the HSRB Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; correction.
EPA issued a notice in the
Janeese Hackley, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 605–1523; email address:
The Agency included in the
The docket for this action, identified by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0057, is available at
FR Doc. 2015–07200 published in the
1. On page 16676, in Table 1, under the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. What action is the Agency taking?, Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening, column named “Registration review case name and No.” is corrected to include in a new line to read: Forchlorfenuron (Case 7057).
2. On page 16676, in Table 1, under the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. What action is the Agency taking?, Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening, column named “Pesticide docket ID No.”, is corrected to include in the new line for forchlorfenuron to read: EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0641.
3. On page 16676, in Table 1, under the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. What action is the Agency taking?, Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening, column named “Chemical review manager, telephone number, email address” is corrected to include in a new line for forchlorfenuron to read: Wilhelmena Livingston, (703) 308–8025,
4. On page 16676, in the first column, Table 1, under the heading III. Registration Reviews; A. What action is the Agency taking?, paragraph 2, line 5, to delete the sentence “For Forchlorfenuron (Case 7057), EPA is seeking comment on the Combined Work Plan, Summary Document, and Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision, which includes the human health and ecological risk assessments.”
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
In this Notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment on its analysis of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to the production and transport of
Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0093, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Michael Shell, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone number: 202–564–8479; fax number: 202–564–1177; email address:
This notice is organized as follows:
As part of changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program regulations published on March 26, 2010
EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall GHG impacts of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. The results of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight of available evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG reductions required under the CAA for it to be considered renewable fuel or one of three subsets of renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle, including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect emissions such as indirect emissions from land use changes, agricultural sector impacts, and production of co-products from biofuel production.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA received a petition from Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. requesting that EPA evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for biofuels produced using
EPA expects to consider comments received and then use the information to evaluate petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that propose to use carinata oil as a feedstock for the production of biofuel, and that seek an EPA determination regarding whether such biofuels qualify as renewable fuel under the RFS program. In evaluating such petitions, EPA will consider the GHG emissions associated with petitioners' biofuel production processes, as well as emissions associated with the transport and use of the finished biofuel, in addition to the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of carinata feedstock in determining whether petitioners' proposed biofuel production pathway satisfies CAA renewable fuel lifecycle GHG reduction requirements.
EPA has evaluated the lifecycle GHG impacts of using carinata oil as a biofuel feedstock, based on information provided in the petition and other data gathered by EPA. For these analyses, we used a similar approach to that used for camelina oil in a rule published on March 5, 2013 (the “March 2013 rule”).
EPA believes that new agricultural sector modeling is not needed to evaluate the lifecycle GHG impacts of using carinata oil as a biofuel feedstock for purposes of making GHG reduction threshold determinations for the RFS program. This is in part because of the similarities of carinata oil to soybean oil and camelina oil, and because carinata is not expected to have significant land use change impacts. Instead of performing new agricultural sector modeling, EPA relied upon the soybean oil analysis conducted for the March 2010 rule to assess the relative GHG impacts of growing and transporting carinata oil for use as a biofuel feedstock. We have looked at every component of the agricultural sector GHG emissions from carinata oil production, including land use change, crop inputs, crushing and oil extraction, and feedstock distribution. For each component, we believe that the GHG emissions are less than or comparable to the emissions from the equivalent component of soybean oil production. Based on this analysis (described below), we propose to evaluate the agricultural sector GHG emissions impacts of using carinata oil in responding to petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 by assuming that GHG emissions are similar to those associated with the use of soybean oil for biofuel production. We invite comment on this proposed approach.
Carinata oil has high concentrations of erucic acid which make it less suitable for food uses but potentially attractive for biolubricants and polymers, and other industrial applications.
Carinata will most likely be grown in the U.S. and Canada in semi-arid, marginal land, as an off-season winter cover crop in the southeastern U.S., or on dryland wheat acres during the period that they would otherwise be left fallow. In areas with lower precipitation, dryland wheat farmers currently leave acres fallow once every three to four years to allow additional moisture and nutrients to accumulate and control pests. Current research indicates that carinata could be introduced into this rotation in certain areas in lieu of fallowing without adversely impacting moisture or nutrient accumulation. Land featuring a carinata rotation can be returned to wheat cultivation the following year with moisture and soil nutrients quantitatively similar to a fallow year.
As we expect that carinata will primarily be grown in rotation with wheat, we based land availability and projected volumes on estimated wheat acres. USDA does not systematically collect carinata production information; therefore data on historical acreage is limited. The latest USDA estimates (December 2014) report approximately 57 million acres of wheat in the U.S.
According to an industry estimate, commercial production of carinata in 2012 occurred at over 40 locations across Saskatchewan and Alberta, Canada.
Research is ongoing to improve carinata oil yields, which can be expected to increase as experience with growing carinata improves cultivation practices and the application of existing technologies are more widely adopted. For example, yields of over 1,600 pounds of oil per acre have been achieved on test plots. For the purposes of this lifecycle GHG analysis, EPA is assuming the intermediate current yield of 820 pounds of oil per acre and a biofuel production volume of 400 MG of carinata as representing a reasonable projection of production in 2022.
Unlike commodity crops that are tracked by USDA, carinata does not have a well-established, internationally traded market that would be significantly affected by an increase in carinata-based biofuels. Based on the information provided in the petition, returns on carinata are approximately $107 per acre, given average yields of approximately 1,865 pounds per acre and the current contract price of $0.14 per pound (See Table 2). For comparison purposes, the USDA estimates of corn and soybean returns, including operating costs but not overhead costs such as hired labor, were between $206 and $440 per acre in 2013.
Although
As part of our analysis of the GHG impacts from growing carinata, we compared crop inputs for carinata to those for soybeans. Inputs compared include nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus fertilizer, herbicide, diesel, and gasoline.
Current literature suggests a range of fertilizer inputs are considered appropriate for growing carinata. The petitioner provided guidance of 60 lbs per acre of nitrogen fertilizer and 30 lbs per acre of phosphorus fertilizer based on application rates for test plots featuring continuous cropping systems, which require more intensive fertilizing.
Pan, X. et al (2012)
Carinata has a higher percentage of oil per pound of seed than soybeans. Soybeans are approximately 18% oil by mass, therefore crushing one pound of soybeans yields 0.18 pounds of oil. In comparison, carinata seeds can contain up to 44% oil.
Carinata is not listed on the
EPA evaluated the seed crushing and oil extraction process and compared the lifecycle GHG emissions from this stage for soybean oil and carinata oil. EPA assumed the processing of carinata would be similar to soybeans, canola, and camelina. Because carinata seeds produce more oil per pound than soybeans, the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with crushing and oil extraction are lower for carinata than soybeans per pound of feedstock oil produced.
There is not a significant amount of industry data on energy used for crushing and oil extraction of carinata. Based on data provided in the petition submitted, and EPA's standard emissions factors for electricity and natural gas, we estimate that the GHG emissions from crushing and oil extraction are 92 kgCO
Similar to soybeans, a press cake is also produced when carinata is crushed and the oil is extracted. Little is known at this time about the possible beneficial use of carinata cake. Carinata press cake contains glucosinolates, which may be toxic to animals in large concentrations.
EPA's assessment, based on the following reasoning, is that GHG emissions from feedstock distribution will be the same for carinata as such emissions for soybeans. Because carinata contains more oil per pound of seed, as discussed above, the energy needed to move the carinata before oil extraction would be lower than soybeans per gallon of oil produced. To the extent that carinata is grown on more disperse fallow land than soybeans and would need to be transported further, the energy needed to move the carinata could be higher than soybeans. Therefore, we believe we may assume for purposes of GHG emissions assessment that the GHG emissions associated with transporting carinata and soybeans to crushing facilities will be the same. Carinata and soybean oils are similar in terms of density and energy content; therefore, we also assumed that the GHG emissions from transporting the oil from a crushing facility to a biofuel production facility would be the same for the two different feedstocks.
Compared to soybean oil, carinata oil has comparable GHG emissions per ton of oil from crop inputs and crushing and oil extraction, and lower GHG emissions per ton of oil from direct and indirect land use change. Carinata and soybean oils are also likely to have similar GHG emissions from feedstock distribution. Therefore, we believe that the feedstock production and transport portion of the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with carinata are likely to be similar to or less than the GHG emissions for the corresponding portion of the lifecycle analysis for soybean oil. EPA's purpose in evaluating petitions under 40 CFR 80.1416 is not to prepare a precise lifecycle GHG emissions analysis of every fuel type, but to gather sufficient information on which to inform its decision of whether proposed biofuels qualify under the program in terms of lifecycle GHG emissions reduction. Based on our comparison of carinata oil to soybean oil, EPA proposes to use, in its future evaluations of petitions seeking to use carinata oil as a feedstock for biofuel production, an estimate of the GHG emissions associated with the cultivation and transport of carinata oil that is the same as that which we have used for soybean oil, on a per ton of oil basis. Although EPA could conduct a more detailed analysis, we do not belive it is necessary for purposes of the determinations EPA must make in responding to petitions. EPA solicits comment on this proposed approach.
Carinata oil has physical properties that are similar to soybean and camelina oil, and is suitable for the same conversion processes as these feedstocks. In addition, the fuel yield per pound of oil is expected to be the same for each of these feedstocks. After reviewing comments received in response to this Notice, we will combine our evaluation of agricultural sector GHG emissions associated with the use of carinata oil feedstock with our evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with individual producers' production processes and finished fuels to determine whether the proposed pathways satisfy CAA lifecycle GHG emissions reduction requirements for RFS-qualifying renewable fuels. Based on our evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions attributable to the production and transport of carinata oil feedstock, EPA anticipates that fuel produced from carinata oil feedstock through the same transesterification or hydrotreating process technologies that EPA evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil and the March 2013 RFS rule for biofuel derived from camelina oil would qualify for biomass-based diesel (D-code 4) RINs or advanced (D-code 5) RINs.
EPA invites public comment on its analysis of GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of carinata oil as a feedstock for biofuel production. EPA will consider public comments received when evaluating the lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel production pathways described in petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 which use carinata oil as a feedstock.
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 May 11, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198–0001:
1.
General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of availability.
Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, GSA has prepared and filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed development of a U.S. Department of State (DOS), Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC) in Nottoway County, Virginia. GSA is the lead agency; cooperating agencies are DOS, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and National Guard Bureau. The Final EIS also documents compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966.
The Final EIS is now available for review. The GSA Record of Decision will be released no sooner than 30 days after EPA publishes its Notice of Availability of the Final EIS in the
The Final EIS may be viewed online at
Abigail Low, GSA Project Manager; 20 N 8th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107; 215–446–4815; or email
The Final EIS was prepared to evaluate the environmental consequences of site acquisition and development of FASTC on three adjacent land parcels at the Virginia Army National Guard Maneuver Training Center Fort Pickett (Fort Pickett) and Nottoway County's Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) area in Nottoway County, Virginia.
The proposed site is 1,350 acres with an additional 12 acres for relocation of an existing tank trail and scheduled use of a 19 acre Fort Pickett range. The site is surrounded by compatible land uses within Fort Pickett. The total area of disturbance for construction of driving tracks, mock urban environments, explosives and firearms ranges, and administrative and service areas would be 407 acres. Utilities would be installed or relocated along existing roadways or within areas planned for development.
GSA published its Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS in the
In early 2013, all efforts and work on the proposed site at Fort Pickett and Nottoway County's LRA area were put on hold pending additional due diligence and reviews at an existing federal training site in Georgia. As part of this due diligence effort, DOS conducted site visits to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. During this time period, DOS also assessed the scope and size of the FASTC project and determined a smaller platform was more fiscally prudent. In April 2014, the earlier DOS selection of the proposed site for FASTC at Fort Pickett and Nottoway County was reaffirmed by the Administration. A Master Plan Update was prepared in 2014 to incorporate the adjustments in the FASTC program.
A Supplemental Draft EIS was published in the
The Final EIS has been distributed to various federal, state, and local agencies, and interested individuals. The Final EIS is available for review on the project Web site
• Nottoway County Library—Louis Spencer Epes Memorial Library, 415 South Main St., Blackstone, VA.
• Amelia County—James L. Hamner Public Library, 16351 Dunn St., Amelia, VA.
• Brunswick County—Brunswick County Library, 133 W. Hicks St., Lawrenceville, VA.
• Dinwiddie County—Dinwiddie Library, 14103 Boydton Plank Road, Dinwiddie, VA.
• Lunenburg County—Ripberger Library, 117 South Broad St., Kenbridge, VA.
• Prince Edward County—Prince Edward Community Library, 1303 West 3rd St., Farmville, VA.
• Chesterfield County—Central Library, 9501 Lori Road, Chesterfield, VA.
• Mecklenburg County—Southside Regional Library, 1294 Jefferson St., Boydton, VA.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed information collection entitled
Written comments must be received on or before June 23, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC–2015–0024 by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS–D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404–639–7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Metal and Nonmetal Miner Health Program (MNMHP)—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
This is a new information collection request seeks data collection approval for a public health surveillance project. The proposed information collection will provide much needed health data pertaining to an estimated 66,000 workers in the metal and nonmetal (MNM) mining industry in the United States. Additionally, approximately 81,000 contractors worked in the metal, nonmetal, and sand/stone/gravel mining sectors in 2013; this information collection will provide health data on those contractors working in the metal and nonmetal mining sectors.
Metal and nonmetal (MNM) mining is an important industry throughout the United States, providing materials for the manufacture of many common items, such as electronics and medications, and employing approximately 25% of the total U.S. mining workforce. Work in this industry exposes miners to recognized hazards including noise, heat, repetitive stress, sleep deprivation, fumes, diesel exhaust, silica and other mine dusts, and radon gas, but the extent to which modern mining practices have mitigated these hazards is unknown. Little is known about the health status of this population of workers, in part because no comprehensive health surveillance system exists for the MNM mining sector.
The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 authorized NIOSH to “conduct such studies, research, experiments, and demonstrations as may be appropriate to improve working conditions and practices in coal or other mines.” Surveillance of general occupational illnesses, injuries, and exposures is an important part of NIOSH responsibilities as authorized by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 CFR 671).
Comprehensive health surveillance data are critical in estimating and reducing prevalence of occupational illness. A National Academies review of NIOSH research programs in 2007 emphasized that mining production is expected to increase and incorporate new technologies in the next decade, and that an informed assessment of health and safety issues is necessary to ensure that NIOSH research remains relevant. This program will address a number of high priority goals set by NIOSH to advance and coordinate research across the Institute. These goals include the following: Prevent and reduce work-related airways diseases; prevent and reduce work-related interstitial lung diseases; advance cross-cutting issues that affect all work-related respiratory diseases, in particular surveillance, exposure assessment, and emerging issues; reduce the incidence of musculoskeletal disorders in mine workers; reduce the incidence and mortality of work-related cardiovascular disease; and improve the health and safety of working people through research and surveillance to better understand work organization characteristics and their associations with health and safety outcomes.
NIOSH proposes to implement a health surveillance program to assess the health status and burden of disease among MNM mine workers. This program will provide current information on a sector of the mining workforce that is not available elsewhere, thereby closing a current knowledge gap. The information will enable NIOSH to develop targeted workplace interventions and health programs directed toward a high risk population of workers. Mining researchers will be able to prioritize research on occupational illnesses. The mining industry will be able to develop, adapt, and promote policies to reduce unhealthy exposures and improve overall miner health.
Data collection will take place at selected mine sites and in mining communities in the United States, focusing initially on the western states of the United States where metal mining is concentrated. NIOSH will collaborate with health and safety leaders from western MNM mines, labor, academic researchers, and other NIOSH researchers to identify mines interested in participating in the health assessments. A mobile health clinic will visit each participating site for a number of days, during which NIOSH will solicit voluntary participation from mine employees and contractors. Program staff will collaborate with mine operators and labor representatives to determine the best method to recruit participants.
Data collection from consenting individuals working, or having previously worked, in the MNM mining sectors will include: Completion of a questionnaire, measurements of height, weight and blood pressure, collection of a fingerstick blood sample for measurement of cholesterol and hemoglobin A1C levels, pulmonary function testing, and a chest radiograph. The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine prevalence of certain health conditions and risk factors for disease, and to characterize miners' working conditions and workplace exposures. Information will be collected on demographics, occupation, work status, working conditions and occupational exposures, work stress, musculoskeletal disorders, hearing, sleep and fatigue, chronic disease and chronic disease risk factors, and respiratory health. Responding to any of the questions in the questionnaire will be optional; participants may choose to opt out of any portion of the questionnaire, or any of the individual biometric tests. In such cases, participants will still be eligible for remaining tests in which they choose to participate.
All data collection activities will be conducted in full compliance with the CDC regulations to maintain the privacy of data obtained on persons and to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects, as contained in Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 22 and 46.
Overall, there are no direct costs to MNMHP participants. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 5,213. This estimate is based on the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by June 23, 2015.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party.
1.
• Part-time or intermittent skilled nursing care furnished by or under the supervision of a registered nurse.
• Physical therapy, speech-language pathology, or occupational therapy.
• Medical social services under the direction of a physician.
• Part-time or intermittent home health aide services.
• Medical supplies (other than drugs and biologicals) and durable medical equipment.
• Services of interns and residents if the HHA is owned by or affiliated with a hospital that has an approved medical education program.
• Services at hospitals, SNFs, or rehabilitation centers when they involve equipment too cumbersome to bring to the home.
Section 1861(o) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) specifies certain requirements that a home health agency must meet to participate in the Medicare program. Existing regulations at 42 CFR 440.70(d) specify that HHAs participating in the Medicaid program must also meet the Medicare CoPs.) In particular, section 1861(o)(6) of the Act requires that an HHA must meet the CoPs specified in section 1891(a) of the Act and such other CoPs as the Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of its patients. Section 1891(a) of the Act establishes specific requirements for HHAs in several areas, including patient rights, home health aide training and competency, and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
Under the authority of sections 1861(o), 1871 and 1891 of the Act, the Secretary proposes to establish in regulations the requirements that an HHA must meet to participate in the Medicare program. These requirements would be set forth in 42 CFR part 484 as Conditions of Participation for Home Health Agencies. The CoPs apply to an HHA as an entity as well as the services furnished to each individual under the care of the HHA, unless a condition is specifically limited to Medicare beneficiaries.
Under section 1891(b) of the Act, the Secretary is responsible for assuring that the CoPs, and their enforcement, are adequate to protect the health and safety of individuals under the care of an HHA and to promote the effective and efficient use of Medicare funds. To implement this requirement, State survey agencies generally conduct surveys of HHAs to determine whether they are complying with the CoPs.
This information collection request is associated with Home Health Agency Conditions of Participation (0938–AG81) which published October 9, 2014.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces that a public meeting of the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) (“Committee”) will be held on Wednesday, July 22, 2015. This meeting will specifically focus on lower extremity peripheral artery disease. This meeting is open to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)).
Maria Ellis, Executive Secretary for MEDCAC, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, Coverage and Analysis Group, S3–02–01, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244 or contact Ms. Ellis by phone (410–786–0309) or via email at
MEDCAC, formerly known as the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC), is advisory in nature, with all final coverage decisions resting with CMS. MEDCAC is used to supplement CMS' internal expertise. Accordingly, the advice rendered by the MEDCAC is most useful when it results from a process of full scientific inquiry and thoughtful discussion, in an open forum, with careful framing of recommendations and clear identification of the basis of those recommendations. MEDCAC members are valued for their background, education, and expertise in a wide variety of scientific, clinical, and other related fields. (For more information on MCAC, see the MEDCAC Charter (
This notice announces the Wednesday, July 22, 2015, public meeting of the Committee. During this meeting, the Committee will discuss lower extremity peripheral artery disease. Background information about this topic, including panel materials, is available at
This meeting is open to the public. The Committee will hear oral presentations from the public for approximately 45 minutes. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, we may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 22, 2015. Your comments should focus on issues specific to the list of topics that we have proposed to the Committee. The list of research topics to be discussed at the meeting will be available on the following Web site prior to the meeting:
The Committee will deliberate openly on the topics under consideration. Interested persons may observe the deliberations, but the Committee will not hear further comments during this time except at the request of the chairperson. The Committee will also allow a 15-minute unscheduled open public session for any attendee to address issues specific to the topics under consideration. At the conclusion of the day, the members will vote and the Committee will make its recommendation(s) to CMS.
CMS' Coverage and Analysis Group is coordinating meeting registration. While there is no registration fee, individuals must register to attend. You may register online at
This meeting will be held in a federal government building; therefore, federal security measures are applicable. We recommend that confirmed registrants arrive reasonably early, but no earlier than 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, to allow additional time to clear security. Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.
• Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.
• Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means, of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought into CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.
Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting.
All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first floor levels in the Central Building.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for
5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces the renewal of the Advisory Panel (the Panel) on Hospital Outpatient Payment (HOP) charter. The charter was approved on November 6, 2014 for a 2-year period effective through November 6, 2016. This notice publicly announces the renewal of the HOP Panel for another 2-year period. The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) concerning the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification groups and their relative payment weights. The Panel also addresses and makes recommendations regarding supervision of hospital outpatient services. The advice provided by the Panel will be considered as we prepare the annual updates for the hospital outpatient prospective payment system.
April 24, 2015.
Designated Federal Official (DFO): Carol Schwartz, DFO, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop: C4–04–25, Woodlawn, MD 21244–1850. Phone: (410) 786–3985. Email:
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) is required by section 1833(t)(9)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(9)(A)) and is allowed by section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 217(a)) to consult with an expert outside advisory panel on the clinical integrity of the Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) groups and relative payment weights, which are major elements of the Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS), and the appropriate supervision level for hospital outpatient services. The Panel is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92–463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels.
The Panel Charter provides that the Panel shall meet up to 3 times annually. We consider the technical advice provided by the Panel as we prepare the proposed and final rules to update the OPPS for the following calendar year.
The Panel was originally chartered on November 21, 2000 and the Panel requires a recharter every 2 years. This notice announces the renewal of the HOP Panel charter, which was approved on November 6, 2014 for a 2-year period effective through November 6, 2016. The charter will terminate on November 6, 2016, unless renewed by appropriate action. CMS intends to recharter the Panel for another 2-year period prior to the expiration of the current charter.
Pursuant to the renewed charter, the Panel will advise the Secretary and CMS concerning optimal strategies for the following:
• Addressing whether procedures within an APC group are similar both clinically and in terms of resource use.
• Reconfiguring APCs (for example, splitting of APCs, moving Healthcare Common Procedures Coding System (HCPCS) codes from one APC to another, and moving HCPCS codes from new technology APCs to clinical APCs).
• Evaluating APC group weights.
• Reviewing packaging the cost of items and services, including drugs and devices into procedures and services; including the methodology for packaging and the impact of packaging the cost of those items and services on APC group structure and payment.
• Removing procedures from the inpatient list for payment under the OPPS payment system.
• Using claims and cost report data for CMS' determination of APC group costs.
• Addressing other technical issues concerning APC group structure.
• Evaluating the required level of supervision for hospital outpatient services.
To obtain a copy of the Panel's Charter, we refer readers to the CMS Web site at:
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed notice.
This proposed notice announces the receipt of an application from the American Association of Diabetes Educators for continued recognition as a national accreditation
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on May 26, 2015.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS–3315–PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786–9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Kristin Shifflett, (410) 786–4133. Jacqueline Leach, (410) 786–4282.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1–800–743–3951.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive outpatient Diabetes Self-Management Training (DSMT) when ordered by the physician (or qualified non-physician practitioner) treating the beneficiary's diabetes, provided certain requirements are met. Pursuant to our regulations at 42 CFR 410.141(e)(3), we use national accrediting organizations to assess whether provider entities meet Medicare requirements when providing services for which Medicare payment is made. If a provider entity is accredited by an approved accrediting organization, it is “deemed” to meet applicable Medicare requirements.
Under section 1865(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act), a national accrediting organization must have an agreement in effect with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) and meet the standards and requirements specified by the Secretary in 42 CFR part 410, subpart H, to qualify for deeming authority. Our regulations pertaining to application procedures for the national accreditation organizations for DSMT are specified at § 410.142 (CMS process for approving national accreditation organizations).
A national accreditation organization applying for deeming authority must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires accredited entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare requirements.
We may approve and recognize a nonprofit organization with demonstrated experience in representing the interests of individuals with diabetes to accredit entities to furnish training. The accreditation organization, after being approved and recognized by CMS, may accredit an entity to meet one of the sets of quality standards in § 410.144 (Quality standards for deemed entities).
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act further requires that we review the applying accreditation organization's requirements for accreditation, as follows:
• Survey procedures;
• Ability to provide adequate resources for conducting required surveys;
• Ability to supply information for use in enforcement activities;
• Monitoring procedures for providers found out of compliance with the conditions or requirements; and
• Ability to provide CMS with necessary data for validation.
We then examine the national accreditation organization's accreditation requirements to determine if they meet or exceed the Medicare conditions as we would have applied them. Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we publish a notice identifying the national accreditation organization that is making the request for approval or renewal within 60 days of receipt of a completed application. The notice must describe the nature of the request and provide at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from receipt of the request to publish a finding of approval or denial of the application. If CMS recognizes an accreditation organization in this manner, any entity accredited by the national accreditation organization's program for that service will be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions for coverage.
The purpose of this notice is to notify the public of the American Association
The regulations specifying the Medicare conditions for coverage for outpatient diabetes self-management training services are located in parts 410, subpart H. These conditions implement section 1861(qq) of the Act, which provides for Medicare Part B coverage of outpatient DSMT services specified by the Secretary.
Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 410.142 (CMS process for approving accreditation organizations) and § 410.143 (Requirements for approved accreditation organizations), we review and evaluate a national accreditation organization based on (but not necessarily limited to) the criteria set forth in § 410.142(b).
We may conduct on-site inspections of a national accreditation organization's operations and office to verify information in the organization's application and assess the organization's compliance with its own policies and procedures. The on-site inspection may include, but is not limited to, reviewing documents, auditing documentation of meetings concerning the accreditation process, evaluating accreditation results or the accreditation status decision making process, and interviewing the organization's staff.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by May 26, 2015.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395–5806
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
The CO–OP program will provide nonprofits with loans to fund start-up costs and State reserve requirements, in the form of Start-up Loans and Solvency Loans. An applicant may apply for (1) joint Start-up and Solvency Loans; or (3) only a Solvency Loan. Planning Loans are intended to help loan recipients determine the feasibility of operating a CO–OP in a target market. Start-up Loans are intended to assist loan recipients with the many start-up costs associated with establishing a new health insurance issuer. Solvency Loans are intended to assist loan recipients with meeting the solvency requirements of States in which the applicant seeks to be licensed to issue qualified health plans.
2.
Under Section 1342 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and implementing regulation at 45 CFR part 153, issuers of qualified health plans (QHPs) must participate in a risk corridors program. A QHP issuer will pay risk corridors charges or be eligible to receive risk corridors payments based on the ratio of the issuer's allowable costs to the target amount. A final rule (Premium Stabilization Rule) implementing the risk corridors program was published on March 23, 2012 (77 FR 17220), which added part 153 to title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Premium Stabilization Rule is effective May 22, 2012. Final rules (2014 Payment Notice, 2015 Payment Notice, and 2016 Payment Notice) outlining the risk corridors benefit and payment parameters for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 benefit years were published on March 11, 2013 (78 FR 15410), March 11, 2014 (79 FR 13744), and February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10750), respectively. Additionally, on October 30, 2013, HHS published the Second Final Program Integrity rule (78 FR 65076) to align the risk corridors program with the requirements of the single risk pool provision at 45 CFR 156.80. The risk corridors data collection applies to QHP issuers the individual and small group markets. Each QHP issuer is required to submit an annual report to CMS concerning the issuer's allowable costs, allowable administrative costs, premium, and proportion of market premium in QHPs. Risk corridors premium information that is specific to an issuer's QHPs is collected through a separate data reporting form. CMS is publishing the risk corridors plan-level reporting form, and instructions for completing the form for public comment as part of the proposed revision to this information collection requirement.
On January 30, 2015, CMS published a 60-day notice in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This quarterly notice lists CMS manual instructions, substantive and interpretive regulations, and other
It is possible that an interested party may need specific information and not be able to determine from the listed information whether the issuance or regulation would fulfill that need. Consequently, we are providing contact persons to answer general questions concerning each of the addenda published in this notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid programs and coordination and oversight of private health insurance. Administration and oversight of these programs involves the following: (1) Furnishing information to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, health care providers, and the public; and (2) maintaining effective communications with CMS regional offices, state governments, state Medicaid agencies, state survey agencies, various providers of health care, all Medicare contractors that process claims and pay bills, National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), health insurers, and other stakeholders. To implement the various statutes on which the programs are based, we issue regulations under the authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under sections 1102, 1871, 1902, and related provisions of the Social Security Act (the Act) and Public Health Service Act. We also issue various manuals, memoranda, and statements necessary to administer and oversee the programs efficiently.
Section 1871(c) of the Act requires that we publish a list of all Medicare manual instructions, interpretive rules, statements of policy, and guidelines of general applicability not issued as regulations at least every 3 months in the
This quarterly notice provides only the specific updates that have occurred in the 3-month period along with a hyperlink to the full listing that is available on the CMS Web site or the appropriate data registries that are used as our resources. This is the most current up-to-date information and will be available earlier than we publish our quarterly notice. We believe the Web site list provides more timely access for beneficiaries, providers, and suppliers. We also believe the Web site offers a more convenient tool for the public to find the full list of qualified providers for these specific services and offers more flexibility and “real time” accessibility. In addition, many of the Web sites have listservs; that is, the public can subscribe and receive immediate notification of any updates to the Web site. These listservs avoid the need to check the Web site, as notification of updates is automatic and sent to the subscriber as they occur. If assessing a Web site proves to be difficult, the contact person listed can provide information.
This notice is organized into 15 addenda so that a reader may access the subjects published during the quarter covered by the notice to determine whether any are of particular interest. We expect this notice to be used in concert with previously published notices. Those unfamiliar with a description of our Medicare manuals should view the manuals at
Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of tribal consultation.
The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Native Americans (ANA) will host a Tribal Consultation to consult on the Community Native Language Coordination Initiative, an expansion of funding for ANA proposed in the President's fiscal year 2016 budget.
May 20, 2015.
200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC.
Lillian A. Sparks Robinson,
The President's Budget Proposal, released in February of 2015, would increase ANA's budget by $3.5 million. The proposed Community Native Language Coordination Initiative will build upon the successes of ANA's short-term, project-based funding to support community capacity building and systems development projects to ensure that high-quality language instruction, appropriate and culturally responsive curricula, professional development, and additional services and supports are aligned, implemented, and evaluated to create a seamless path for Native language acquisition across generations for educational and economic success. The Initiative will address gaps in community coordination and bring together key drivers of program effectiveness: strong community ties, integrated language/educational services, support services and interventions tailored to the specific community, high performing collaborations, and committed leaders and community champions.
We are interested in obtaining input from Tribal Leaders on eligibility criteria, funding levels, project duration, technical assistance needs, and potential measurable outcomes, among other things.
The ANA Tribal Consultation Session will be held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Testimonies must be submitted no later than May 15, 2015, to: Lillian Sparks Robinson, Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447,
Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5133, PCP, Washington, DC 20202–2700. Telephone: (202) 245–7532 or by email:
National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs)—Promoting Universal Design in the Built Environment Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.
On July 22, 2014, President Obama signed the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA). WIOA was effective immediately. One provision of WIOA transferred the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) from the Department of Education to the Administration for Community Living (ACL) in the Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, NIDRR's name was changed to the Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). For FY 2015, all NIDILRR priority notices will be published as ACL notices, and ACL will make all NIDILRR awards. During this transition period, however, NIDILRR will continue to review grant applications using Department of Education tools. NIDILRR will post previously-approved application kits to grants.gov, and NIDILRR applications submitted to grants.gov will be forwarded to the Department of Education's G–5 system for peer review. We are using Department of Education application kits and peer review systems during this transition year in order to provide for a smooth and orderly process for our applicants.
The purpose of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities, including international activities to develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology. The Program's activities are designed to maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).
The purpose of DRRPs, which are under NIDILRR's Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, by developing methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities. DRRPs carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: Research, training, demonstration, development, dissemination, utilization, and technical assistance. Additionally information on DRRPs can be found at:
The full text of this priority is included in the notice of final priority published elsewhere in this issue of the
The full text of this priority is included in the notice of final priorities for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, published in the
29 U.S.C. 764(a).
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 and any subsequent year from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding the Maximum Amount. The Administrator of the Administration for Community Living may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
If you request an application from Marlene Spencer, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.133A–7.
2.
NIDILRR will accept the optional LOI via mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or commercial carrier) or email, by May 29, 2015. The LOI must be sent to: Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 550 12th Street SW., Room 5133, PCP, Washington, DC 20202; or by email to:
For further information regarding the LOI submission process, contact Marlene Spencer at (202) 245–7532.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 75 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. You are not required to double space titles, headings, footnotes, references, and captions, or 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.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative section (Part III).
Please submit an appendix that lists every collaborating organization and individual named in the application, including staff, consultants, contractors, and advisory board members. We will use this information to help us screen for conflicts of interest with our reviewers.
An applicant should consult NIDRR's Long-Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2013–2017 (78 FR 20299) (Plan) when preparing its application. The Plan is organized around the following research domains: (1) Community Living and Participation; (2) Health and Function; and (3) Employment.
3.
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 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 two to five 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 information to be available in Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
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.
Applications for grants under Promoting Universal Design in the Built Environment, CFDA Number 84.133A–7, 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 Promoting Universal Design in the Built Environment DRRP competition at
• 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
• 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 program 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. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.
• Your electronic application must comply with any 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. 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;
• 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: Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5133, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2700. FAX: (202) 245–7323.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail instructions described in this notice.
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 84.133A–7), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
(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 Administrator of the Administration for Community Living of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
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.
If you mail 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 program 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.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Administrator of the Administration for Community Living 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 Health and Human Services 45 CFR part 75.
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 Administrator of the Administration for Community Living. 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 Administrator of the Administration for Community Living under 45 CFR part 75. All NIDILRR grantees will submit their annual and final reports through NIDILRR's online reporting system and as designated in the terms and conditions of your NOA. The Administrator of the Administration for Community Living may also require more frequent performance reports under 45 CFR part 75. For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) FFATA and FSRS Reporting
The Federal Financial Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) requires data entry at the FFATA Subaward Reporting System (
If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information. Annual and Final Performance reports will be submitted through NIDILRR's online Performance System and as designated in the terms and conditions of your NOA. At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information.
4.
• The number of products (
• The average number of publications per award based on NIDILRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals.
• The percentage of new NIDILRR grants that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous methods.
NIDILRR uses information submitted by grantees as part of their Annual Performance Reports for these reviews.
5.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and Human Services.
Final priority.
The Administrator of the Administration for Community Living announces a priority for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRPs) Program administered by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). Specifically, we announce a priority for a DRRP on Promoting Universal Design in the Built Environment. The Administrator of the Administration for Community Living may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. We take this action to focus research attention on an area of national need. We intend for this priority to contribute to strengthened evidence-base for UD standards and strategies and improved access to the built environment for individuals with disabilities.
Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of Health And Human Services, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5133, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2700. Telephone: (202) 245–7532 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
The purpose of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program is to plan and conduct research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities, including international activities, to develop methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technology that maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most severe disabilities, and to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act).
The purpose of NIDILRR's DRRPs, which are funded through the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program, is to improve the effectiveness of services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act by developing methods, procedures, and rehabilitation technologies that advance a wide range of independent living and employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities, especially individuals with the most significant disabilities. DRRPs carry out one or more of the following types of activities, as specified and defined in 34 CFR 350.13 through 350.19: research, training, demonstration, development, utilization, dissemination, and technical assistance.
An applicant for assistance under this program must demonstrate in its application how it will address, in whole or in part, the needs of individuals with disabilities from minority backgrounds (34 CFR 350.40(a)). The approaches an applicant may take to meet this requirement are found in 34 CFR 350.40(b). Additional information on the DRRP program can be found at:
29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(a).
We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for this program in the
There are differences between the proposed priority and this final priority.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority.
The Administrator of the Administration for Community Living establishes a priority for a DRRP on Promoting Universal Design in the Built Environment.
The intended outcome of the DRRP on Universal Design is further adoption of universal design principles into mainstream architecture and the development and construction of built environments. The DRRP must contribute to this outcome by:
(a) Conducting research activities toward developing evidence-based practices for UD implementation in commercial and private facilities, outdoor environments, and housing. This research may include analyses of the costs, benefits, and savings associated with universal design implementation.
(b) Creating measurable UD standards and guidelines to facilitate the implementation of UD principles in commercial and private facilities, outdoor environments, and housing.
(c) Developing and promoting curricula on UD for university-level architecture, engineering, and design students.
(d) Providing training and technical assistance to designers, architects, and builders to incorporate UD principles and features into their buildings, projects, and communities.
(e) Providing training and technical assistance to NIDILRR's engineering and assistive technology grantees to incorporate UD strategies and standards into development projects serving the needs of individuals with disabilities and the broader population.
(f) Partnering with relevant stakeholders in carrying out all DRRP activities. Stakeholders include but are not limited to: individuals with disabilities, professional organizations that teach design principles, researchers, engineers, planners, designers, developers, architects, and builders.
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the
This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
This notice does
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”
We are issuing this final priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, ACL assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the ACL's programs and activities.
The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program have been well established over the years, as projects similar to the one envisioned by the final priority have been completed successfully, and the proposed priority will generate new knowledge through research. The new DRRP will generate, disseminate, and promote the use of new information that would improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities in the areas of community living and participation, employment, and health and function.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for FLUBLOK and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human biological product.
Submit electronic comments to
Beverly Friedman, Office of Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Campus, Rm. 3180, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–7900.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L.100–670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
FDA has approved for marketing the human biological product FLUBLOK (A/California/7/2009(h1N1), A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2), B/Wisconsin/1/2010). FLUBLOK is a vaccine indicated for active immunization against disease caused by influenza virus subtypes A and type B contained in the vaccine. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for FLUBLOK (U.S. Patent No. 5,762,939) from Protein Sciences Corporation, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 26, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of FLUBLOK represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for FLUBLOK is 3,010 days. Of this time, 1,275 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,735 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 5 years of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by June 23, 2015. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by October 21, 2015. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41–42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for KYNAMRO and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.
Submit electronic comments to
Beverly Friedman, Office of Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Campus, Rm. 3180, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–7900.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100–670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product KYNAMRO (mipomersen sodium). KYNAMRO is indicated as an adjunct to lipid-lowering medications and diet to reduce low density lipoprotein-cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, and non-high density lipoprotein-cholesterol in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for KYNAMRO (U.S. Patent No. 7,511,131) from Genzyme Corporation, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 27, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of KYNAMRO represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for KYNAMRO is 2,601 days. Of this time, 2,294 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 307 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
1.
2.
3.
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 853 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available on
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by Section 2112(b)(2) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of Health and Human Services is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact the Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357–6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C–26, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443–6593.
The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa–10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at Section 2114 of the PHS Act or as set forth at 42 CFR 100.3, as applicable. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa–12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
a. “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
b. “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, 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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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 contract proposals and 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 contract proposals, 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.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department under the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. This announcement contains the names and addresses of those award recipients selected for funding based on the rating and ranking of all applications and the amount of the awards.
Myron Newry, Director, FHIP Division, Office of Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 5230, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone number (202) 402–7095 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3601–19 (the Fair Housing Act) provides the Department with responsibility to accept and investigate complaints alleging discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin in the sale, rental, or financing of most housing. In addition, the Fair Housing Act directs the Department to coordinate with State and local agencies administering fair housing laws and to cooperate with and render technical assistance to public or private entities carrying out programs to prevent and eliminate discriminatory housing practices.
Section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3616, established FHIP to strengthen the Department's enforcement of the Fair Housing Act and to further fair housing. This program assists projects and activities designed to enhance compliance with the Fair Housing Act and substantially equivalent State and local fair housing laws. Implementing regulations are found at 24 CFR part 125.
On July 3, 2014, the Department published its FY 2014 NOFA, which announced the availability of approximately $38,300,000 to be utilized for FHIP projects and activities. Funding availability for discretionary grants for the FHIP NOFA included: The Private Enforcement Initiative (PEI) ($29,275,000), the Education and Outreach Initiative (EOI) ($5,450,000), and the Fair Housing Organizations Initiative (FHOI) ($3,575,000). This Notice announces grant awards for the FY 2014 FHIP NOFA of approximately $38,300,000.
For the FY 2014, the Department reviewed, evaluated and scored the applications received based on the criteria in the FY 2014 FHIP NOFA. As a result, HUD has funded the applications announced in Appendix A, and in accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is hereby publishing details concerning the recipients of funding awards in Appendix A of this document.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for currently funded Initiatives under the Fair Housing Initiatives Program is 14.408.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft recovery plan for the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander (
To ensure consideration, we must receive written comments on or before June 23, 2015. However, we will accept information about any species at any time.
You may obtain a copy of the draft recovery plan from our Web site at
•
•
•
•
For additional information about submitting comments, see the “Request for Public Comments” section below.
Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, at the above street address or telephone number (see
Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of our endangered species program and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
On January 19, 2000, the Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander was emergency listed as endangered (65 FR 3096). The final listing rule for the species was subsequently published on September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57242). Critical habitat for the DPS was designated in 2004 (69 FR 68568).
The Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander is endemic to the northern portion of Santa Barbara County, California, and currently consists of six distinct metapopulations, defined as a set of local populations or breeding sites within an area, where typically dispersal from one local population or breeding site to other areas containing suitable habitat is possible, but not routine. The primary threat that resulted in the listing of the Santa Barbara DPS of the California tiger salamander as federally endangered was the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat from human activities. The California tiger salamander requires a combination of pond habitat for breeding, and upland (underground) habitat for the rest of its life cycle. The species depends on a series of interconnected breeding and upland habitats, making it particularly sensitive to changes in the amount, configuration, and quality of these habitats. The loss and destruction of habitat continues to represent the primary threat to the species. Within the range of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander, significant portions of its habitat have been altered or destroyed. Additional threats to the species include hybridization with nonnative tiger salamanders, predation and competition by nonnative species, vehicle-strike mortality, and lack of compliance with existing regulatory mechanisms. A majority of the known California tiger salamander occurrences in Santa Barbara County currently occur on private lands, requiring continual coordination with multiple private and local government entities for management.
The purpose of a recovery plan is to provide a framework for the recovery of species so that protection under the Act is no longer necessary. A recovery plan includes scientific information about the species and provides criteria that help us to gauge whether downlisting or delisting the species is warranted. Furthermore, recovery plans help guide our recovery efforts by describing actions we consider necessary for each species' conservation and by estimating time and costs for implementing needed recovery measures.
The goal of this draft recovery plan is to reduce the threats to the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander to ensure its long-term viability in the wild, and allow for its removal from the list of threatened and endangered species. The interim goal is to recover the DPS to the point that it can be downlisted from endangered to threatened status. The recovery objectives of the plan are:
1. Protect and manage sufficient habitat within the metapopulation areas to support long-term viability of the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander.
2. Reduce or remove other threats to the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander.
The draft recovery plan contains recovery criteria based on maintaining and increasing population numbers and habitat quality and quantity, and mitigating significant threats to the species. As the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander meets these criteria, we will review the species' status and consider the species for downlisting or removal from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Section 4(f) of the Act requires us to provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment during recovery plan development. It is also our policy to request peer review of recovery plans (July 1, 1994; 59 FR 34270). In an appendix to the approved recovery plan, we will summarize and respond to the issues raised by the public and peer reviewers. Substantive comments may or may not result in changes to the recovery plan; comments regarding recovery plan implementation will be forwarded as appropriate to Federal or other entities so that they can be taken into account during the course of implementing recovery actions. Responses to individual commenters will not be provided, but we will provide a summary of how we addressed substantive comments in an appendix to the approved recovery plan.
We invite written comments on the draft recovery plan. In particular, we are interested in additional information regarding the current threats to the species, and our proposed approach to recovering the species.
Before we approve our final recovery plan, we will consider all comments we receive by the date specified in
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive will be available, by appointment, for public inspection during normal business hours at our office (see
We developed our draft recovery plan under the authority of section 4(f) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f). We publish this notice under section 4(f) Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) Revisions and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Western Oregon and, by this notice, is announcing the opening of the comment period.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS within 90 days following the date that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes notice of the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS in the
You may submit comments related to the Draft RMP Revisions, Draft EIS, and potential ACECs for Western Oregon by any of the following methods:
Copies of the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS for Western Oregon are available at the Oregon State Office at the above address or on the Web site at:
Mr. Mark Brown, RMPs for Western Oregon Project Manager; telephone: 503–808–6233; address: 1220 SW. 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, or P.O. Box 2965, Portland, OR 97208; or email at
The BLM prepared the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS for Western Oregon encompassing approximately 2,550,000 acres of BLM-administered lands and 69,000 acres of split-estate lands in western Oregon. The documents address a range of alternatives focused on providing a sustained yield of timber, contributing to the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species, providing for clean water, restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, coordinating management of lands surrounding the Coquille Forest with the Coquille Tribe, and providing for recreation opportunities. The Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS propose to revise the RMPs for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts and the Lakeview District's Klamath Falls Resource Area. These six RMPs, completed in 1995, incorporated the land use allocations and standards and guidelines from the Northwest Forest Plan.
In 2012, the BLM conducted an evaluation of the 1995 RMPs in accordance with its planning regulations and concluded that a plan revision was necessary to address the changed circumstances and new information that had led to a substantial, long-term departure from the timber management outcomes predicted under the 1995 RMPs. Within the western Oregon districts, three BLM-administered areas are not included in the decision area: the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument (Medford District), the Upper Klamath Basin and Wood River Wetland (Klamath Falls Field Office), and the West Eugene Wetlands (Eugene District).
BLM-administered lands in the planning area include Oregon and California Railroad (O&C) lands, Coos Bay Wagon Road lands, Public Domain lands, and acquired lands. The Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 1937 (O&C Act) put the O&C lands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior and provides the legal authority for the management of O&C lands and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands. The lands were classified as timberlands to be managed for permanent forest production, and the timber was to be sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the principle of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber supply. Sustained yield management under the O&C Act also provides for the purpose of protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides the legal authority for the management of Public Domain lands and acquired lands. These lands and resources are to be managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The land ownership patterns in western Oregon create unique management challenges. Generally, O&C land is located in odd-numbered sections and private land is located in even-numbered sections, creating a “checkerboard” ownership pattern. Activities on adjacent private lands have implications for management of the BLM-administered lands. The BLM also typically manages only a small percentage of the land in any particular watershed and, in many cases, the cumulative actions across all ownerships determine resource outcomes. In the Coast Range, checkerboard ownership is spread across the entire watershed. In the western Cascades, checkerboard ownership is mostly in the lower part of watersheds with blocked U.S. Forest Service ownership in the headwater areas.
The formal public scoping process for the RMP Revisions and EIS began on March 9, 2012, with the publication of a Notice of Intent in the
The Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS for Western Oregon analyze, in detail, four action alternatives, two sub-alternatives, and the No Action alternative. The No Action alternative would implement the 1995 RMPs, as written, into the future with no change in the management actions and level of management intensity in the planning area. There are 107 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) currently designated in the western Oregon districts' RMPs and described in the No Action alternative. The BLM developed the action alternatives to represent a range of overall management approaches. All action alternatives include the following land use allocations: Congressionally Reserved (
The two sub-alternatives modify an individual component of northern spotted owl conservation and related effects on timber production.
The BLM has identified Alternative B as the preferred alternative. Identification of this alternative, however, does not represent final agency direction, and the Proposed RMP Revisions and Final EIS may reflect changes or adjustments based on information received during public comment, from new information, or from changes in BLM policies or priorities. The proposed RMPs and Final EIS may include objectives and actions described in the other analyzed alternatives or otherwise within the spectrum of the analyzed alternatives.
Alternative A has a Late-Successional Reserve larger than the No Action Alternative. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area and the High Intensity Timber Area. The High Intensity Timber Area includes regeneration harvest with no retention (clear cuts). Under Alternative A the BLM would designate 119 ACECs.
Alternative B has a Late-Successional Reserve similar in size to Alternative A, though of a different spatial design. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area, Low Intensity Timber Area, and Moderate Intensity Timber Area. The portion of the Harvest Land Base in Uneven-Aged Timber Area is the largest of all action alternatives. The Low Intensity Timber Area and Moderate Intensity Timber Area include regeneration harvest with varying levels of retention. Under Alternative B, the BLM would designate 114 ACECs.
Sub-alternative B is identical to Alternative B except that it includes protection of habitat within the home ranges of all northern spotted owl known and historic sites. Alternative C has the largest Harvest Land Base of any of the alternatives. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area and the High Intensity Timber Area. The High Intensity Timber Area includes regeneration harvest with no retention (clear cuts). Alternative C has the smallest acreage in the Riparian Reserve of all of the alternatives. Under Alternative C, the BLM would designate 111 ACECs.
Sub-alternative C is identical to Alternative C except that the Late-Successional Reserve includes all stands 80 years old and older.
Alternative D has the smallest Late-Successional Reserve of any of the alternatives. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area, Owl Habitat Timber Area, and Moderate Intensity Timber Area. The Owl Habitat Timber Area includes timber harvest applied in a manner that would maintain northern spotted owl habitat. The Moderate Intensity Timber Area includes regeneration harvest with retention. Alternative D has the largest acreage in the Riparian Reserve of all of the action alternatives. Under Alternative D, the BLM would designate 118 ACECs.
In addition to announcing the opening of the 90-day comment period on the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS for Western Oregon, this notice is also announcing the start of the 60-day period for public comment on proposed Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designations, consistent with 43 CFR 1610.7–2(b). The action alternatives in the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS for Western Oregon consider the designation of 121 potential ACECs, with a variety of resource use limitations that would occur if formally designated.
The 121 potential ACECs are Brownson Ridge, Cherry Creek, China Wall, Euphoria Ridge, Hunter Creek Bog, New River, North Fork Chetco, North Fork Coquille River, North Fork Hunter Creek, North Spit, North Spit Addition, Rocky Peak, Roman Nose, Steel Creek, Tioga Creek, Upper Rock Creek, Wassen Creek, Camas Swale, Cottage Grove Old Growth, Cougar Mountain Yew Grove, Dorena Prairie, Esmond Lake, Ferguson Creek, Fox Hollow, Garoutte Prairie, Grandmother's Grove, Grassy Mountain, Heceta Sand Dunes, Horse Rock Ridge, Hult Marsh, Jordan Creek, Lake Creek Falls, Lorane Ponderosa Pine, Low Elevation Headwaters of the McKenzie River, McGowan Meadow, Mohawk, Nails Creek, Oak Basin Prairies, Upper Elk Meadows, Upper Willamette Valley Margin, Willamette Valley Prairie Oak and Pine Area, Bumpheads, Old Baldy, Spencer Creek, Surveyor, Tunnel Creek, Upper Klamath River, Upper Klamath River Addition, Yainax Butte, Baker Cypress, Bobby Creek, Brewer Spruce, Cobleigh Road, Dakubetede, Deer Creek, East Fork Whiskey Creek, Eight Dollar Mountain, French Flat, Grayback Glades, Green Springs Mt Scenic, Hole-In-The-Rock, Holton Creek, Hoxie Creek, Iron Creek, King Mountain Rock Garden, Lost Lake, Moon Prairie, North Fork Silver Creek, Old Baldy, Pickett Creek, Pipe Fork, Poverty Flat, Reeves Creek, Rough and Ready, Round Top Butte, Sterling Mine Ditch, Table Rocks, Tin Cup, Waldo-Takilma, West Fork Illinois River, Woodcock Bog, Bear Gulch, Beatty Creek, Bushnell-Irwin Rocks, Callahan Meadows, Myrtle Island, North Bank, North Myrtle Creek, Red Pond, Tater Hill, Beaver Creek, Crabtree Complex, Elk Creek, Forest Peak, Grass Mountain, High Peak—Moon Creek, Little North Fork Wilson River, Little Sink, Lost Prairie, Lower Scappoose Eagle, Mary's Peak, McCully Mountain, Middle Santiam Terrrace, Mill Creek Ridge, Molalla Meadows, Nestucca River, Rickreall Ridge, Saddle Bag Mountain, Sandy River, Silt Creek, Snow Peak, Soosap Meadows, The Butte, Valley of the Giants, Walker Flat, Waterloo, White Rock Fen, Wilhoit Springs, Williams Lake, Yaquina Head, and Yellowstone Creek.
If formally designated, the BLM would close all potential ACECs to salable mineral development, except for Sandy River, in which the BLM would close most of the potential ACEC, but minerals are owned by non-federal entities in portions of parcels 14 and 33, and Roman Nose, in which the BLM would limit salable mineral development to the existing quarry.
If formally designated, the BLM would recommend withdrawal of all or part of the following potential ACECs from locatable mineral entry: Hunter Creek Bog, New River, North Fork Chetco, North Fork Hunter Creek, Rocky Peak, Cougar Mountain Yew Grove, Grassy Mountain, Heceta Sand Dunes, Horse Rock Ridge, Low Elevation Headwaters of the McKenzie River, McGowan Meadow, Mohawk, Oak Basin Prairies, Upper Elk Meadows, Upper Willamette Valley Margin, Willamette Valley Prairie Oak and Pine Area, Bumpheads, Old Baldy, Spencer Creek, Surveyor, Tunnel Creek, Upper Klamath River, Upper Klamath River Addition, Yainax Butte, Bobby Creek, Brewer Spruce, Dakubetede, East Fork Whiskey Creek, Eight Dollar Mountain, Grayback Glades, Holton Creek, Iron Creek, North Fork Silver Creek, Pickett Creek, Pipe Fork, Reeves Creek, Rough and Ready, Table Rocks, West Fork Illinois River, Woodcock Bog, Bear Gulch, Beatty Creek, Bushnell-Irwin Rocks, Callahan Meadows, Myrtle Island, North Bank, North Myrtle Creek, Red Pond, Tater Hill, Beaver Creek, Crabtree Complex,
If formally designated, all potential ACECs would be open to leasable mineral entry with a no surface occupancy stipulation, except for Valley of the Giants, for which the BLM does not own sub-surface mineral rights, except for 07S–08W–31 NE1/4.
If formally designated, the BLM would close all or part of the following potential ACECs to off-highway vehicle use: Lower Scappoose Eagle, North Bank, Table Rocks, New River, Hunter Creek Bog, North Fork Hunter Creek, Camas Swale, Cottage Grove Old Growth, Cougar Mountain Yew Grove, Dorena Prairie, Esmond Lake, Ferguson Creek, Fox Hollow, Garoutte Prairie, Grandmother's Grove, Grassy Mountain, Heceta Sand Dunes, Horse Rock Ridge, Jordan Creek, Lake Creek Falls, Lorane Ponderosa Pine, Low Elevation Headwaters of the McKenzie River, McGowan Meadow, Mohawk, Nails Creek, Oak Basin Prairies, Upper Elk Meadows, Upper Willamette Valley Margin, Willamette Valley Prairie Oak and Pine Area, Old Baldy, Spencer Creek, Woodcock Bog, Bear Gulch, Beatty Creek, Bushnell-Irwin Rocks, Callahan Meadows, Myrtle Island, North Myrtle Creek, Red Pond, Tater Hill, Beaver Creek, Crabtree Complex, Forest Peak, Grass Mountain, High Peak—Moon Creek, Little Sink, Lost Prairie, McCully Mountain, Mill Creek Ridge, Molalla Meadows, Rickreall Ridge, Saddle Bag Mountain, Silt Creek, Soosap Meadows, Walker Flat, Waterloo, Williams Lake, Yaquina Head, and French Flat. In all of the remaining potential ACECs, if formally designated, the BLM would limit off-highway vehicle use to existing or designated roads and trails.
If formally designated, the BLM would preclude timber harvest or condition timber harvest to maintain relevant and important values in all potential ACECs. As explained in Chapter 1 of the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS for Western Oregon, the BLM will designate and manage ACECs on O&C lands where the special management needed to maintain relevant and important values would not conflict with the planning for sustained-yield timber production for the purposes of the O&C Act.
If formally designated, the BLM would manage livestock grazing in all potential ACECs to maintain relevant and important values. The following potential ACECs are already closed to livestock grazing and would continue to be closed if formally designated: Old Baldy, Spencer Creek, Lost Lake, Round Top Butte, Table Rocks, and Poverty Flat. At the Bumpheads potential ACEC, the BLM maintains gap fence to exclude livestock and would continue that management if formally designated. The following potential ACECs are open to grazing with stipulations for fencing to control grazing that would continue if formally designated: Surveyor and Tunnel Creek. The following potential ACECs are open to grazing with stipulations to monitor important values and fence or implement other protection measures if needed and those stipulations would continue if formally designated: Cobleigh Road, Green Springs Mt Scenic, Hole-In-The-Rock, Hoxie Creek, Moon Prairie, and Tin Cup.
If formally designated, the BLM would designate all potential ACECs as Right-of-Way Avoidance Areas.
The BLM is planning a series of public meetings after the release of the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS. The purpose of these meetings is to help members of the public understand the content of the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS and provide meaningful and constructive comments. There will be at least six “open-house” public meetings (one meeting per District) where people can engage with BLM employees on all resources addressed in the Draft RMP Revisions and Draft EIS. The BLM will likely also be organizing issue-specific meetings on topics such as socio-economics, forestry, aquatics, and wildlife. Information on meeting locations and dates will be available at
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before April 4, 2015. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202–371–6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by May 11, 2015. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to
30-day notice.
To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is notifying the public that we have submitted an information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR pertains to the regulations under 30 CFR 580,
Submit written comments by May 26, 2015.
Submit comments on this ICR to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB–OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or
Office of Policy, Regulations, and Analysis at
Section 1340 of the OCSLA states that “. . . any person authorized by the Secretary may conduct geological and geophysical explorations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf, which do not interfere with or endanger actual operations under any lease maintained or granted pursuant to this Act, and which are not unduly harmful to aquatic life in such area.” Geological and geophysical exploration can only be performed pre-lease under a permit, authorization, or scientific research notice. The section further requires that permits to conduct such activities may only be issued if it is determined that the applicant is qualified; the activities do not result in pollution or create hazardous or unsafe conditions; the activities do not unreasonably interfere with other uses of the area or disturb any site, structure, or object of historical or archaeological significance.
Prospecting for marine minerals includes certain aspects of exploration as defined in the OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1331(k). The term “exploration” means the process of searching for minerals, including geophysical surveys where magnetic, gravity, seismic, or other systems are used to detect or imply the presence of such minerals. The OCSLA requires all parties who are prospecting marine minerals for commercial purposes to be authorized. The OCSLA also requires non-Federal parties (such as State agencies and contractors of State agencies) to obtain authorization from the Secretary to conduct noncommercial G&G exploration activities (see 43 U.S.C. 1340(a)(1)).
As a Federal agency, BOEM has a responsibility to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act, among other environmental laws. This includes a substantive duty not to take any agency action that may affect a protected species, as well as a procedural duty to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, when warranted, before engaging in a discretionary action that may affect a protected species.
The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104–133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and the OMB Circular A–25 authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. All G&G permits for commercial prospecting are subject to cost recovery, and BOEM regulations specify service fees for these requests.
The authority to carry out these responsibilities is contained in regulations under 30 CFR 580, as well as OCSLA Section 11 (43 U.S.C. 1340(a)(1)), which is the subject of this information collection renewal. BOEM uses the information to ensure there is no environmental degradation, personal harm, or unsafe operations and conditions, damage to historical or archaeological sites, or interference with other uses; to analyze and evaluate preliminary or planned mining activities; to monitor progress and activities in the OCS; to acquire G&G data and information collected under a Federal permit offshore; and to determine eligibility for reimbursement from the Government for certain costs. Respondents are required to submit form BOEM–0134 to provide the information necessary to evaluate their qualifications, and upon approval, respondents are issued a permit or authorization.
BOEM uses the information collected to understand the G&G characteristics of marine mineral-bearing physiographic regions of the OCS. The information aids BOEM in obtaining a proper balance among the potentials for environmental damage, the discovery of marine minerals, and associated impacts on affected coastal States.
In this renewal, BOEM is expanding the use of form BOEM–0134 to include applications to conduct noncommercial prospecting (exploration) of marine minerals, such as OCS sand, gravel, and shell resources for public use. BOEM is also updating the form to clarify the types of copies being requested, delete incorrect language, make recommendations for faster processing, update addresses, and reference environmental mitigation requirements. To respond to the types of questions BOEM receives on the form, BOEM is also clarifying wording, providing examples/tables to reduce confusion, and clarifying Regional differences, when necessary, to further assist applicants. BOEM is not asking for more information, just outlining current requirements in more detail. However, to better account for the requirement to submit environmental information sufficient for the environmental review, BOEM is increasing the burden hours from 10 to 88 hours for all OCS Regions. We are also adding the terms “authorization(s)” and “exploration” throughout the form so that the form
Responses are mandatory or required to obtain or retain a benefit. No questions of a sensitive nature are asked. The BOEM protects information considered proprietary according to 30 CFR 580.70, applicable sections of 30 CFR parts 550 and 552, and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR 2).
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our burden estimates;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on respondents.
To comply with the public consultation process, on December 30, 2014, BOEM published a
Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of open meeting.
The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.
May 28–29, 2015, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham Conference Center, One Columbus Circle NE., Washington, DC 20544.
Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), DOJ.
Notice of meeting.
This is an announcement of a meeting (via conference call-in only) of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board to consider a range of issues of importance to the Board, to include but not limited to: membership/terms; applicant eligibility; the pending 2013–2014 MOV recommendations; the application submissions and review; outreach efforts; and to vote on the position of Board Chairperson. The meeting/conference call date and time is listed below.
June 18, 2015, 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST.
This meeting will take place via conference call.
Gregory Joy, Policy Advisor, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531, by telephone at (202) 514–1369, toll free (866) 859–2687, or by email at
The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board carries out those advisory functions specified in 42 U.S.C. 15202. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 15201, the President of the United States is authorized to award the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor, the highest national award for valor by a public safety officer.
The purpose of this meeting/conference call is to consider a range of issues of importance to the Board, to include but not limited to: Membership/terms; applicant eligibility; the pending 2013–2014 MOV recommendations; the application submissions and review; outreach efforts; and to vote on the position of Board Chairperson.
This meeting/conference call is open to the public at the offices of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. For security purposes, members of the public who wish to participate must register at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting/conference call by contacting Mr. Joy. All interested participants will be required to meet at the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs; 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC, and will be required to sign in at the front desk. Note: Photo identification will be required for admission. Additional identification documents may be required.
Access to the meeting/conference call will not be allowed without prior registration. Anyone requiring special accommodations should contact Mr. Joy at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. Please submit any comments or written statements for consideration by the Review Board in writing at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting date.
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of Inquiry.
The U.S. Copyright Office is reviewing how certain visual works, particularly photographs, graphic artworks, and illustrations, are monetized, enforced, and registered under the Copyright Act. The Office seeks commentary on the current marketplace for these visual works, as well as observations regarding the real or potential obstacles that authors, and, as applicable, their licensees or other representatives face when navigating the digital landscape. This work builds upon previous studies and public inquiries in a number of areas, including small claims, the making available right, resale royalties, registration, recordation, and the interoperability of records. As always, the Office is interested in the perspectives of copyright owners as well as users of these creative works. This is a general inquiry that will likely lead to additional specific inquiries.
Comments are due July 23, 2015. Reply comments are due August 24, 2015.
All comments should be submitted electronically using the comment submission page on the Office Web site at
Catherine Rowland, Senior Advisor to the Register of Copyrights, by telephone at 202–707–8350 or by electronic mail at
The Copyright Act
Photographs, graphic artworks, and illustrations have had a broad impact on U.S. culture. Few would question the
Despite the protections afforded by the Copyright Act and the prevalence of such works in society, authors face significant challenges in the modern era. Photographers note that “the average revenues for working photographers declined over the past year . . . [and] visual artists remain the group most vulnerable to the unauthorized uses of their works while being the group least financially able to bear the resulting economic losses.”
Regarding monetization, in the online era, many individuals and companies seek to use photographs and other illustrations to further their businesses. Some of these users license images from the authors or their representatives,
Many of these works “are particularly vulnerable to orphaning”
The significant enforcement challenges also pose substantial difficulties. For example, “[p]urloining of [photographs], whether produced for use by multi-national corporations for advertising purposes, use on apparel, product packaging or reportage, has become routine.”
Authors and licensees who try to pursue infringements may face an uphill battle. Litigation can be costly and expensive, and while the monetary harm of an individual infringement may be low, the impact of numerous infringements can be quite high. Similar issue are at play with the Copyright Act's notice and takedown procedures, which, while a valuable mechanism, can provide an incomplete or challenging solution for small authors.
The Copyright Office has been concerned for some time about these and related issues. For example, in recent years, the Office studied and proposed the possibility of an alternative dispute resolution process for copyright claims that have a low economic value,
Aside from legal solutions, the Copyright Office is mindful of emerging practical solutions. Through an academic partnership with Stanford Law School, the Office has focused its attention on the subject of photographs and licensing gridlock. Stanford's students are exploring ways to centrally assemble information concerning marketplace resources for the licensing of photographs and the data standards relied upon by copyright owners and licensees to engage in such transactions. This project will not only serve creators and their customers, but will also help to inform the Copyright Office as it further adopts or, as necessary, establishes, global identifying information for copyright registration and recorded transactions. Across the sea, the United Kingdom's Copyright Hub is working on a prototype for transactions involving photographs as its first major project. And the Internet Task Force of the Department of Commerce recently explored photography questions as part of a broader public meeting hosted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office about facilitating the online licensing environment.
Finally, photographers, graphic artists, and illustrators face challenges when registering their copyrights. Many photographers, for example, are prolific, creating thousands of works per year or even per week or month. Because it can be expensive to register these works on an individual basis, the Copyright Office has provided certain group alternatives. At the same time, the Office also must provide an effective public record that includes sufficient detail regarding who has created what. Statutory damages are available against a user when an author has timely registered a work, and thus the granularity of the record is critical.
The Office invites comments that address the subjects listed below. When submitting a comment, please identify the nature of your interest in this subject (
1. What are the most significant challenges related to monetizing and/or licensing photographs, graphic artworks, and/or illustrations?
2. What are the most significant enforcement challenges for photographers, graphic artists, and/or illustrators?
3. What are the most significant registration challenges for photographers, graphic artists, and/or illustrators?
4. What are the most significant challenges or frustrations for those who wish to make legal use of photographs, graphic art works, and/or illustrations?
5. What other issues or challenges should the Office be aware of regarding photographs, graphic artworks, and/or illustrations under the Copyright Act?
If there are any additional pertinent issues not discussed above, the Office encourages interested parties to raise those matters in their comments.
2:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.
Closed.
1. Administrative Action under NCUA's Rules and Regulations. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(i)(B), (9)(ii).
2. Consideration of Supervisory Action under NCUA's Rules and Regulations. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(i)(B), (9)(ii).
3. Creditor Claim Appeal. Closed pursuant to Exemption (6).
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703–518–6304.
The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy and Budget, Subcommittee on Facilities (SCF), pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n–5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:
Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. EDT. Open session: 5:00 to 5:40 p.m.; closed session: 5:40 to 6:00 p.m.
Open meeting subjects: Chairman's remarks; subcommittee member goals for May 2015 through May 2016; future directions for the subcommittee. Closed meeting subjects: approval of closed minutes of February 2015 subcommittee meeting; discussion of regional class research vessels.
Partly open, partly closed.
This meeting will be held by teleconference. A public listening line will be available for the open portion of the meeting. Members of the public must contact the Board Office [call 703–292–7000 or send an email message to
April 27, May 4, 11, 18, 25, June 1, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 4, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 11, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 25, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 1, 2015
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Glenn Ellmers at 301–415–0442 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), or email
Notice is hereby given in accordance with Public Law 92–463 that the Actuarial Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on May 28, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. at the office of the Chief Actuary of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, on the conduct of the 26th Actuarial Valuation of the Railroad Retirement System. The agenda for this meeting will include a discussion of the results and presentation of the 26th Actuarial Valuation. The text and tables which constitute the Valuation will have been prepared in draft form for review by the Committee. It is expected that this will be the last meeting of the Committee before publication of the Valuation.
The meeting will be open to the public. Persons wishing to submit written statements or make oral presentations should address their communications or notices to the RRB Actuarial Advisory Committee, c/o Chief Actuary, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611–2092.
For The Board.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to proposes [sic] to amend the Seventh Amended and Restated Operating Agreement (“Operating Agreement”) of the Exchange to remove the requirement that the independent directors that make up the majority of the board of directors of the Exchange (the “Board”) also be directors of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., the Exchange's parent company. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Operating Agreement of the Exchange to remove the requirement that the independent directors making up the majority of the Board also be directors of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (“ICE”), the Exchange's parent.
Section 2.03(a)(i) of the Operating Agreement, which governs board composition, provides that a majority of the Exchange's directors shall be U.S. persons
The Exchange believes that eliminating the requirement that the independent directors of the Exchange
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The proposed change would remove the requirement that the independent directors that make up the majority of the Exchange Board also be ICE directors and would redefine “ICE Independent Directors” to remove the reference to ICE. As noted above, the proposed change would allow the Exchange to broaden the pool of potential Board members, resulting in a more diversified Board membership while still ensuring their independence, and would make the Exchange's board requirements more consistent with its affiliate NYSE Arca, which does not require its directors to be ICE directors. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange and would enable the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its members and persons associated with its members. The Exchange therefore believes that approval of the proposed is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act.
The Exchange also believes that this filing furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
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 Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with the administration and functioning of the Exchange's board of directors.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–NYSE–2015–16. 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.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The privacy notice and opt out notice provisions of Regulation S–P (the “Rule”) implement the privacy notice and opt out notice requirements of Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), which include the requirement that at the time of establishing a customer relationship with a consumer and not less than annually during the continuation of such relationship, a financial institution shall provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure to such consumer of such financial institution's policies and practices with respect to disclosing nonpublic personal information to affiliates and nonaffiliated third parties (“privacy notice”). Title V of the GLBA also provides that, unless an exception applies, a financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information of a consumer to a nonaffiliated third party unless the financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer that such information may be disclosed to such third party; the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party; and the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option (“opt out notice”). The Rule applies to broker-dealers, investment advisers registered with the Commission, and investment companies (“covered entities”).
Commission staff estimates that, as of December 31, 2014, the Rule's information collection burden applies to approximately 19,876 covered entities (approximately 4,267 broker-dealers, 11,508 investment advisers registered with the Commission and 4,101 investment companies). In view of (a) the minimal recordkeeping burden imposed by the Rule (since the Rule has no recordkeeping requirement and records relating to customer communications already must be made and retained pursuant to other SEC rules); (b) the summary fashion in which information must be provided to customers in the privacy and opt out notices required by the Rule (the model privacy form adopted by the SEC and the other agencies in 2009, designed to serve as both a privacy notice and an opt out notice, is only two pages); (c) the availability to covered entities of the model privacy form and online model privacy form builder; and (d) the experience of covered entities' staff with the notices, SEC staff estimates that covered entities will each spend an average of approximately 12 hours per year complying with the Rule, for a total of approximately 238,512 annual burden-hours (12 × 19,876 = 238,512). SEC staff understands that the vast majority of covered entities deliver their privacy and opt out notices with other communications such as account opening documents and account statements. Because the other communications are already delivered to consumers, adding a brief privacy and opt out notice should not result in added costs for processing or for postage and materials. Also, privacy and opt out notices may be delivered electronically to consumers who have agreed to electronic communications, which further reduces the costs of delivery. Because SEC staff assumes that most paper copies of privacy and opt out notices are combined with other required mailings, the burden-hour estimates above are based on resources required to integrate the privacy and opt notices into another mailing, rather than on the resources required to create and send a separate mailing. SEC staff estimates that, of the estimated 12 annual burden-hours incurred, approximately 8 hours would be spent by administrative assistants at an hourly rate of $74, and approximately 4 hours would be spent by internal counsel at an hourly rate of $380, for a total annualized internal cost of compliance of $2,112 for each of the covered entities (8 × $74 = $592; 4 × $380 = $1,520; $592 + $1,520 = $2,112). Hourly cost of compliance estimates for administrative assistant time are derived from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association's
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information on respondents; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of First American Scientific Corp. (CIK No. 1002822), a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business listed as Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada, with stock quoted on OTC Link (previously, “Pink Sheets”) operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. (“OTC Link”) under the ticker symbol FASC, because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31, 2012. On May 2, 2014, First American Scientific Corp. received a delinquency letter sent by the Division of Corporation Finance requesting compliance with their periodic filing obligations.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 22, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on May 5, 2015.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17h–1T requires a covered broker-dealer to maintain and preserve records and other information concerning certain entities that are associated with the broker-dealer. This requirement extends to the financial and securities activities of the holding company, affiliates and subsidiaries of the broker-dealer that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the financial or operational condition of the broker-dealer. Rule 17h–2T requires a covered broker-dealer to file with the Commission quarterly reports and a cumulative year-end report concerning the information required to be maintained and preserved under Rule 17h–1T.
The collection of information required by Rules 17h–1T and 17h–2T, collectively referred to as the “risk assessment rules”, is necessary to enable the Commission to monitor the activities of a broker-dealer affiliate whose business activities are reasonably likely to have a material impact on the financial and operational condition of the broker-dealer. Without this information, the Commission would be unable to assess the potentially damaging impact of the affiliate's activities on the broker-dealer.
There are currently 306 respondents that must comply with Rules 17h–1T and 17h–2T. Each of these 306 respondents are estimated to require 10 hours per year to maintain the records required under Rule 17h–1T, for an aggregate estimated annual burden of 3,060 hours (306 respondents × 10 hours). In addition, each of these 306 respondents must make five annual responses under Rule 17h–2T. These five responses are estimated to require 14 hours per respondent per year for an aggregate estimated annual burden of 4,284 hours (306 respondents × 14 hours).
In addition, new respondents must draft an organizational chart required under Rule 17h–1T and establish a system for complying with the risk assessment rules. The staff estimates that drafting the required organizational chart requires one hour and establishing a system for complying with the risk assessment rules requires three hours. Based on the unchanged number of filers in recent years, the staff estimates there will be zero new respondents, and thus, a corresponding estimated burden of zero hours for new respondents. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is approximately 7,344 burden hours (3,060 hours + 4,284 hours).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule in order to: (1) Adopt a Cross-Asset Tape B Tier; and (2) amend the fees charged for and description of the logical ports
Currently, the Exchange offers a rebate of $0.0020 per share as the standard rebate for orders with fee code B, which applies to orders that add liquidity to the Exchange in Tape B securities. The Exchange also offers various tiers that provide Members with the opportunity to earn higher rebates by meeting certain volume metrics. The Exchange is proposing to adopt a new tier in footnote 12 titled “Cross-Asset Tape B Tier.” Under the Cross-Asset Tape B Tier, the Exchange is proposing to provide a $0.0031 per share rebate to a Member's orders with a fee code of B for which the Member: (1) Has a Tape B Step-Up Add TCV
Currently, the Exchange maintains logical ports for order entry, drop copies and the receipt of market data for which it currently charges $400 per month per port with the exception of Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports and GRP Ports.
In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), received approval to effect a merger (the “Merger”) of the Exchange's parent company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with Direct Edge Holdings LLC, the indirect parent of EDGX and EDGA (together with the Exchange, BYX and EDGX, the “BGM Affiliated
In addition to increasing the port fees charged by the Exchange, the Exchange proposes to add the words “Multicast PITCH” before GRP Ports to mirror the description of fees for Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports. As noted above, the separate fees for Spin Server Ports and GRP Ports both relate to the Exchange's Multicast PITCH data feed.
The Exchange proposes to implement the amendments to its fee schedule effective immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
Volume-based rebates and fees such as the ones currently maintained on BATS Options have been widely adopted by equities and options exchanges and are equitable because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes that the proposal to add a Cross-Asset Tape B Tier is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates because it will provide Members with an additional incentive to reach certain thresholds on both the Exchange in Tape B securities and BATS Options. The increased liquidity from this proposal also benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange and BATS Options liquidity pools, offering additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor protection. Such pricing programs thereby reward a Member's growth pattern in Tape B securities and such increased volume increases potential revenue to the Exchange, and will allow the Exchange to continue to provide and potentially expand the incentive programs operated by the Exchange. To the extent a Member participates on the Exchange but not on BATS Options, the Exchange does believe that the proposal is still reasonable, equitably allocated and non-discriminatory with respect to such Member based on the overall benefit to the Exchange resulting from the success of BATS Options. As noted above, such success allows the Exchange to continue to provide and potentially expand its existing incentive programs to the benefit of all participants on the Exchange, whether they participate on BATS Options or not. The proposed pricing program is also fair and equitable in that membership in BATS Options is available to all members which would provide them with access to the benefits on BATS Options provided by the proposed changes, as described above, even where a member of BATS Options is not necessarily eligible for the proposed increased rebates on the Exchange. Further, the proposed changes will result in Members receiving either the same or an increased rebate than they would currently receive. The Exchange also notes that the proposed cross-asset step up tiers are similar to pricing tiers already employed by the Exchange as well as on other exchanges, including EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), which maintains a Tape B Step Up tier to incentivize added liquidity in Tape B securities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the increase of fees for logical ports represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer connectivity services as a means to facilitate the trading activities of members and other participants. Accordingly, fees charged for connectivity are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of such participants as well as demand for market data from the Exchange. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for connectivity, affected members will opt to terminate their connectivity arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including routing to the applicable exchange through another
The Exchange believes that its proposed changes to logical port fees are reasonable in light of the benefits to Exchange participants of direct market access and receipt of data. In addition, the Exchange believes that its fees are equitably allocated among Exchange constituents based upon the number of access ports that they require to access and receive data from the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that its fees for access services will enable it to better cover its infrastructure costs and to improve its market technology and services.
Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its fee schedule are non-discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Members. All Members that voluntarily select various service options will be charged the same amount for the same services. All Members have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no differentiation among Members with regard to the fees charged for the services offered by the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe its proposed amendments to its fee schedule would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposal to add a new cross-asset step-up tier would burden competition, but instead, enhance competition, as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of and draw additional volume to both the Exchange and BATS Options. As stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The proposed changes are generally intended to enhance the rebates for liquidity added to the Exchange, which is intended to draw additional liquidity to the Exchange. As such, the proposal is a competitive proposal that is intended to add additional liquidity to the Exchange, which will, in turn, benefit the Exchange and all Exchange participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change to logical port fees represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of Application for Exemption under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).
The Applicant requests that the Commission issue an order declaring the Applicant to be a person not within the intent of section 202(a)(11), which defines the term “investment adviser.”
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549. Applicant, D–W Investments LLC, c/o Martin E. Lybecker, Perkins Coie LLP, Suite 600, 700 Thirteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Rachel Loko, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6883, or Holly L. Hunter-Ceci, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site either at
1. The Applicant is a multi-generational single-family office that provides services to the family and descendants of Myron A.Wick, Jr. The Applicant is a Delaware limited liability company that is wholly-owned, other than the exception discussed in representation 5 below, by Family Clients and is exclusively controlled (directly or indirectly) by one or more Family Members and/or Family Entities in compliance with rule 202(a)(11)(G)–1 (“Family Office Rule”). For purposes of the application, the term “Wick Family” means the lineal descendants of Myron A. Wick, Jr., their spouses, and all of the persons and entities that qualify as Family Clients as defined in paragraph (d)(4) of the Family Office Rule. Capitalized terms have the same meaning as defined in the Family Office Rule.
2. The Applicant provides both advisory and non-advisory services (collectively, the “Services”). Any Service provided by the Applicant that relates to investment advice about securities or may otherwise be construed as advisory in nature is considered an “Advisory Service.”
3. The Applicant represents that, other than the exceptions discussed in representations 4 and 5 below, (i) each of the persons served by the Applicant is a Family Client,
4. The Applicant provides Services to the sister of the spouse of a lineal descendant of Myron A. Wick, Jr. (“Sister-in-Law”), as well as an irrevocable trust (“Trust”) of which she is a beneficiary (the Sister-in-Law and the Trust, collectively, the “Additional Family Client” and, together with the Wick Family, the “Extended Wick Family”). The Applicant represents that if the Sister-in-Law were a Family Client, the Trust would meet the requirements of (d)(4)(vii) of the Family Office Rule.
5. The Sister-in-Law has less than a 3% limited liability company membership interest in the Applicant, and the Trust has less than a 2% limited liability company membership interest in the Applicant. Neither the Sister-in-Law nor the Trust has a management role or exercises control over the Applicant. The Applicant represents that the assets owned beneficially by Family Members and/or Family Entities (excluding the Additional Family Client) make up at least 75% of the total assets for which the Applicant provides Advisory Services.
6. The Applicant represents that the Additional Family Client has important familial ties to and is an integral part of the Wick Family. The Applicant maintains that including the Additional Family Client in the “family” simply recognizes and memorializes the familial ties and intra-familial relationships that already exist, and have existed for at least 9 years while the assets of the Additional Family Client were managed by the Wick Family.
1. Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act defines the term “investment adviser” to mean “any person who, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for compensation and as a part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities. . . .”
2. The Applicant falls within the definition of an investment adviser under section 202(a)(11). The Family Office provides an exclusion from the definition of investment adviser for which the Applicant would be eligible but for the provision of services to the Additional Family Client. Section 203(a) of the Advisers Act requires investment advisers to register with the
3. The Applicant submits that its relationship with the Additional Family Client does not change the nature of the Applicant into that of a commercial advisory firm. In support of this argument, the Applicant notes that if the Sister-in-Law were the sister of a lineal descendant of Myron A. Wick Jr., rather than the sister of a spouse of a lineal descendant, there would be no question that each of the persons presently being served by the Applicant would be a Family Member, and that the related trust would meet the requirements of paragraph (d)(4)(vii) of the Family Office Rule pertaining to any irrevocable trust in which one or more other Family Clients are the only current beneficiaries. The Applicant states that in requesting the order, the Applicant is not attempting to expand its operations or engage in any level of commercial activity to which the Advisers Act is designed to apply. Indeed, although the Sister-in-Law does not fall within the definition of Family Member, she is considered to be, and is treated as, a member of the Wick Family, and the number of natural persons who are not Family Members as a percentage of the total natural persons to whom the Applicant would provide Advisory Services if relief were granted would be less than 5%. The Applicant maintains that, from the perspective of the Wick Family, the Applicant seeks to continue providing Advisory Services exclusively to members of a single family.
4. The Applicant also submits that there is no public interest in requiring the Applicant to be registered under the Advisers Act. The Applicant states that the Applicant is a private organization that was formed to be the “family office” for the Wick Family, and that the Applicant does not have any public clients. The Applicant maintains that its Advisory Services are tailored exclusively to the needs of the Wick Family and the Additional Family Client. The Applicant argues that the presence of the Additional Family Client, who has been receiving Advisory Services from the Applicant for 9 years, does not create any public interest that would require the Applicant to be registered under the Advisers Act that is different in any manner from the considerations that apply to a “family office” that complies in all respects with the Family Office Rule.
5. The Applicant argues that, although the Family Office Rule largely codified the exemptive orders that the Commission had previously issued before the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Commission recognized in proposing the rule that the exact representations, conditions, or terms contained in every exemptive order could not be captured in a rule of general applicability. The Commission noted that family offices would remain free to seek a Commission exemptive order to advise an individual or entity that did not meet the proposed family client definition, and that certain situations may raise unique conflicts and issues that are more appropriately addressed through an exemptive order process where the Commission can consider the specific facts and circumstances, than through a rule of general applicability. The Applicant maintains that its unusual circumstances—providing Services to Family Clients and to an Additional Family Client for the past 9 years—have not changed the nature of the Applicant's operations into that of a commercial advisory business, and that an exemptive order is appropriate based on the Applicant's specific facts and circumstances.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant requests an order declaring it to be a person not within the intent of section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act. The Applicant submits that the order is necessary and appropriate, in the public interest, consistent with the protection of investors, and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Advisers Act.
1. The Applicant will offer and provide Advisory Services only to Family Clients and to the Additional Family Client, who will generally be deemed to be, and treated as if the Sister-in-Law and the Trust each were, a Family Client; provided, however, that the Additional Family Client will be deemed to be, and treated as if it were, a Family Member for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) and for purposes of paragraph (d)(4)(vii) of the Family Office Rule.
2. The Applicant will at all times be wholly owned by the Extended Wick Family and exclusively controlled (directly or indirectly) by one or more Family Members and/or Family Entities (excluding the Additional Family Client and the Additional Family Client's Family Entities) as defined in paragraph (d)(5) of the Family Office Rule.
3. At all times the assets beneficially owned by Family Members and/or Family Entities (excluding the Additional Family Client and the Additional Family Client's Family Entities) will account for at least 75% of the assets for which the Applicant provides Advisory Services.
4. The Applicant will comply with all the terms for exclusion from the definition of investment adviser under the Advisers Act set forth in the Family Office Rule except for the limited exception requested by the application.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
This notice lists the projects approved by rule by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission during the period set forth in “DATES.”
February 1–28, 2015.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110–1788.
Jason E. Oyler, Regulatory Counsel, telephone: (717) 238–0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238–2436; email:
This notice lists the projects, described below, receiving approval for the consumptive use of water pursuant to the Commission's approval by rule process set forth in 18 CFR 806.22(f) for the time period specified above:
1. XTO Energy Incorporated, Pad ID: King Unit, ABR–20091225.R1, Shrewsbury Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.000 mgd; Approval Date: February 3, 2015.
2. XTO Energy Incorporated, Pad ID: Booth, ABR–20091226.R1, Shrewsbury Township, Lycoming County, Pa.;
3. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Nickolyn, ABR–20100436.R1, Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 3, 2015.
4. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Potter, ABR–20100401.R1, Terry Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
5. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Crawford, ABR–20100402.R1, Terry Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
6. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Everbreeze, ABR–20100408.R1, Troy Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
7. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Ballibay, ABR–20100409.R1, Herrick Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
8. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Balduzzi, ABR–20100410.R1, Wyalusing Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
9. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Alton, ABR–20100411.R1, Ulster Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
10. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Frisbee, ABR–20100413.R1, Orwell Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
11. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Blannard, ABR–20100414.R1, Standing Stone Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
12. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Dunham, ABR–20100418.R1, Albany Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
13. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Brackman, ABR–20100420.R1, Leroy Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
14. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Koromlan, ABR–20100421.R1, Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
15. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Johnson, ABR–20100422.R1, Monroe Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
16. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Henry, ABR–20100423.R1, Albany Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
17. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: McGavin, ABR–20100435.R1, Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
18. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Rexford, ABR–20100437.R1, Orwell Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
19. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Amburke, ABR–20100438.R1, Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
20. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Angie, ABR–20100441.R1, Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
21. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Brink, ABR–20100449.R1, Herrick Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
22. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Breezy, ABR–201007037.R1, Troy Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
23. Samson Exploration, LLC, Pad ID: Pardee & Curtin Lumber Co. C–05, ABR–20100116.R1, Shippen Township, Cameron County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
24. Samson Exploration, LLC, Pad ID: Pardee & Curtin Lumber Co. C–07H, ABR–20100117.R1, Lumber Township, Cameron County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
25. SWEPI, LP, Pad ID: Burt 518, ABR–20100221.R1, Richmond Township, Tioga County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.000 mgd; Approval Date: February 6, 2015.
26. SWEPI, LP, Pad ID: Ken-Ton 902, ABR–20100102.R1, West Branch Township, Potter County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.990 mgd; Approval Date: February 11, 2015.
27. SWEPI, LP, Pad ID: Mitchell A 903, ABR–20100152.R1, West Branch Township, Potter County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 4.990 mgd; Approval Date: February 11, 2015.
28. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Yoder, ABR–20100419.R1, West Burlington Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 13, 2015.
29. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Holtan, ABR–20100446.R1, Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 13, 2015.
30. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Polomski, ABR–20100447.R1, Wyalusing Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 13, 2015.
31. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Champdale, ABR–20100450.R1, Tuscarora Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 13, 2015.
32. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Verex, ABR–20100507.R1, Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 13, 2015.
33. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Pauliny, ABR–20100508.R1, Terry Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 13, 2015.
34. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Coates, ABR–20100509.R1, Standing Stone Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 13, 2015.
35. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Fred, ABR–20100524.R1, Leroy Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 13, 2015.
36. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Moose, ABR–201007019.R1, Wysox Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 13, 2015.
37. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Katzenstein NEW, ABR–201007029.R1, Wysox Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 13, 2015.
38. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Jack, ABR–20100511.R1, Windham Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 16, 2015.
39. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Janet, ABR–20100526.R1, Monroe Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 16, 2015.
40. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Treat, ABR–20100527.R1, Rome Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 16, 2015.
41. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Morse, ABR–20100528.R1, Leroy Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 16, 2015.
42. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Hayward New, ABR–20100535.R1, Rome Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 16, 2015.
43. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Cerca, ABR–20100538.R1, Wyalusing Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 16, 2015.
44. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Flash, ABR–20100540.R1, Rome Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 16, 2015.
45. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Feusner New, ABR–20100558.R1, Litchfield Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 16, 2015.
46. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Milochik, ABR–201007034.R1, Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 16, 2015.
47. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Bluegrass, ABR–201007103.R1, Rush Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 16, 2015.
48. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: McConnell, ABR–20100525.R1, Overton Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 20, 2015.
49. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Madden, ABR–20100536.R1, Asylum Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 20, 2015.
50. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Rich, ABR–20100539.R1, Troy Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 20, 2015.
51. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Way, ABR–20100448.R1, Wyalusing Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 20, 2015.
52. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Matt Will Farms, ABR–20100544.R1, Troy Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 20, 2015.
53. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Kenyon, ABR–20100557.R1, Overton Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 20, 2015.
54. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: McGraw, ABR–20100537.R1, Washington Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 24, 2015.
55. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Forbes NEW, ABR–201007022.R1, Asylum Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 24, 2015.
56. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Tiffany, ABR–201007025.R1, Windham Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 24, 2015.
57. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Robinson NEW, ABR–201007036.R1, Orwell Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 24, 2015.
58. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Pieszala, ABR–201007065.R1, Windham Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 24, 2015.
59. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Delima, ABR–201007078.R1, Albany Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 24, 2015.
60. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Van DeMark, ABR–201007106.R1, Windham Township, Wyoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 24, 2015.
61. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Petty, ABR–201007126.R1, Leroy Township, Bradford County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 7.500 mgd; Approval Date: February 24, 2015.
62. WPX Energy Appalachia, LLC, Pad ID: Blye Pad Site, ABR–20100204.R1, Middletown Township, Susquehanna County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 3.999 mgd; Approval Date: February 25, 2015.
63. EXCO Resources (PA), LLC, Pad ID: Patterson Drilling Pad #1, ABR–20100146.R1, Penn Township, Lycoming County, Pa.; Consumptive Use of Up to 5.000 mgd; Approval Date: February 25, 2015.
Pub. L. 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
Pursuant to section 533 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended (49 U.S.C. 50104), the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has determined not to list any countries as denying fair market opportunities for U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in foreign government-funded airport construction projects.
Scott Pietan, International Procurement Negotiator, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395–9646, or Arthur Tsao, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395–6987.
Section 533 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended by section 115 of the Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987, Public Law 100–223 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 50104) (“the Act”), requires the USTR to decide whether any foreign country has denied fair market opportunities to U.S. products, suppliers, or bidders in connection with airport construction projects of $500,000 or more that are funded in whole or in part by the government of such country. The list of such countries must be published in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and other Federal Agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal Agencies that are final within the
By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). Claims seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before September 21, 2015. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
George Poirier, Division Administrator, FHWA, 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000, Madison, Wisconsin 53717; telephone: (608) 829–7500. The FHWA Wisconsin Division's normal office hours are 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. central time.
Notice is hereby given that FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing approvals for the following highway project: WIS 164 reconditioning from CTH Q to CTH E in Washington County, Wisconsin. The purpose of the project is to address poor pavement condition, safety, traffic flow, and to provide adequate bicycle facilities. The project will recondition WIS 164 by milling and resurfacing the existing roadway, widening the roadway to meet desirable lane and shoulder widths, including bicycle accommodations on the paved shoulder, and correcting steep side slopes. The project will also incorporate spot safety and geometric improvements which include the following reconstruction activities: Cutting hill crests, reducing profile grades, and reconstructing intersections to a better type and location. Of the 7.5 mile overall project length, approximately 5.1 miles of WIS 164 will be reconditioned and approximately 2.4 miles will be reconstructed. To the extent practicable, the proposed WIS 164 improvements avoid and minimize impacts to the natural, cultural, and built environment.
The actions by the Federal agencies on this project, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the approved Categorical Exclusion (Wisconsin Department of Transportation Final Environmental Report), and in other documents in the FHWA administrative record. The Categorical Exclusion (CE) was approved by FHWA on April 10, 2015.
The CE and other documents in the administrative record are available by contacting FHWA at the address provided above. The CE can be downloaded from the project Web site at
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], Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109, 23 U.S.C. 128, and 23 U.S.C. 139].
2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401– 7671(q) and 23 U.S.C. 109(j)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303].
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section 1536], Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661–667(d)], Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703–712].
5. Historic and Cultural Resources: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f)
6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)–2000(d)(1)], Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 [42 U.S.C. 4601
7. Wetlands and Water Resources: Clean Water Act (Section 404, Section 401, and Section 319) [33 U.S.C. 1251– 1376].
8. Hazardous Materials: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [42 U.S.C. 9601–9675].
9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands, E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management, E.O. 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, E.O. 13112 Invasive Species.
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated March 23, 2015, the Idaho Northern and Pacific Railroad Company (INPR) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 223, Safety Glazing Standards—Locomotives, Passenger Cars and Cabooses. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2015–0027.
INPR seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 223.15,
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be
• Web site:
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12–140, Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Communications received by June 8, 2015 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and comment request.
Consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, this document provides notice of FRA's intent to modify the existing instructions applicable to one currently approved information collection reporting form (Form FRA F 6180.54, Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report). For a projected five-year period, FRA seeks to gather additional data on Form FRA F 6180.54 concerning rail cars carrying petroleum crude oil (crude oil) in any train involved in an FRA reportable accident. At present, railroads do not report this specific information to FRA on Form FRA F 6180.54, but rather aggregate crude oil information with information about all other hazardous materials being transported. This new reporting requirement will help FRA capture more specific information on accidents that involve trains transporting crude oil and provide FRA an opportunity to better address risks to railroad safety and the general public.
Comments are requested no later than June 23, 2015. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense or delay.
•
•
•
•
Kebo Chen, Staff Director, Railroad Safety Information Management Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Safety, Mail Stop 25, West Building 3rd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202–493–6079); or Sara Mahmoud-Davis, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, Mail Stop 10, West Building 3rd Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202–366–1118).
In light of recent rail accidents involving trains transporting crude oil, FRA intends to modify the existing instructions on Form FRA F 6180.54 titled Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report (the Form) to gather data concerning rail cars carrying crude oil in trains involved in reportable accidents. Specifically, for a projected five-year period, FRA intends to utilize the Form's Special Study Block 49b to collect the following information regarding trains involved in FRA reportable accidents: (1) The number of rail cars carrying crude oil; (2) the number of cars damaged or derailed carrying crude oil; and (3) the number of cars releasing crude oil.
The rail transportation of crude oil, a Class 3 flammable liquid hazardous material, is subject to the Federal hazardous material transportation regulations (49 CFR parts 171–180) the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) promulgated and FRA's rail safety regulations. Although railroads are currently required to report to both PHMSA and FRA certain information on any release of a regulated hazardous material that occurs during the rail transportation of the commodity, they are not required to report certain commodity specific information. Information railroads are not currently required to report includes the number of rail cars carrying crude oil, the number of those cars that are damaged and/or derailed in an accident, and the number of those cars that release crude oil as a result of a reportable accident.
FRA has solicited input from members of the railroad industry to explain the type of data needed and obtain their views. To the extent possible, FRA's proposal takes into consideration the industry's feedback.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
FRA seeks to modify these instructions as it explained in the preamble to FRA's 1996 final rule on Railroad Accident Reporting.
The Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report (Form FRA F 6180.54) contains two SSBs in block “49.” As the need arises, FRA will notify the railroads in writing, or if appropriate, through publication in the
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following: (1) Whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways FRA can enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways FRA can minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
Below is a brief summary of the currently approved information collection activities and burdens associated with that information collection that FRA seeks to slightly modify with the instructions attached. FRA intends to revise the Form's instructions only. FRA is not changing the data elements of the Form and believes there will be no change in the number of responses. FRA estimates there will be a minor change in: (1) The burden time per response for the Form where respondents utilize the Special Study Blocks; (2) the total burden hours for the Form; and (3) the total burden hours for the entire currently approved information collection. FRA requests a revision to the current approval for the reasons listed in the summary above.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.
Listed below are proposed changes to the instructions for Form FRA F 6180.54 (Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report). FRA is not proposing changes to any other Accident/Incident Report Form. The proposed changes specify the type of information FRA desires to capture in the Special Study Block (SSB) Block “B” (Block 49b) about train accidents involving trains transporting petroleum crude oil (crude oil). FRA proposes to revise the instructions for completing Block 49b on Form FRA F 6180.54 (the Form) to include the following:
The current instructions in the
The format for Block 49b is—AAA–BBB–CCC—a total of eleven characters including the dashes to indicate the number of crude oil cars in the train as specified below:
• AAA is the count of the Number of Cars Carrying Crude Oil (similar to block 8, but limited to cars carrying crude oil and with leading zeros).
• BBB is the count of the Number of Crude Oil Cars Damaged/Derailed (similar to block 9, but limited to cars carrying crude oil that were damaged/derailed and with leading zeros).
• CCC is the count of the Number of Cars Releasing Crude Oil (similar to block 10, but limited to the number of cars releasing crude oil and with leading zeros).
When there is no crude oil in the train and the equipment in the train meets the qualification of Type of Equipment listed below under section “Applicability” on the Form (
All other rules for reporting HAZMAT releases and injuries apply, regardless of HAZMAT commodity involved, including the description of the hazardous material released in Form FRA F 6180.54 Block 52 (
Additionally, the number of fatalities and injuries resulting from direct exposure to the released substance would still need to be reported in Blocks 46, 47, and 48 on the Form FRA F 6180.54 and in Block 5q (Exposure to Hazmat) on the Railroad Injury and Illness Summary (Continuation Sheet) Form FRA F 6180.55a.
Whenever block 25 (Type of Equipment) on the Form FRA F 6180.54 is equal to 1 (Freight Train), or 4 (Work Train), or 5 (Single Car), or 6 (Cut of Cars), or 7 (Yard/switching), then the required information on crude oil in the train must be completed in Block 49b.
Block 8 enter “7” (representing the 3 cars carrying corrosive acid and the 4 cars carrying crude oil);
Block 9 enter “3” (representing the 1 car derailed carrying corrosive acid, 2 cars damaged carrying crude oil);
Block 10 enter “1” (representing no corrosive acid released, 1 car releasing crude oil);
Block 11 enter “25” (representing the 25 people who were evacuated during the cleanup);
Block 46 (Nonfatal) enter “2” (representing the 2 employees injured);
Block 49b enter “004–002–001” (representing the 4 cars in the train carrying crude oil, the 2 crude oil cars damaged/derailed, and the 1 crude oil car that released product); and Block 52 (Narrative Description) enter a description of the accident in accordance with the
On the related Form FRA F 6180.55a, for the employee injured due to exposure to HAZMAT enter “Y” in Block 5q. On another Form FRA F 6180.55a, for the employee injured, not due to exposure, enter “N” in Block 5q.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB); Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we invite comments on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice.
We must receive your written comments on or before June 23, 2015.
As described below, you may send comments on the information collections listed in this document using the “Regulations.gov” online comment form for this document, or you may send written comments via U.S. mail or hand delivery. TTB no longer accepts public comments via email or fax.
•
•
•
Please submit separate comments for each specific information collection listed in this document. You must reference the information collection's title, form or recordkeeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
You may view copies of this document, the information collections listed in it and any associated instructions, and all comments received in response to this document within Docket No. TTB–2015–0001 at
Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; telephone 202–453–1039, ext. 135; or email
The Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), as part of their continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed or continuing information collections listed below in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in your comments.
We invite comments on: (a) Whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the information collection's burden; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the information collection's burden 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 the requested information.
Currently, we are seeking comments on the following forms, recordkeeping requirements, or questionnaires:
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Notice of amendment to system of records.
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552(e) (4)) requires that all agencies publish in the
Comments on this new system of records must be received no later than May 26, 2015. If no public comment is received, the new system will become effective May 26, 2015.
Written comments concerning the proposed amended system of records may be submitted by: mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulations Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273–9026; or email to
Janet Kemp RN, Ph.D., Department of Veterans Affairs, 400 Fort Hill Avenue, Canandaigua, NY 14424; telephone (585) 393–7939.
The system name is being changed from “Suicide Prevention Database-VA” to “Veterans Crisis Line Database-VA.” The system number is changed from 158VA11 to 158VA10NC5 to reflect the current Organizational alignment.
The System Location section is being amended to include the Veterans Crisis Line Database being maintained at the VA Austin Information Technology Center (AITC) in Austin, Texas. Also, back-up copies of the database are maintained in accordance with VA OIT enterprise management policies.
The Categories of Records in the System is being amended to replace the National Suicide Hotline Web Application Program with the VCL Application. Data is now collected in the AITC standard query language (SQL) database instead of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) statistical package.
The purpose section is being amended to update the National Suicide Hotline to the Veterans Crisis Line. The Storage section is amended to reflect that records are maintained on an SQL server at VA AITC in Austin, Texas. The Safeguards section is being amended to state that access to computer rooms at the VA AITC is limited in accordance with VA OIT national security policies.
The Retention and Disposal section is being amended to remove that paper records and information are maintained and disposed of in accordance with records disposition authority approved by the Archivist of the United States. The new language will state that these records are maintained as a permanent record, pending approval of a new records schedule by the National Archives and Records Administration.
The System Manager and Address is being amended from stating “VISN 2 Center of Excellence at Canandaigua VA Medical Center (528A5), 400 Fort Hill Avenue, Canandaigua, NY 14424. Officials responsible for the system of records include Craig S. Howard, Director, Canandaigua VA Medical Center; Kerry L. Knox, Ph.D., Director, VISN 2 Center of Excellence; Janet Kemp, RN, Ph.D., Associate Director
The Notification Procedure and Record Access Procedure sections are being amended from the Canandaigua VA Medical Center to Office of Mental Health Operations (10NC5).
The Report of Intent to Amend a System of Records Notice and an advance copy of the system notice have been sent to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552a(r) (Privacy Act) and guidelines issued by OMB (65 FR 77677), December 12, 2000.
“Veterans Crisis Line Database-VA”.
The Veterans Crisis Line (VCL) Database will be maintained at the VA Austin Information Technology Center (AITC) in Austin, Texas. Back-up copies of the database are maintained in accordance with VA OIT enterprise management policies. In addition, information from these records or copies of records may be maintained at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
The records include information concerning Veterans and friends and family of Veterans who access the Veterans Crisis Line. In addition, records include the name of the Crisis Line call responder and the name of the Suicide Prevention Coordinator.
The records may include information related to:
1. The Veterans Crisis Line call logs via the VCL Application include the following information:
a. Identifies, by full name, the Veterans Crisis Line responder;
b. Identifies, by full name, the Suicide Prevention Coordinator;
c. Documents information regarding calls to the Veterans Crisis Line which may include:
(1) Calls from an anonymous person with incomplete identification information;
(2) Calls from a Veteran, including Veterans who are not registered in VA health care system (non-VA);
(3) Calls from family and friends of the affected Veteran (In this case, the system shall indicate that the call was not made from the affected Veteran).
d. Identifies the VA Medical Center closest to the caller's physical location;
e. Records Crisis Line referrals in the Veteran's electronic medical record when the referral is made to a VA Medical Center for follow-up care;
f. Provides a means for Suicide Prevention Coordinators to document their follow-up measures;
g. Provides access to call log data for reporting purposes: Provides information related to the number of calls, callers demographic information, the types of calls, and follow-up care.
2. The suicide attempts and completions data is collected in the AITC standard query language (SQL) database. The information includes attempt or completion, military conflict, VA enrolled, gender, age, mental health diagnosis, medical diagnosis, previous attempts, month of event, method used, outcome, intent, seen at a VA within 7 days of attempt, seen at VA within 30 days of attempt, where seen, had suicide been addressed, and last recorded pain score.
Title 38, United States Code, section 501.
The records and information may be used for ensuring appropriate follow-up care is provided to those who telephone the Veterans Crisis Line. In addition, the information will be used for statistical reports for the purpose of evaluating the need for development of further suicide prevention efforts to include education and research. Additionally, the statistical reports will be used to provide information related to suicide to VA officials, congressional members, and the public.
To the extent that records contained in the system include information protected by 45 CFR parts 160 and 164,
1. The record of an individual who is covered by a system of records may be disclosed to a Member of Congress, or a staff person acting for the Member, when the Member or staff person requests the record on behalf of and at the written request of the individual.
2. Disclosure may be made to National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the General Services Administration (GSA) in records management inspections conducted under authority of Title 44, Chapter 29, of the United States Code (U.S.C.).
3. Disclosure may be made to other Government agencies in support of data exchanges of electronic medical record information approved by the individual.
4. VA may disclose on its own initiative any information in this system, except the names and home addresses of Veterans and their dependents, that is relevant to a suspected or reasonably imminent violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general or program statute or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, to a Federal, State, local, tribal, or foreign agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order. VA may also disclose on its own initiative the names and addresses of Veterans and their dependents to a Federal agency charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting civil, criminal or regulatory violations of law, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto.
5. VA may disclose information from this system of records to the Department of Justice (DoJ), either on VA's initiative or in response to DoJ's request for the information, after either VA or DoJ determines that such information is
6. Disclosures of relevant information may be made to individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities with whom VA has a contract or agreement or where there is a subcontract to perform the services as VA may deem practicable for the purposes of laws administered by VA, in order for the contractor or subcontractor to perform the services of the contract or agreement. This routine use includes disclosures by the individual or entity performing the service for VA to any secondary entity or individual to perform an activity that is necessary for individuals, organizations, private or public agencies, or other entities or individuals with whom VA has a contract or agreement to provide the service to VA.
7. Disclosure to other Federal agencies may be made to assist such agencies in preventing and detecting possible fraud or abuse by individuals in their operations and programs.
8. VA may disclose information to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discriminatory practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, or for other functions of the Commission as authorized by law or regulation.
9. VA may disclose to the Fair Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) (including its General Counsel) information related to the establishment of jurisdiction, the investigation and resolution of allegations of unfair labor practices, or information in connection with the resolution of exceptions to arbitration awards when a question of material fact is raised; to disclose information in matters properly before the Federal Services Impasse Panel, and to investigate representation petitions and conduct or supervise representation elections.
10. VA may disclose information to officials of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), or the Office of Special Counsel, when requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions, promulgated in 5 U.S.C. 1205 and 1206, or as authorized by law.
11. VA may, on its own initiative, disclose any information or records to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) VA suspects or has confirmed that the integrity or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of embarrassment or harm to the reputations of the record subjects, harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security, confidentiality, or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or disclosure is to agencies, entities, or persons whom VA determines are reasonably necessary to assist or carry out the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. This routine use permits disclosures by the Department to respond to a suspected or confirmed data breach as the terms are defined in 38 U.S.C. 5727, including the conduct of any risk analysis or provision of credit protection services as provided in 38 U.S.C. 5724.
Records are maintained on an SQL server at VA AITC in Austin, Texas.
Records are retrieved by name, social security number or other assigned identifiers of the individuals on whom they are maintained.
1. VA will maintain the data in compliance with applicable VA security policy directives that specify the standards that will be applied to protect sensitive personal information. VA's security measures comply with applicable Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Access to VA working and storage areas is restricted to VA employees on a “need-to-know” basis; strict control measures are enforced to ensure that disclosure to these individuals is also based on this same principle. They are required to take annual VA mandatory data privacy and security training. Generally, VA file areas are locked after normal duty hours and the facilities are protected from outside access by the Federal Protective Service or other security personnel.
2. Access to computer rooms at the VA AITC is limited in accordance with VA OIT national security policies. Peripheral devices are placed in secure areas (areas that are locked or have limited access) or are otherwise protected. Information stored on the Veterans Crisis Line Database-VA may be accessed by authorized VA employees. Access to file information is controlled at two levels; the systems recognize authorized employees by series of individually unique passwords/codes as a part of each data message, and the employees are limited to only that information in the file which is needed in the performance of their official duties. Information that is downloaded from the Veterans Crisis Line Database–VA and maintained on personal computers is afforded similar storage and access protections as the data that is maintained in the original files. Access to information stored on automated storage media at other VA locations is controlled by individually unique passwords/codes.
Currently these records are maintained as a permanent record, pending approval of a new records schedule by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Official responsible for policies and procedures; Office of Mental Health Operations (10NC5), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420. Official responsible for the system of records: Executive Director, Office of Mental Health Operations (10NC5).
Individuals who wish to determine whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the Office of Mental Health Operations (10NC5). Inquiries should include the person's full name, social security number, dates of employment, date(s) of contact, and return address.
Individuals seeking information regarding access to and contesting of records in this system may write, call or visit the Office of Mental Health Operations (10NC5).
(See Record Access Procedures above.)
Information in this system of records is provided by VHA employees.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.
Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402–3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708–2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800–927–7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B–17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443–2265 (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1–800–927–7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Bldg. T0066
Fort Harrison
Ft. Harrison MT 59636
Landholding Agency: Army
Property Number: 21200130100
Status: Unutilized
GSA Number:
Comments: 528 sq. ft., needs rehab, presence of asbestos, security limitations.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is revising its regulations to better coordinate the scheduling of wholesale natural gas and electricity markets in light of increased reliance on natural gas for electric generation, as well as to provide additional scheduling flexibility to all shippers on interstate natural gas pipelines. The revised regulations in this Final Rule modify the scheduling practices used by interstate pipelines to schedule natural gas transportation service and provide additional contracting flexibility to firm natural gas transportation customers through the use of multi-party transportation contracts. The revisions in this Final Rule, together with the Commission's action in certain related proceedings, will better ensure the reliable and efficient operation of both the interstate natural gas pipeline and electricity systems.
This rule will become effective July 8, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 8, 2015.
1. In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) revises Part 284 of the Commission's regulations relating to the scheduling of transportation service on interstate natural gas pipelines to better coordinate the scheduling practices of the wholesale natural gas and electric industries, as well as to provide additional scheduling flexibility to all shippers on interstate natural gas pipelines. The Final Rule changes the nationwide Timely Nomination Cycle nomination deadline for scheduling natural gas transportation from 11:30 a.m. Central Clock Time (CCT) to 1:00 p.m. CCT and revises the intraday nomination timeline, to include adding an additional intraday scheduling opportunity during the gas operating day (Gas Day). The Final Rule effectuates these changes by incorporating by reference into the Commission's regulations the standards developed and filed by the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB).
2. On March 20, 2014, the Commission instituted proceedings under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA)
3. However, for the reasons described below, the Commission declines to adopt the proposal to change the start of the Gas Day. It is not clear that requiring a change in the Gas Day start time would provide sufficient benefits to outweigh the operational and safety impacts and costs of making such a change. While the Commission declines to take action in this proceeding to change the start of the Gas Day on a nation-wide basis, we note that since the issuance of the NOPR in March 2014 both ISO–NE and PJM (the two regions that appear to be of the most concern) have recently undertaken operational and market actions to address the availability and performance of generators, including gas-fired generators, in their footprints. These and other regional efforts to address generator performance may result in natural gas-fired generators and other market participants in these regions taking actions to alleviate some of the electric industry fuel supply concerns underlying the Gas Day proposal in the NOPR.
4. The Commission's existing regulations incorporate by reference the interstate natural gas pipeline scheduling business practice standards of NAESB's Wholesale Gas Quadrant (WGQ).
5. The existing 24-hour operating day, or Gas Day, for interstate natural gas pipelines begins at 9:00 a.m. CCT and ends at 9:00 a.m. CCT the following day. All nominations for interstate natural gas pipeline transportation service are for a daily quantity to be transported over the 24-hour Gas Day.
6. The current NAESB WGQ standards establish four standard nomination periods (
7. With respect to electric industry scheduling practices, the Commission has accepted regional variation in the development of scheduling practices in ISO and RTO electric markets, each of which has established its own scheduling timelines. For most electric utilities, the 24-hour operating day begins at 12:00 a.m. local time. The ISOs' and RTOs' practice of scheduling resources generally includes the commitment and dispatch of sufficient, deliverable generation to supply load in a reliable least cost manner, all based on generator availability and the transmission facilities that will be in service that day. To perform the unit commitment and dispatch processes used to develop daily resource schedules, each ISO and RTO has its own timeline for collecting supply offers from generators and expected demand from load serving entities on the day prior to the operating day. The ISOs and RTOs then run market algorithms that determine the least cost set of resources that can be used to serve the next day's load. Each ISO and RTO also performs a reliability unit commitment process to procure resources, in addition to those resources committed to serve the load bid into the day-ahead market, as necessary to meet the ISO's or RTO's own forecast of the next day's load or other system needs. Each ISO and RTO establishes its own timing for executing the day-ahead and reliability scheduling processes, including the times of day when bids and offers are due to the system operator, when the market and reliability processes are run, and when the results of the scheduling processes are made available to generators.
8. In non-ISO and RTO systems, the Commission's
9. Recent developments in the wholesale natural gas and electricity industries—particularly the organized electricity markets—signal that changes to the gas nomination schedule may be needed.
10. Since early 2012, the Commission has conducted multiple technical conferences and requested comment on various aspects of gas-electric interdependence and coordination in order to better understand the interface between the electric and natural gas pipeline industries and identify areas for improved coordination.
11. At the April 2013 conference, participants identified several areas in which the differences between the nationwide natural gas schedule and the regional electric schedules can affect the provision of reliable service and may create inefficiencies in scheduling that result in less cost effective use of resources. The participants identified three major issues. These included: (1) The difference between the standardized operating day of interstate natural gas pipelines and the operating days of electric utilities (including ISOs and RTOs); (2) the lack of coordination between the day-ahead process for nominating interstate natural gas pipeline transportation services and the day-ahead process for scheduling electric generators, particularly those in the ISOs and RTOs; and (3) the lack of intraday nomination opportunities on interstate natural gas pipelines, which limits the ability of gas-fired electric generators, as well as other shippers, to revise their nominations during the operating day. Several conference participants stressed that, due to the difficult policy questions involved, they would need Commission policy guidance before they would be able move forward on coordination of the natural gas and electric industries existing scheduling practices.
12. Based on the increased reliance on natural gas as a fuel for electric generation and in consideration of the discussions at the 2012–2013 technical conferences and filed comments, the Commission concluded that the concerns identified by the industries warranted further action. On March 20, 2014, the Commission issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR or Proposed Rule) to address concerns
13. The NOPR proposed three changes to the nationwide natural gas scheduling practices: (1) Move the start of the Gas Day from 9:00 a.m. CCT to 4:00 a.m. CCT; (2) move the start of the first day-ahead gas nomination opportunity for pipeline scheduling (Timely Nomination Cycle) from the current 11:30 a.m. CCT to 1:00 p.m. CCT;
14. The NOPR also proposed to require interstate natural gas pipelines to offer multi-party transportation contracts to provide multiple shippers the flexibility to share interstate pipeline capacity to serve complementary needs in an efficient manner, and the NOPR provided clarification of the Commission's no-bump policy with respect to any enhanced nomination opportunity proposed by a pipeline (beyond the standard nomination opportunities).
15. Recognizing that the natural gas and electricity industries were best positioned to work out the details of how changes in scheduling practices could most efficiently be made and implemented, the Commission provided the natural gas and electric industries, through NAESB, with a period of 180 days after publication of the NOPR in the
16. On the same day the NOPR was issued, the Commission issued two other orders, which, in conjunction with the NOPR, were designed to better ensure the reliable and efficient operation of both the interstate natural gas pipeline and electricity systems. In one order, the Commission instituted proceedings under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA)
17. Following issuance of the NOPR, NAESB reconvened the Gas Electric Harmonization (GEH) Forum as the platform for the gas and electric industries to consider the NOPR proposals, as well as to develop any consensus-based alternatives to the NOPR proposals.
18. Four alternatives to the NOPR proposal were considered during the final GEH Forum meeting.
19. Despite the inability of the GEH Forum to reach consensus, the NAESB Board directed the WGQ to proceed with the development of standards related to the day-ahead and intraday nomination cycles given the broad agreement among industry participants on those issues.
20. On June 18, 2014, NAESB filed a status report with the Commission. On September 29, 2014, NAESB filed a second report to supplement the June 18 report and to inform the Commission of the modifications to the NAESB WGQ Business Practice Standards that were
21. On October 15, 2014, the Commission issued a notice of NAESB's September 29 report. The notice provided that comments in response to the NOPR should address the alternate proposal submitted to NAESB by the Desert Southwest Pipeline Stakeholders during the formal comment period on the proposed modifications to the NAESB WGQ standards.
22. On December 12, 2014, Commission staff requested data from each of the six jurisdictional ISOs and RTOs regarding their experience with the impact on reliable and efficient operations of natural gas-fired generators running out of their daily nomination of natural gas transportation service during the morning electric ramp, to the extent this occurs. California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), ISO New England Inc. (ISO–NE), Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) each filed a response to the data request. On February 2, 2015, American Public Gas Association (APGA), Natural Gas Council, New England LDCs,
23. Based on the record developed in this proceeding, the Commission is taking final action to address certain natural gas and electric industry coordination challenges resulting from the divergent interstate natural gas pipeline and electric utility scheduling practices. The Commission is revising its regulations to incorporate by reference the modified NAESB WGQ Business Practice Standards, which revise the standard nomination timeline for interstate natural gas pipelines.
24. The Commission expects that these changes will provide significant benefits to both the natural gas and electricity industries, and will improve coordination between the industries. Moving the Timely Nomination Cycle to an hour and a half later will allow electric transmission operators additional time to complete their day-ahead scheduling sufficiently before the Timely Nomination Cycle deadline, so that gas-fired generators receive electric market dispatch instructions prior to the deadline for acquiring pipeline capacity in the Timely Nomination Cycle. The vast majority of commenters from both the gas and electric industries support this change. This change is further complemented by NAESB's revised three intraday nomination cycles that will provide shippers with greater flexibility to revise their nominations to adjust to system conditions and changes to load during the Gas Day. The addition of an afternoon bumpable cycle, together with a later, evening no-bump cycle, should afford firm transportation shippers, particularly those in the western United States, more of an opportunity to revise nominations to take into account weather and load changes. The comments in this proceeding show that these nationwide changes are supported broadly across the natural gas and electric industries.
25. The Commission does not find a sufficient record at this time to revise the nationwide Gas Day start time as proposed in the NOPR. As discussed in more detail below, it is not clear that requiring a change in the Gas Day start time would provide sufficient benefits to outweigh the operational and safety impacts and costs of making such a change. The record developed here—including the comments received on the NOPR proposal and the data responses submitted by the ISOs and RTOs— suggests that the concerns underlying the proposal to change the Gas Day start time, to the extent they exist, are primarily regional in nature. As a result, we find that it is appropriate to allow the changes to the standard natural gas pipeline nomination timelines in this
26. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to move the start of the Gas Day from 9:00 a.m. CCT to 4:00 a.m. CCT. The Commission expressed concern about the potential impact of the difference in start times of the natural gas and electric operating days on the reliable and efficient operation of electric transmission system and interstate natural gas pipelines. Specifically, the Commission identified two problems resulting from the natural gas and electric operating days beginning at different times. First, the electric operating day currently extends over two Gas Days. Therefore, gas-fired generators committed across a single electric operating day must procure gas supply and schedule gas transportation across two Gas Days. Second, the current 9:00 a.m. CCT start of the Gas Day occurs in the middle of the morning electric load ramp in some regions, creating a situation where electric load is increasing at the same time natural gas-fired generators may be running out of their daily nomination of natural gas transportation service.
27. The Commission proposed to move the start of the Gas Day earlier, to 4:00 a.m. CCT, to address concerns expressed by several commenters—such as ISO–NE and NYISO—that the current Gas Day start time presents operational challenges resulting in gas-fired generators running out of scheduled natural gas capacity during the morning electric ramp period, and having to wait until 9:00 a.m. CCT before being able to rely on their next day gas nomination. The Commission stated that this change would mean that generators in all regions would be able to approach the morning electric peak, as well as most of the morning ramp period, with new daily gas nominations and, therefore, the proposal should largely eliminate the concern that some gas-fired generators will be unable to run during a substantial part of the morning electric ramp period because they have burned through their nominated gas before the start of the next Gas Day.
28. Thirteen commenters, particularly electric industry participants, filed comments in support of the Commission's proposal to move the start of the Gas Day to 4:00 a.m. CCT.
29. ISO–NE states that under the current 9:00 a.m. CCT Gas Day, the preceding Gas Day ends—with supplies and daily transportation quantities from that preceding day potentially running short—just when gas-fired generation is critically needed to ensure that electricity supply is available to match demand during the morning electric load ramp.
30. Some commenters state that moving the Gas Day to 4:00 a.m. CCT or earlier would be helpful to owners of gas-fired resources by allowing them to nominate and schedule their fuel and transportation requirements in the day-ahead Timely Nomination Cycle—the most liquid cycle—to cover the morning electric ramp and the evening peak of a single electric day while also being able to make adjustments throughout the day in the intraday cycles.
31. ISO–NE states that the current Gas Day start time also straddles a time of peak gas demand for other pipeline shippers, such as LDCs, which further inhibits the ability to procure gas during the morning ramp.
32. Thirty-five commenters, particularly natural gas industry participants, support the retention of the current 9:00 a.m. CCT Gas Day and oppose the Commission's proposal to move the start of the Gas Day to 4:00 a.m. CCT.
33. INGAA and Direct Energy contend that generator de-rates may have a number of causes unrelated to the Gas Day start time such as a nomination made based on an estimate of needs or a change in the ISO's or RTO's request for generation.
34. Many commenters state that an earlier start to the Gas Day will not create additional capacity on pipelines during peak demand conditions to meet large swings in generator demand nor will it solve critical pipeline capacity availability issues that some regions are experiencing, particularly on a long-term basis.
35. Numerous commenters raise concerns regarding the potential for adverse impacts on reliability and safety and the danger of increased operational risk to the natural gas industry resulting from a 4:00 a.m. CCT Gas Day, particularly in the west.
36. Numerous commenters argue that a 4:00 a.m. CCT Gas Day would result in performing certain critical operations, which require complex and risky worker decision making, at a time when many operators may suffer from fatigue or lack of concentration.
37. AGA, New England LDCs, and CenterPoint contend that a flurry of significant activities occur approximately three hours before or at the start of the Gas Day
38. Commenters note that requiring workers to travel in the dark is particularly problematic for facilities located in remote areas.
39. Commenters state that the optimum time for packing the pipeline
40. Some commenters assert that moving the Gas Day earlier will also make it more difficult for gas industry participants to coordinate necessary activities.
41. NW Industrial Gas Users and New England LDCs argue that their regions rely on Canadian supplies and, since Canadian pipelines will not necessarily switch their Gas Day start time in response to a Commission ruling, mismatches at U.S./Canadian delivery points into U.S. pipelines could cause delays and/or interruptions in flows as well as operational difficulties for shippers scheduling gas deliveries using pipelines in both countries.
42. Enhanced Reliability Coalition and AF&PA state that if a 4:00 a.m. CCT Gas Day start is adopted, all of the hours of flow for gas nominated in the intraday cycles would be reduced by five hours, resulting in approximately a 25 to 45 percent reduction, depending on the cycle.
43. Several commenters state that, under the current 9:00 a.m. CCT Gas Day, many pipelines provide an opportunity for shippers to submit “clean up” or “retro” nominations in the final hours of the current Gas Day in order to balance loads and reduce potential exposure to imbalance penalties.
44. Some commenters state that there is a concern that non-jurisdictional entities may not adjust to a 4:00 a.m. CCT Gas Day and that a lack of action, or timely action, by some operators on the upstream portion of the natural gas delivery chain could occur for various reasons, such as concerns over costs of the change and worker safety at night, particularly during inclement weather.
45. CenterPoint Energy, Northern Municipal Distributors/Midwest Region Gas Task Force, and New England LDCs assert that a 4:00 a.m. CCT Gas Day would negatively impact interruptible customers served by LDCs, including electric generation customers.
46. Essential Power urges the Commission to adopt a 12:00 a.m. Eastern Prevailing Time (EPT) Gas Day to align with the electric day and allow a generator to match its gas purchases and electric operation in the dispatch day.
47. Gas industry participants cite high cost as a key reason for opposing the Gas Day proposal.
48. Commenters also address the significant costs entities other than interstate natural gas pipelines will incur as a result of the Proposed Rule.
49. On December 12, 2014, Commission staff requested data, for 2013 and 2014, from each of the six jurisdictional ISOs and RTOs regarding the impact on reliable and efficient operations of natural gas-fired generators running out of their daily nomination of natural gas transportation service during the morning electric ramp, to the extent this occurs.
50. In its response, CAISO states that it believes gas-fired generators in its balancing authority generally do not face problems securing sufficient fuel to meet the morning electric ramp under existing electric and gas market timelines.
51. MISO states that it has not experienced any significant impacts caused by generators running out of natural gas during the morning ramp.
52. In its response, SPP states that it does not require generators to submit information related to their nominated gas transportation, therefore, SPP does not have information responsive to the request regarding de-rates due to gas-fired generators having exhausted their daily nomination of natural gas transportation service prior to the end of the Gas Day. SPP further states that it has not committed generation out of merit order in anticipation of natural gas-fired generators running out of nominated gas transportation.
53. ISO–NE., NYISO, and PJM provided supplemental data regarding gas-fired generator de-rates in 2013 and 2014 due to issues related to fuel limitations/availability. PJM and NYISO requested privileged treatment of certain data submitted in response to the data request.
54. ISO–NE provided, among other data, information on time periods when generators reported reductions (
55. PJM provided a summary of the outage notifications due to lack of fuel from natural gas-fired generators in 2013 and 2014 and non-confidential system conditions on the relevant interstate natural gas pipelines and LDCs.
56. NYISO states that it identified 13 generators committed in 2013 and 2014
57. The confidential data submitted by NYISO shows the number of gas-fired generator de-rates and the amount of energy reduced generally decreased between 3:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. CCT. Specifically, over all of 2013 and all of 2014, the total (by hour) number of gas-fired generator de-rates related to fuel availability fell as the morning progressed (between hours ending at 4:00 a.m. CCT and 9:00 a.m. CCT). Similarly, over all of 2013 and all of 2014, the total (by hour) amount of energy reduced later in the morning was less than the early-morning reductions. If fuel related de-rates were caused by exhaustion of nominated natural gas transportation capacity, the impact of the de-rates would likely have been steady or worsening as more generating units ran out of gas as the morning progressed towards 9:00 a.m. CCT.
58. To provide another perspective on the overall impact on reliability of the gas-fired generator de-rates during the morning ramp, the Commission examined the monthly and hourly average values
59. In NYISO, during certain winter months,
60. In PJM in the winter months of 2014, Commission staff analysis of the data response indicates that the average hourly reductions were large relative to the operating reserves available to the ISO at the time, ranging from 16.8 percent to 72.3 percent. The average hourly reductions in the winter months of 2013 were also significant relative to the operating reserves available to PJM, ranging from 5.6 percent to 10.1 percent.
61. American Public Gas Association, New England LDCs, the Enhanced Reliability Coalition, and Natural Gas Council filed comments regarding the ISOs' and RTOs' data responses. These commenters argue that the ISOs' and RTOs' responses clearly confirm that there is not a nationwide problem during the morning electric ramp associated with the current start time of the Gas Day.
62. While certain efficiencies in scheduling could be achieved through better harmonization of the natural gas and electric operating days, the Commission concludes that the current record does not support changing the start time of the nationwide natural Gas Day at this time.
63. In the NOPR, the Commission expressed concern about the potential impact of the difference in start times of the natural gas and electric operating days on the reliable and efficient operation of electric transmission systems and interstate natural gas pipelines. In the NOPR, the Commission identified two problems resulting from the fact that the natural gas and electric operating days begin at different times. First, the electric operating day currently extends over two Gas Days. Therefore, natural gas-fired generators committed across a single electric operating day must procure gas supply and schedule gas transportation across two Gas Days. Second, the current 9:00 a.m. CCT start of the Gas Day occurs in the middle of the morning electric load ramp in some regions, creating a situation where electric load is increasing at the same time natural gas-fired generators may be running out of their daily nomination of natural gas transportation service. We find, based on the comments and data responses, that there is limited evidence to support the premise in the NOPR that the current start of the Gas Day results in natural gas-fired generators de-rating during the morning ramp due to exhausting nominated natural gas transportation. As described in comments, gas-fired generator de-rates may have a number of causes unrelated to the Gas Day start time, such as a nomination made based on only an estimate of needs (especially where the generator has not received a dispatch schedule from the system operator), an unscheduled change in an ISO's or RTO's real-time dispatch, or limitations on shippers' ability to receive or take gas, among others.
64. In addition, evidence in the record provided through the ISO and RTO data responses did not provide sufficient support for changing the nationwide Gas Day. The responses generally show that, to the extent gas-fired generators de-rating during the morning ramp is a significant problem, it appears to be isolated to the winter months in specific regions.
65. SPP, MISO, and CAISO all reported no issue with gas-fired generator de-rates during the morning ramp. While ISO–NE, PJM, and NYISO provided data suggesting that some de-rates during the morning ramp are due to fuel-related issues, the data did not show whether those de-rates are specifically due to gas-fired generators running out of their daily nomination of natural gas transportation service. None of the ISOs' or RTOs' outage management systems collect data containing the level of detail and specificity to reflect if generator output reductions (
66. The Commission concludes that there is limited evidence to support the NOPR proposal to change the Gas Day. For example, in ISO–NE very few gas-fired generator de-rates due to fuel limitations had an ending time that coincided with the start of the next Gas Day at 9:00 a.m. CCT in 2013 and 2014. In addition, in PJM, a majority of the fuel related gas-fired generator de-rates in 2014 and the vast majority of fuel-related gas-fired generator de-rates in 2013 were caused by a limited number of generating units. The Commission believes any conclusions that can be drawn from the PJM data are weakened by the idiosyncrasies of these units. Therefore, although gas-fired generator de-rates due to fuel limitations appear problematic in certain regions during certain times of the year, on balance, the Commission believes this does not warrant changing the nationwide Gas Day.
67. In addition, several commenters in this proceeding provide compelling arguments indicating that moving the
68. Therefore, we find, based on the record, that there has not been a showing that the benefits of changing the nationwide Gas Day from 9:00 a.m. CCT to 4:00 a.m. CCT sufficiently outweigh the potential adverse operational and safety impacts on the natural gas industry to justify action under NGA section 5 to require a change in the start of the Gas Day.
69. While the Commission declines to take action in this proceeding to change the start of the Gas Day on a nation-wide basis, we note that since the issuance of the NOPR in March 2014 both ISO–NE and PJM (the two regions that appear to be of the most concern) have recently undertaken operational and market actions to address the availability and performance of generators, included gas-fired generators, in their footprints.
Since January 2014 PJM has put into place a number of improvements to help ensure generator availability this winter including: (1) A process for generators to communicate any long-lead notification time they require to start in order to ensure fuel procurement; (2) a requirement for generators to ensure data accuracy for existing information provided to PJM; (3) a requirement for operational information to be submitted to PJM regarding dual fuel capability, availability, and operational restrictions; and (4) ability for generators, in certain circumstances, to update intraday cost schedules to more accurately reflect real-time the cost of fuel in their energy schedules.
70. In addition to these ongoing efforts, the individual ISO and RTO section 206 proceedings provide additional opportunities to seek regional solutions. As discussed further below, the 206 Order requires each ISO and RTO to adjust the time at which the results of its day-ahead energy market and reliability unit commitment process (or equivalent) are posted to a time that is sufficiently in advance of the Timely and Evening Nomination Cycles, respectively, to allow gas-fired generators to procure natural gas supply and pipeline transportation capacity to serve their obligations, or show cause why such changes are not necessary. In the Section 206 Order the Commission encouraged each ISO and RTO to consider whether other market reforms would be appropriate.
71. In addition to the industries having different start times to their operating days, the natural gas and electric industries operate on different schedules within those days. As described above, and as shown in Table 1 above, under the current NAESB WGQ Standard 1.3.2 and the Commission's regulations,
72. Interstate natural gas pipelines schedule their systems based on the priority of the transportation contract held by the shipper. Nominations of firm transportation from a primary receipt point to a primary delivery point (primary firm nominations) have the highest priority,
73. The Timely Nomination Cycle is the most liquid time to acquire both natural gas supply and transportation capacity. During the Timely Nomination Cycle, all of the pipeline's nomination priorities are in effect: Primary firm nominations have priority over secondary firm nominations, and secondary firm nominations have priority over interruptible transportation. In subsequent nomination cycles, firm service, including secondary firm service, scheduled in an earlier cycle cannot be displaced or bumped by another firm nomination for that Gas Day.
74. Individual pipelines may offer additional scheduling opportunities beyond the standard nomination cycles. However, shippers transporting gas over multiple pipeline systems may have limited ability to use these additional scheduling opportunities if the upstream or downstream pipelines cannot confirm those scheduling changes. Currently, several pipelines offer enhanced nomination services
75. The most liquid time to acquire natural gas supply for the next day occurs before the 11:30 a.m. CCT deadline for submitting nominations in the Timely Nomination Cycle. As a result, natural gas purchasers may have to pay a premium to obtain supply after the Timely Nomination Cycle, because there are fewer willing sellers later in the day. Also, it may be more difficult to obtain next-day firm transportation capacity after the Timely Nomination Cycle, because firm transactions scheduled in the Timely Nomination Cycle cannot be bumped in later nomination cycles and shippers may have already made capacity release arrangements for the next day.
76. Wholesale electricity markets operated by the ISOs and RTOs also use a day-ahead energy market to set contractual commitments for the next operating day. Market participants place day-ahead offers and bids to sell and purchase, and these participants must make such commitments prior to the close of the market. If the market clearing process accepts these commitments, they become binding for the following day. The following table shows for each ISO and RTO the deadline for submission of generator bids and the time the winning bids are posted by ISOs and RTOs in the day-ahead markets. As demonstrated by Table 6, all ISOs and RTOs (with the exception of NYISO) publicize accepted day-ahead dispatch bids after the current 11:30 a.m. CCT nomination deadline for the Timely Nomination Cycle.
77. Because day-ahead electric generation commitments generally occur after the natural gas transportation Timely Nomination Cycle, a natural gas-fired generator must either submit its nomination for natural gas transportation services before it knows when and how much electricity it will be committed to produce the next day, or it must wait until it receives its day-ahead commitment to nominate natural gas transportation services, with the risk that during some periods natural gas supply and transportation capacity may not be available or economical, given the ISO and RTO day-ahead market clearing price.
78. The NOPR proposed to move the deadline for submitting nominations in the Timely Nomination Cycle from 11:30 a.m. CCT to 1:00 p.m. CCT to provide sufficient time for electric utilities to complete their processes for selecting day-ahead generating resources before the Timely Nomination Cycle. The NOPR did not propose any other changes to the Timely Nomination Cycle, including the existing 4:30 p.m. CCT deadline for the pipeline to provide notice of scheduled quantities. Thus, the NOPR proposed to shorten the time required to complete the Timely Nomination Cycle from five hours (11:30 a.m. CCT to 4:30 p.m. CCT) to three and one-half hours (1:00 p.m. CCT to 4:30 p.m. CCT). The NOPR did not propose any changes to the existing Evening Nomination Cycle, under which nominations must be submitted by 6:00 p.m. CCT, confirmations are completed by 9:00 p.m. CCT, and the pipeline notifies shippers of their scheduled quantities by 10:00 p.m. CCT.
79. In an order issued contemporaneously with the NOPR, the Commission instituted a proceeding under section 206 of the FPA requiring each ISO and RTO within ninety days after the publication of a Final Rule in this docket to: (1) Make a filing that proposes tariff changes to adjust the time at which the results of its day-ahead energy market and reliability unit commitment process (or equivalent) are posted to a time that is sufficiently in advance of the Timely and Evening Nomination Cycles, respectively, to allow gas-fired generators to procure natural gas supply and pipeline transportation capacity to serve their obligations; or (2) show cause why such changes are not necessary.
80. The NOPR proposed that moving the Timely Nomination Cycle to 1:00 p.m. CCT, along with examining whether the ISOs and RTOs should modify their day-ahead market processes, could expand the options available to gas-fired generators. Under the NOPR proposal, gas-fired generators would have the option of arranging natural gas supply and pipeline transportation at the Timely Nomination Cycle knowing the results of the day-ahead electric market. This could minimize situations in which gas-fired generators, particularly those that opt to procure natural gas supply and pipeline transportation after the day-ahead electric market results are posted, are unable to procure sufficient resources to fulfill their electric market commitments and to contribute to reliable electric system operation. If gas-fired generators know whether they were committed in the day-ahead electric market prior to the Timely Nomination Cycle, they may have a greater opportunity to procure natural gas transportation in the Timely Nomination Cycle—when there is the greatest opportunity to procure pipeline capacity. This, in turn, could reduce the potential for gas-fired generators to engage in costly actions that raise real-time electric market prices. Thus, electric market outcomes may better reflect expected operating costs if gas-fired generators were provided with day-ahead market results prior to the Timely Nomination Cycle.
81. It was recognized in the NOPR that moving the Timely Nomination Cycle to later in the day may impose systems and administrative costs on other interstate natural gas pipeline shippers. However, the NOPR concluded a 1:00 p.m. CCT start time for the Timely Nomination Cycle would appear to provide a reasonable balance of the electric and natural gas industries' concerns. The NOPR concluded that the long-term benefits of ensuring a better coordinated natural gas and electric industry appear to warrant this change.
82. Consistent with the NOPR, NAESB revised its standards to move the start of the Timely Nomination Cycle to 1:00 p.m. CCT, with scheduled quantities becoming effective at the start of the next Gas Day. However, unlike the NOPR, NAESB revised its standards to move the deadline for the pipeline to notify shippers of their scheduled quantities from 4:30 p.m. CCT to 5:00 p.m. CCT, stating the pipelines require at least four hours to complete the Timely Nomination Cycle.
83. While the NOPR did not propose any changes to the Evening Nomination Cycle, NAESB revised its standards to provide that that cycle be completed in three hours, rather than the current four hours, with shippers being notified of their scheduled quantities at 9:00 p.m. instead of 10:00 p.m. Under both the NOPR and NAESB's revised standards, bumping of interruptible service is permitted in the Evening Nomination Cycle and, consistent with current Commission policy, already scheduled secondary firm service cannot be bumped. A comparison of the current NAESB day-ahead nomination cycles and the revised NAESB day-ahead nomination cycles are shown in Table 7 below.
84. The large majority of commenters support moving the start time for the Timely Nomination Cycle from 11:30 a.m. CCT to 1:00 p.m. CCT, including commenters that do not generally support NAESB's intraday nomination timeline.
85. A few commenters support moving the Timely Nomination Cycle, but believe that the 1:00 p.m. nomination deadline is too early in the day. Xcel Energy and SPP believe that the start time for the Timely Nomination Cycle should be extended to 1:30 p.m. CCT and 2:00 p.m. CCT, respectively, arguing that a 1:00 p.m. CCT nomination deadline would not allow power generators in MISO's and SPP's market sufficient time to secure the gas necessary to support their bids.
86. MSCG does not support moving the Timely Nomination Cycle nomination deadline, arguing that the proposed change affects one hundred percent of the gas market while only benefitting about a third of energy markets and without providing additional liquidity in the market for natural gas.
87. The Commission is amending its regulations at Part 284 to incorporate by reference NAESB's revised standards, which provide that the nomination deadline for the Timely Nomination Cycle shall be 1:00 p.m. CCT, with notice to shippers of scheduled quantities at 5:00 p.m. CCT, and the nomination deadline for the Evening Nomination Cycle shall remain at 6:00 p.m. CCT, with notice to shippers of scheduled quantities at 9:00 p.m. CCT. These changes, along with being generally consistent with the NOPR's proposed 1:00 p.m. CCT start time for the Timely Nomination Cycle, are supported by the vast majority of the commenters, from both the gas and electric industries, including commenters that do not generally support NAESB's revised intraday nomination timeline. NAESB's revised 1:00 p.m. CCT start time for the Timely Nomination Cycle, like the NOPR's proposed 1:00 p.m. CCT start time, will provide generators more time to acquire natural gas supply and pipeline transportation after learning their electric dispatch obligations, provided changes are made to the ISO and RTO scheduling processes. NAESB's proposal to provide notice of scheduled quantities at 5:00 p.m. also enables gas industry participants to complete the Timely Nomination Cycle by the end of the business day, while still providing sufficient time for the nomination, confirmation and scheduling process.
88. The Commission declines to extend the deadline for submitting nominations in the Timely Nomination Cycle past 1:00 p.m. CCT, as requested by a few commenters. Such an extension would likely require corresponding changes in the remainder of the Timely Nomination Cycle process, including moving back NAESB's proposed 5:00 p.m. CCT deadline for posting scheduled quantities. However, as many commenters point out, there needs to be sufficient time between the scheduled quantity posting of one cycle and the nomination deadline for the next cycle to enable shippers to review their transportation needs prior to the next nomination deadline.
89. In addition to the Timely and Evening Nomination Cycles, pipelines currently must offer shippers at least two opportunities to nominate natural gas during the day that gas is flowing. These nomination opportunities are known as the Intraday 1 and Intraday 2 Nomination Cycles. The current Intraday 1 Nomination Cycle begins at 10:00 a.m. CCT on the day of gas flow, with pipelines issuing scheduled quantities at 2:00 p.m. CCT, and the start of gas flow at 5:00 p.m. CCT. The current Intraday 2 Nomination Cycle begins at 5:00 p.m. CCT on the day of gas flow, with pipelines issuing scheduled quantities at 9:00 p.m. CCT, and gas flow also starting at 9:00 p.m. CCT. As with nominations made at the Timely or Evening Nomination Cycles, nominations for firm service at the Intra-Day 1 Nomination Cycle can “bump” an already scheduled interruptible nomination. Pursuant to the “No-Bump Rule,” however, nominations for firm service made at the Intraday 2 cycle cannot “bump” previously scheduled interruptible service.
90. A number of commenters in response to the technical conferences in Docket No. AD12–12–000 stated that the standard, nation-wide nomination opportunities currently available may not provide gas-fired generators or other shippers with sufficient flexibility to adjust their nominations to respond to real-time changes in their need for natural gas.
91. To address concerns that the current standard, nation-wide intraday nomination opportunities do not provide shippers—especially natural gas-fired generators—with sufficient flexibility, the NOPR proposed to modify the current natural gas nomination timeline to add two additional intraday nomination cycles so that shippers would have four intraday cycles to reschedule gas instead of the existing two. The additional intraday nomination cycles would maximize shippers' ability to make significant changes in their intraday nominations, as well as provide firm shippers an additional, bumpable late-afternoon nomination cycle. The proposed revisions would provide gas-fired generators, as well as other pipeline customers, with greater flexibility to revise their nominations to adjust to system conditions and changes to load throughout the Gas Day.
92. The timelines proposed in the NOPR were based on the proposed adoption of 4:00 a.m. CCT as the start of the Gas Day. The NOPR proposed that the Intraday 1 Nomination Cycle begin at 8:00 a.m. CCT, with pipelines issuing scheduled quantities at 11:00 a.m. CCT, and gas flow beginning at 12:00 noon CCT. The Intraday 1 Nomination Cycle would provide an early morning opportunity for shippers to nominate gas. The NOPR proposed that the Intraday 2 Nomination Cycle begin at 10:30 a.m. CCT, with pipelines issuing scheduled quantities at 2:00 p.m. CCT, and gas flow beginning at 4:00 p.m. CCT. The NOPR proposed Intraday 2 cycle would replace the current Intraday 1 mid-morning nomination cycle and permit bumping. The NOPR proposed Intraday 3 Nomination Cycle would begin at 4:00 p.m. CCT with pipelines issuing scheduled quantities at 6:00 p.m. CCT, and gas flow beginning at 7:00 p.m. CCT. The NOPR proposed Intraday 3 Nomination Cycle would provide an additional bumping opportunity for firm shippers. The NOPR proposed Intraday 4 Nomination Cycle would begin at 7:00 p.m. CCT with pipelines issuing scheduled quantities at 9:00 p.m. CCT, and gas flow beginning at 9:00 p.m. CCT. The NOPR Intraday 4 Nomination Cycle would replace the current 5:00 p.m. no-bump cycle.
93. NAESB's revised standards provide for three intraday nomination opportunities, rather than the four proposed in the NOPR. In contrast to the NOPR proposal to start the Intraday 1 Nomination Cycle at 8:00 a.m. CCT, NAESB's revised standards start the Intraday 1 Nomination Cycle at the existing 10:00 a.m. CCT time. However, the revised standards move the deadline for pipelines to issue scheduled quantities up to 1:00 p.m. CCT from the existing NAESB standard of 2:00 p.m., and for gas flow to begin at 2:00 p.m. CCT, rather than the existing 5:00 p.m. CCT. NAESB's revised standards provide for the Intraday 2 Nomination Cycle to start at 2:30 p.m. CCT, rather than 5:00 p.m., as it now does. Pipelines would issue scheduled quantities at 5:30 p.m. CCT, rather than the existing 9:00 p.m., and gas flow would begin at 6:00 p.m. CCT, instead of the existing 9:00 p.m. NAESB's new Intraday 3 Nomination Cycle begins at 7:00 p.m. CCT, with scheduled quantities issued at 10:00 p.m. CCT, and gas flow beginning at 10:00 p.m. CCT. NAESB's revised standards provide that bumping of interruptible service will be allowed during the Intraday 2 Nomination Cycle in addition to the Intraday 1 Nomination Cycle.
94. The large majority of comments on this issue support or do not oppose NAESB's revised standards providing for three Intraday Nomination Cycles.
95. Many commenters state that they do not support an additional fourth intraday nomination cycle, as proposed in the NOPR, arguing it would likely result in increased costs and overlapping cycles.
96. Many commenters state that NAESB's three intraday nomination cycles resolve gas industry participants' concerns with the NOPR's proposed four intraday nomination cycles regarding overlapping cycles, which, left unresolved, could lead to greater instances of incorrect shipper nominations and scheduling errors.
97. Many commenters state that NAESB's three intraday nomination cycles, unlike that of the NOPR's proposed four intraday nomination cycles, provide sufficient time (1.5 hours) between the scheduled quantity posting of one cycle and the nomination deadline for the next cycle, so that shippers can review their pipeline transportation needs prior to the next nomination deadline.
98. AGA, Dominion, and INGAA submit that NAESB's three intraday nomination cycles, in particular the Intraday 2 and Intraday 3 Nomination Cycles, will also address the Commission's concern regarding gas-
99. ACES, AEP, Essential Power, and IRC support the four intraday nomination cycles proposed in the NOPR, rather than the three provided by NAESB's revised standards.
100. While Exelon supports NAESB's proposed three intraday nomination cycles, it cautions that, if the start of the Gas Day remains at 9:00 a.m. CCT, non-bumpable interruptible shippers will preempt the rights of firm shippers for almost half of the Gas Day, or 11 hours.
101. EDF
102. TVA, DSPS, Southern Star, Southern Company, and Michigan PSC encourage the Commission to consider modifying or eliminating the No-Bump Rule.
103. Many commenters argue that the last intraday grid-wide nomination cycle should remain a no-bump cycle, as provided by NAESB's revised standards.
104. The Commission is amending its regulations at Part 284 to incorporate by reference NAESB's revised standards, which provide three intraday nomination cycles. Adoption of these standards will provide natural gas-fired generators, as well as other pipeline shippers, with increased scheduling flexibility. While the Intraday 1 Nomination Cycle will continue to start at 10:00 a.m. CCT, pipelines will issue scheduled quantities at 1:00 p.m. CCT, one hour earlier than under the currently effective standards, and gas flow will begin at 2:00 p.m. CCT, three hours earlier than under the currently effective standards. The new bumpable Intraday 2 Nomination Cycle will start at 2:30 p.m. CCT, four and a half hours after the single bumpable intraday nomination opportunity provided by the existing Intraday 1 Nomination Cycle, with pipelines issuing scheduled quantities at 5:30 p.m. CCT, and gas flow beginning at 6:00 p.m. CCT. By adding an additional bumpable nomination cycle later in the day, firm shippers will have greater opportunity to utilize the intraday schedules to reflect load and weather changes consistent with the higher priority of their service. The later time for the bumpable nomination will help shippers in the west, in particular, by allowing them to reflect later changes in weather forecasts into their nominations. The new no-bump Intraday 3 Nomination Cycle will start at 7:00 p.m. CCT, two hours later than the current no-bump Intraday 2 Nomination Cycle, with gas flow beginning at 10:00 p.m. CCT, one hour later than under the current no-bump Intraday 2 Nomination Cycle. The later no-bump nomination cycle will give firm shippers a further opportunity to adjust their nominations consistent with their needs, while also providing certainty to interruptible transactions, so shippers and pipelines can plan for flows during the Gas Day.
105. These revised standards reflect a consensus of the natural gas industry, and the changes reflect broad support in both industries. The vast majority of the commenters prefer NAESB's proposed three intraday nomination cycles to the NOPR's proposed four intraday nomination cycles because the NAESB proposal allows sufficient time for processing gas nominations, avoids overlapping nomination cycles, and allows for the accomplishment of most scheduling work during regular business hours, or reasonably close thereto. Further, they meet the goals of the NOPR because they provide additional flexibility to gas-fired generators, as well as other pipeline shippers. While some would prefer further changes to address their individual or regional needs, we find that, on balance, these standards represent a step forward that will benefit all shippers. We also note that under Commission policy, pipelines may file enhanced services that provide additional scheduling flexibility for firm shippers by adding additional nomination cycles that allow firm shippers to bump interruptible shippers.
106. Some commenters suggest that because firm service has a higher priority than interruptible service, firm shippers should always be able to bump interruptible service, and more generally, that all nomination cycles should be bumpable. We find sufficient support for retaining a no-bump cycle and respecting the gas industry consensus that was achieved.
107. While NAESB's modified standards represent an improvement over the currently effective standards, we continue to recognize that additional intraday nomination opportunities could promote more efficient use of existing pipeline infrastructure and provide additional operational flexibility to all pipeline shippers, including gas-fired generators. The modified NAESB standards reflect reduced intraday processing times from the current NAESB standards (
108. In its proposal, DSPS asserts that the fundamental issue in the Desert Southwest is that firm transportation shippers do not have the necessary tools to access their firm transportation capacity in order to properly respond to operating contingencies, including unexpected changes in renewable generation, that occur during their evening peak demand period. DSPS suggests that three Commission policies preclude firm shippers in the Desert Southwest from accessing their transportation capacity during their evening peak demand period. First, DSPS states that the intraday nomination cycles do not align with the evening peak periods of demand in the Desert Southwest which occur between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. CCT. Second, DSPS states that the rule that interruptible service cannot be bumped in the last intraday nomination cycle precludes firm transportation shippers from accessing their transportation capacity during the evening peak period if an interruptible shipper is already flowing gas on the system. Finally, DSPS states that the Commission's rule that, once scheduled, secondary firm service cannot be bumped in any subsequent nomination cycle,
109. DSPS notes that geographical factors also present unique challenges in the Desert Southwest. DSPS indicates that the Desert Southwest does not have local market area gas storage which makes it difficult to respond to unexpected changes in demand. Further, DSPS contends that the Desert Southwest is the home of a growing percentage of renewable energy resources. DSPS claims that electric utilities require both the transportation capacity and the natural gas commodity be available to respond to the immediate generation demands caused by the drop in renewable energy.
110. Accordingly, DSPS proposes changes on a national basis and on a regional basis, as discussed below.
111. On a national basis, DSPS requests that the Commission: (1) Start the Evening Nomination Cycle at 7:00 p.m. CCT (instead of 6:00 p.m. CCT, as in both the NOPR and NAESB's revised standards); and (2) modify the Commission's policy on natural gas scheduling priority to allow primary-firm shippers to bump secondary firm shippers during the Evening Nomination Cycle. DSPS contends that moving the Evening Nomination Cycle to 7:00 p.m. CCT provides a timely opportunity to address operating contingencies. DSPS also contends that, unlike the alternative of establishing a bumpable 7:00 p.m. CCT intraday nomination cycle, this proposal dispenses with the concerns surrounding interrupting flowing gas, the need for a subsequent no-bump cycle, and the fact such a late intraday nomination cycle would have little value due to the elapsed pro-rata flow of the gas. DSPS asserts that its proposal to modify the Commission's policy on secondary firm nominations would increase the value of firm contracts involving primary points and encourage long-term contracting, which in turn promotes infrastructure development.
112. In its October 15, 2014 notice, the Commission specifically sought comment on the DSPS proposals. None of the commenters on DSPS's proposal support DSPS's proposal to change the Evening Nomination Cycle from 6:00
113. Many of those commenters opposing the DSPS proposal to change the Evening Nomination Cycle contend that the change is contrary to the NAESB efforts to establish a coordinated nomination and scheduling timeline.
114. With respect to DSPS's proposal to change the scheduling priority of secondary firm/alternate nominations in the Evening Nomination Cycle, NGSA and PGC contend the DSPS proposal would de-value secondary firm service
115. Several pipelines state that the proposal to allow primary-firm nominations to bump secondary firm nominations in the Evening Nomination Cycle would also negatively affect pipeline operations.
116. Similarly, PGC and INGAA assert that delaying the posting of scheduled quantities until 10:00 p.m. CCT would cause uncertainty among firm shippers until after business hours, when few suppliers are staffed sufficiently to reroute or resell gas and the commodity market is not liquid, to learn whether the shipper's gas was scheduled to flow the next Gas Day or be bumped.
117. Kinder Morgan notes that NAESB has recently developed capacity release standards (in conjunction with moving the Timely Nomination Cycle back to 1:00 p.m.) that will allow shippers to acquire released capacity in time to be nominated in the Timely Nominated Cycle.
118. Southern Company supports allowing primary-firm nominations to bump secondary firm nominations in the Evening Nomination Cycle.
119. Along the same lines, TVA argues that secondary out-of-path service should have no higher priority than interruptible transportation.
120. Many commenters support consideration of the DSPS proposal on a regional basis by individual pipelines.
121. The Commission declines to adopt DSPS' proposal to move the Evening Nomination Cycle to 7:00 p.m. CCT or to modify the Commission's policy on natural gas scheduling priority to require all pipelines to permit primary firm nominations to bump secondary firm nominations in the Evening Nomination Cycle.
122. With respect to the proposed change to the Evening Nomination Cycle, DSPS fails to make clear how moving the start time of the Evening Nomination Cycle one hour later to 7:00 p.m. CCT provides shippers in its region with a more timely opportunity to address operating contingencies that arise fourteen hours later during the Gas Day. Starting the Evening Nomination Cycle at 7:00 p.m. CCT does not appear to address DSPS's concerns with demand fluctuations, given that the Evening Nomination Cycle is for gas scheduled to flow the next Gas Day, not the current Gas Day. Also, under DSPS' proposal, the Evening Nomination Cycle would occur at the same time as
123. Regarding modifying Commission policy to require all pipelines to permit primary firm nominations to bump scheduled secondary firm service in the Evening Nomination Cycle, the Commission finds that the benefits of that proposal do not outweigh the burdens that would be placed on all interstate pipelines and secondary firm shippers as a result of such proposal. Based on the comments, allowing primary firm to bump secondary firm would move the major confirmation and scheduling period outside of normal business hours, making it more difficult for a pipeline operator to confirm a shipper's nomination with point operators, producers and shippers. It could also disrupt the liquid secondary market for capacity by reducing the value of obtaining released capacity. For these reasons, the Commission declines to adopt this proposal on a national basis.
124. DSPS also requests that Commission require, on a 1-year pilot program basis, the pipelines serving the Desert Southwest (
125. Kinder Morgan states that its pipelines that serve the DSPS stakeholders have been engaged in discussions with DSPS regarding their unique issues.
126. Transwestern states that, while further clarification is needed as to exactly what DSPS intends, Transwestern is willing to work with DSPS and other regional entities to structure retro/make-up nominations and help customers manage their loads in view of the unique operating circumstances of the Desert Southwest.
127. As noted elsewhere in this Final Rule, regional solutions may work best to address certain needs arising from increased use of natural gas. While the Commission will not require the pipelines serving the Desert Southwest (
128. The Commission's regulations require that all transfers of firm pipeline capacity from one shipper to another shipper take place pursuant to the capacity release program in section 284.8 of our regulations to ensure that such capacity transfers are transparent and not unduly discriminatory.
129. This contracting flexibility has been utilized by entities to meet their collective load obligations in a more efficient manner. For example, certain affiliated utilities of Southern Company, which have long operated as an integrated public utility electric system through the joint commitment and economic dispatch of their gas-fired generating resources, have entered into a single interstate natural gas pipeline transportation service agreement, with Southern Company Services (their affiliated agent) arranging for the gas supplies used in their generating facilities.
130. The NOPR proposed to revise Part 284 of the Commission's regulations to require interstate natural gas pipelines that offer firm transportation service under subpart B or G of Part 284 to allow multiple shippers associated with a designated agent or asset manager to be jointly and severally liable under a single firm transportation service agreement, subject to reasonable terms and conditions. Consistent with the multi-party contract tariff provisions the Commission previously approved, the NOPR stated that such reasonable terms and conditions may include requirements that: (1) The shippers and agent demonstrate their agency relationship in writing; and (2) the shippers are willing to be treated collectively as one shipper for nomination, allocation, and billing purposes under the contract.
131. As explained in the NOPR, the use of shared capacity can make the purchase of firm pipeline capacity more affordable, including for gas-fired generators. For example, a gas-fired generator could decide to defray its pipeline capacity costs by sharing capacity among a number of generators or by sharing capacity with a LDC that has differing peak needs for natural gas transportation service. Similarly, an industrial plant, which has a relatively constant need for gas when its plant is operating but which has the flexibility to reduce its operations and gas usage on relatively short notice, could arrange to share its capacity with another shipper, such as a gas-fired generator, which only needs gas during short intervals and which has less control over when it runs. Permitting such entities to enter into a single contract with the pipeline gives those entities the flexibility to choose contracting partners with complementary needs for pipeline capacity and to enter into an ongoing contractual relationship concerning how they will share the capacity.
132. The Commission's NOPR proposal would only require pipelines to offer multi-party service agreements for firm service because a primary benefit of such service agreements is that they permit entities to share firm capacity without the need to engage in capacity releases. However, in recognition of the fact that some pipelines currently offer multi-party service agreements to interruptible customers as well, the Commission requested comment on whether it should also require pipelines to offer multi-party service agreements for interruptible transportation service.
133. Ten commenters either support or do not oppose the NOPR proposal.
134. Many commenters express varying degrees of qualified support for the NOPR proposal.
135. AF&PA, IECA, NGSA, and PGC support the concept of making multi-party transportation contracts more widely available, provided that the Commission can ensure that multi-party contracts are transparent, do not adversely affect existing shippers, comply with all pipeline tariffs, and do not unduly discriminate against other shippers.
136. Other commenters urge the Commission to require certain provisions that have already been approved in other proceedings involving multi-party transportation contracts (
137. Several commenters who support the concept of multi-party transportation contracts, nevertheless request a number of clarifications regarding the terms and conditions of service for multi-party transportation contracts. MSCG urges the Commission to clarify scenarios involving liability, events of default, billing and payment, and shipper-must-have-title.
138. Some commenters assert that the Commission should convene technical conferences or workshops or perform further evaluation to further explore some of the issues discussed above and other implementation issues before adopting the proposed regulation.
139. Idaho Power, Sequent, and Tenaska oppose the NOPR proposal, arguing that multi-party transportation contracts will not offer any additional benefits to the reliability of gas supply to generators than the Commission's current capacity release program or current pipeline service offerings.
140. Sequent is concerned that the parties to a multi-party service agreement could receive preferential treatment or status over non-multi-party capacity bidders in terms of capacity allocation, posting and bidding rules (including those for affiliates), credit requirements, application of shipper-must-have-title policy, prohibition on buy-sell arrangements, tying and other capacity release requirements. Sequent also requests clarification regarding open seasons and the consolidation of existing transportation agreements into a single multi-party transportation contract.
141. In response to the NOPR's question regarding whether the Commission should require pipelines to offer multi-party interruptible contracts, AF&PA, Duke, EnerVest, NGSA, and PGC support or do not oppose offering multi-party transportation contracts for interruptible service.
142. In this Final Rule, the Commission adopts section 284.12(b)(1)(iii) as proposed in the NOPR, with the modification requested by INGAA. Instead of requiring all interstate pipelines at this time to modify their tariffs to offer multi-party firm transportation contracts, the Commission will only require pipelines to offer such an option if requested to do so by a shipper. Specifically, section 284.12(b)(1)(iii) as adopted in this Final Rule, requires that within 60 days of a shipper request, a pipeline must file to make appropriate tariff changes to allow multiple shippers associated with a designated agent or asset manager to be jointly and severally liable under a single firm transportation service agreement, subject to reasonable terms and conditions.
143. As noted by many commenters, the availability of multi-party firm transportation contracts will provide shippers, including gas-fired generators, with greater flexibility and facilitate more efficient use of pipeline capacity. In addition, section 284.12(b)(1)(iii) as adopted ensures that pipelines are responsive to shipper requests when, and if, a shipper is interested in pursuing a multi-party transportation agreement, while not requiring pipelines to implement tariff provisions offering that option where there is no shipper interest. Postponing implementation in this regard would not appear to unduly delay use of multi-party transportation contracts by interested shippers given the time necessarily involved in finalizing a multi-party arrangement,
144. Upon an individual pipeline's filing to implement multi-party transportation contracts, customers and other interested persons will have the opportunity to raise any concerns regarding the pipeline's filing, including any accompanying terms and conditions proposed by the individual pipeline. Commenters who have raised questions or requested clarifications in this proceeding regarding accompanying terms and conditions, such as creditworthiness, capacity release, open seasons, existing agreements, events of default, liability, and billing and payment, will have the opportunity to seek such clarifications in the individual pipeline proceedings, thereby giving the individual pipeline
145. Tenaska and other commenters raise concerns regarding transparency and the impact of the multi-party transportation contracts on the capacity release market. In recent years, the Commission has accepted several pipeline proposals to offer multiple shippers the option of entering into a single contract for transportation service, with a single agent or asset manager managing the capacity under the contract.
146. The Commission denies EnerVert and IOGA's alternative request that the Commission grant a blanket waiver of the shipper-must-have-title policy to permit shippers to more easily share capacity. As the Commission has previously explained, the capacity release program was designed with the shipper-must-have-title rule as its foundation. That rule ensures that transfers of capacity among shippers must take place through the capacity release program, thus ensuring that such capacity transfers are transparent and not unduly discriminatory.
147. Several commenters raise questions regarding the rights and responsibilities of the individual parties to a multi-party transportation contract, as well as the responsibilities of the agent or asset manager. In general, rights and responsibilities related to the shippers' relationship to the pipeline will be determined by the individual pipeline's tariff, but rights and responsibilities as between the shippers and their agent or asset manager, such as how capacity is allocated between the contracting parties on any given day, will be determined by the parties and the agent or asset manager to the transportation contract.
148. The Commission will not require multi-party service contracts for interruptible transportation. As INGAA points out, unlike firm shippers, interruptible shippers do not have any obligation to pay a monthly reservation charge and only pay transportation charges when they utilize the service. Thus, there is no existing financial impediment to generators or others entering into interruptible transportation contracts. Unlike multi-party contracts for firm service, an interruptible multi-party transportation contract would not provide generators with any additional ability to offset the costs of holding an interruptible transportation agreement. The limited administrative benefits identified by EnerVest do not appear to warrant requiring interstate pipelines to provide such contracts for interruptible transportation.
149. Office of Management and Budget Circular A–119 (§ 11) (February 10, 1998) provides that federal agencies issuing or revising regulations with a standard should publish a statement in the Final Rule identifying the adopted standard as being a voluntary consensus standard or a government-unique standard. In this Final Rule, the Commission is incorporating by reference voluntary consensus standards developed by the NAESB WGQ. In section 12(d) of NTT&AA, Congress affirmatively requires federal agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standards organizations to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies unless use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
150. The Office of the Federal Register requires agencies incorporating material by reference in final rules to discuss, in the preamble of the final rule, the ways that the materials it incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested parties and how interested parties can obtain the materials.
151. The NAESB standards being incorporated by reference in this Final Rule are summarized in P 23, 87, 104. Our regulations provide that copies of the NAESB standards incorporated by reference may be obtained from the North American Energy Standards Board, 801 Travis Street, Suite 1675, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (713) 356–0060. NAESB's Web site is at
152. NAESB is a private consensus standards developer that develops voluntary wholesale and retail standards related to the energy industry. The procedures utilized by NAESB make its standards reasonably available to those affected by the Commission regulations. Participants can join NAESB, for an annual membership cost of only $7,000, which entitles them to full participation in NAESB and enables them to obtain these standards at no cost.
153. The collections of information for this Final Rule are being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
154. The Commission solicits comments from the public on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, recommendations to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. The burden estimates are for implementing the information collection requirements of this Final Rule. The Commission asks that any revised burden estimates submitted by commenters include the details and assumptions used to generate the estimates.
155. The collections of information related to this Final Rule fall under FERC–545 (Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-Formal))
The average hourly cost is $51. This represents the average wage (salary and benefits) of the following occupational categories: “Computer Systems Analyst” ($58.77 per hour), and “Gas Plant Operator” ($43.24 per hour).
• Year 1 (including the one-time tariff-filing, implementation, and ongoing costs): $4,182,341.
• Years 2 and 3, each (ongoing costs only): $1,535,738.
156. In incorporating by reference NAESB's modified nomination timeline, including moving the start of the Timely Nomination Cycle from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. CCT and adding an additional intraday nomination opportunity, the Commission intends to provide electric generators more time to acquire natural gas pipeline transportation, in order to reduce economic and resource supply constraints, additional flexibility to all shippers, allows sufficient time for processing, avoids overlapping nomination cycles, and allows for the accomplishment of most scheduling work during regular business hours, or reasonably close thereto.
157. Broad industry consensus across the natural gas and electric industries during the NAESB deliberations supports the incorporation of the modified nomination timeline. The implementation of these standards and regulations will promote additional efficiency and reliability of the gas industry's operations.
158. Finally, wider availability of multi-party firm transportation contracts provides shippers greater flexibility, including gas-fired generators, and facilitates the efficient use of pipeline capacity. The Final Rule ensures that pipelines are responsive to shipper requests when, and if, a shipper is interested in pursuing a multi-party transportation contract. As such, this Final Rule does not require pipelines to implement tariff provisions offering a multi-party transportation contract option when there is no shipper interest.
159. 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:
160. Comments concerning the collections of information and the associated burden estimates should be sent to the Commission and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, telephone: (202) 395–0710, fax: (202) 395–4718]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to:
161. 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.
162. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)
Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes, Natural Gas Pipeline Transportation, NAICS Code 486210, page 27, July 14, 2014,
163. This Final Rule applies only to interstate natural gas pipelines. The Commission estimates that approximately 165 interstate pipeline entities are potential respondents subject to the data reporting requirements of FERC–545. For fiscal year 2013, the Commission estimates that 70 pipelines (42.4 percent of 165 potential respondents) not affiliated with larger companies had annual revenues less than $27.5 million or less and are defined by the SBA as “small entities.”
164. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 605(b) of the RFA,
165. Many commenters state that, to the extent the Commission adopts any changes to the gas scheduling timeline in this proceeding, the Commission must allow a sufficient time for implementation. INGAA, Kinder Morgan, and WBI state that scheduling changes would require a minimum of nine months to implement.
166. AGA, EEI and Calpine contend that implementation of the changes to the natural-gas system as ordered in the Final Rule should occur concurrently with the implementation of the changes to electric system as ordered in the forthcoming ISO and RTO filings pursuant to the Section 206 Order.
167. NAESB explains that upon the issuance of a Final Rule, NAESB will respond by integrating the Commission's regulations into its standards within 90 days.
168. The Commission will require interstate natural gas pipelines to comply with the revised NAESB standards that we are incorporating by reference in this Final Rule beginning on April 1, 2016. We are requiring this implementation schedule to give the interstate natural gas pipelines subject to these standards adequate time to implement these changes. In addition, pipelines must file tariff records to reflect the changed standards by February 1, 2016. The changes included in this Final Rule should benefit all pipeline shippers, including gas-fired generators. Accordingly, we will not require that the changes included in this Final Rule be implemented simultaneously with any changes resulting from the 206 Proceeding.
169. In addition, consistent with the requirements in Order No. 587–V,
(1) The pipelines must designate a single tariff section or tariff sheet(s) under which every NAESB standard is listed.
(2) For each standard, each pipeline must specify in the tariff section or tariff sheet(s) listing all the NAESB standards:
(a) Whether the standard is incorporated by reference;
(b) for those standards not incorporated by reference, the tariff provision that complies with the standard;
(c) a statement identifying any standards for which the pipeline has been granted a waiver, extension of time, or other variance with respect to compliance with the standard.
(3) If the pipeline is requesting a continuation of an existing waiver or extension of time, it must include a table in its transmittal letter that states the standard for which a waiver or extension of time was granted, and the docket number or order citation to the proceeding in which the waiver or extension was granted.
170. This information will give Commission staff and all shippers a common location that identifies the manner in which the pipeline is incorporating all the NAESB WGQ Standards and the standards with which it is required to comply. The Commission will post on its eLibrary Web site (under Docket No. RM14–2–000) a sample tariff record, to provide filers an illustrative example to aid them in preparing their compliance filings.
171. To reflect our decision in this Final Rule not to change the start of the Gas Day, NAESB will need to change its standards to reflect the start of the Gas Day at 9:00 a.m. CCT. Once NAESB has informed the Commission that it has revised its standards to make this change, we will incorporate these revised NAESB standards by reference into our regulations in an instant Final Rule.
172. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
173. 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.
174. 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
175. This final rule is effective July 8, 2015. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 8, 2015. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Incorporation by reference.
By the Commission.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 284, Chapter I, Title 18,
15 U.S.C. 717–717z, 3301–3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101–7352; 43 U.S.C. 1331–1356.
(a) * * *
(1) An interstate pipeline that transports gas under subparts B or G of this part must comply with the business practices and electronic communications standards as promulgated by the North American Energy Standards Board, as incorporated herein by reference in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section, and as revised by WGQ 2014 Annual Plan Item 11c and Minor Correction MC14018, as incorporated herein by reference in paragraphs (a)(1)(viii) and (ix) of this section.
(vi) Capacity Release Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010, with Minor Corrections Applied Through January 5, 2012);
(vii) Internet Electronic Transport Related Standards (Version 2.0, November 30, 2010, with Minor Corrections Applied Through January 2, 2011) with the exception of Standard 10.3.2;
(viii) WGQ 2014 Annual Plan Item 11c, Parts 1 and 2 (September 22, 2014); and
(ix) Minor Correction/Clarification, Request No. MC14018 Approved September 10, 2014.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Within 60 days after a shipper request, a pipeline must file to make appropriate tariff changes at the Commission to allow multiple shippers associated with a designated agent or asset manager to be jointly and severally liable under a single firm transportation service agreement, subject to reasonable terms and conditions.
The following appendix will not appear in the