Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Interpretation.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission or SEC) is issuing this interpretive rule to clarify that, for purposes of the employment retaliation protections provided by Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), an individual's status as a whistleblower does not depend on adherence to the reporting procedures specified in Exchange Act Rule 21F–9(a), but is determined solely by the terms of Exchange Act Rule 21F–2(b)(1).
Effective August 10, 2015.
Jane Norberg, Deputy Chief of the Office of the Whistleblower, Division of Enforcement, at (202) 551–4790; Brian A. Ochs, Senior Special Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 551–5067; Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
In Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 12 4 Stat. 1376, 1841–49 (2010), Congress amended the Exchange Act to add Section 21F, 15 U.S.C. 78u-6(h)(1), entitled “Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection.” Section 21F established a series of new incentives and protections for individuals to report possible violations of the federal securities laws. Generally speaking, these incentives and protections take three forms—monetary awards for providing information, heightened confidentiality assurances, and enhanced employment retaliation protections.
In May 2011, the Commission issued legislative rules (“whistleblower rules”) after notice-and-comment rulemaking to implement the provisions of Section 21F. The Commission is now issuing this interpretive rule to clarify the meaning and application of certain of those rules. As explained below, an individual may qualify as a whistleblower for purposes of Section 21F's employment retaliation protections irrespective of whether he or she has adhered to the reporting procedures specified in Rule 21F–9(a). Rule 21F–2(b)(1) alone governs the procedures that an individual must follow to qualify as a whistleblower eligible for Section 21F's employment retaliation protections.
When we promulgated our legislative rules to implement the whistleblower program, we recognized that Section 21F is ambiguous on the issue of the scope of the employment retaliation protections afforded thereunder. On the one hand, Section 21F(h)(1)(A) includes a broad catchall provision that prohibits an employer from, among other things, retaliating against a whistleblower for “making disclosures that are required or protected under” the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Exchange Act, 18 U.S.C. 1513(e), “and any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.”
Clause (iii), which is a catchall provision, provides employment retaliation protection for certain internal reporting at public companies and for certain disclosures to the U.S. Department of Justice by expressly incorporating the “disclosures that are required or protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,” which includes Sarbanes-Oxley Section 806. Section 806, in turn, prohibits employment retaliation against an employee of a public company (or a subsidiary thereof) based on certain disclosures of securities law violations to “a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discovery, or terminate misconduct)” or to a “Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency.” 15 U.S.C. 1514A(1).
To resolve this ambiguity, the Commission in Rule 21F–2 promulgated two separate definitions of “whistleblower.” These two definitions apply in different circumstances and each involves its own specified reporting procedures that must be satisfied in order for an individual to qualify under the particular definition. The first definition, which is set forth in Rule 21F–2(a), mirrors the statutory definition of whistleblower. It provides in pertinent part that an individual is “a whistleblower if, alone or jointly with others, [the individual] provide[s] the Commission with information pursuant to the procedures set forth in [Rule] 21F–9(a).” This definition of whistleblower applies
The second whistleblower definition, which is set forth in Rule 21F–2(b)(1), provides in pertinent part that, “
We also adopted Rule 21F–9(a) to specify the reporting procedures that must be followed by an individual who seeks to qualify as a whistleblower under Rule 21F–2(a) and thus to be eligible for an award and the heightened confidentiality protections. Rule 21F–9(a) provides in pertinent part that, “[t]o be considered a whistleblower under Section 21F . . . , [an individual] must submit [his or her] information . . . by either of these methods: (1) Online, through the Commission's Web site . . . ; or (2) By mailing or faxing a Form TCR . . . to the SEC Office of the Whistleblower . . . .”
Since our adoption of the whistleblower rules, we have consistently understood Rule 21F–9(a) as a procedural rule that applies
Notwithstanding our view that Rule 21F–2(b)(1) alone controls in the context of determining the relevant reporting procedures for an individual to qualify as a whistleblower eligible for Section 21F's employment retaliation protections, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit expressed some uncertainty about this reading in a recent decision.
For the foregoing reasons, we are issuing this interpretation to clarify that, for purposes of Section 21F's employment retaliation protections, an individual's status as a whistleblower does not depend on adherence to the reporting procedures specified in Rule 21F–9(a).
Securities.
For the reasons set out above, the Commission is amending title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
By the Commission.
Social Security Administration.
Final rule.
This final rule adopts the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) we published in the
This rule is effective September 9, 2015.
Arthur LaVeck, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, Office of Income Security Programs, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, (410) 966–5665. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1–800–772–1213 or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
The use of the SSN is widespread in today's society. It is necessary for employment, to record properly a person's wages and the taxes paid on those wages, to collect Social Security benefits, and to receive many other government services. Commercial organizations, such as banks and credit companies, also ask individuals for their SSNs for many business transactions. Because of this widespread use, the issuance of original and replacement SSN cards is one of our most requested services.
Currently, a person can apply for an SSN by completing Form SS–5 and submitting it, in person or via mail, to his or her local field office (FO) or a Social Security Card Center, or by having one of our representatives file an application electronically through the Social Security Number Application Process during an in-office interview. The applicant must also present, or mail in, supporting documentary evidence.
To ensure that our regulations support the development of convenient and efficient electronic service delivery options, we are updating 20 CFR 422.103 and 422.110 to remove the requirement that an individual who seeks a replacement SSN card must file an application at any Social Security office. We are also removing references to Form SS–5 and replacing it with the term “prescribed application.” A prescribed application would simply be the application form—whether a paper form, an online application, or some other method—that we determine to be most efficient and user-friendly at any given time. Information about application procedures is easily available to applicants on our Internet site and at our offices nationwide.
We are also revising 20 CFR 422.107 to remove the word “documentary” from our description of evidence required to obtain an original or replacement SSN card. In order to obtain a new or replacement card, applicants may provide or we may obtain evidence to establish eligibility and identity through data matches or other agreements with government agencies or other entities that we determine can provide us with appropriate and secure verification of the applicant's true identity and other eligibility factors. These changes will provide us the flexibility to adapt our SSN application process as necessity and technology allow.
We are developing and will release—via a gradual, state-by-state rollout—a new online application that will allow adult U.S. citizens who are not reporting any changes to their record (for example, name or date of birth) to apply for replacement SSN cards electronically online after registering through the
Our new electronic SSN replacement card application will expand our service options to meet the varied needs of the public in a cost-efficient and environmentally responsible way, while maintaining the security and integrity of the SSN replacement card issuance process. The application will allow customers to complete a request for a replacement SSN card at any time, without the need to travel, sometimes long distances, to apply in person. We also anticipate that this initiative will
We are also making a technical change to § 422.107(e)(1) to replace references to the “Immigration and Naturalization Service” with “Department of Homeland Security” to reflect that agency's restructuring in 2003. This is not a substantive change, but merely makes our rules consistent with the current organizational structure of the government.
On February 26, 2015, we published an NPRM in the
Commenters overwhelmingly supported our initiative to allow for electronic applications for replacement SSN cards. Many discussed how the initiative would provide greater access to those who need to travel long distances to reach their local FOs. Most also wrote about how the initiative would simplify and speed up the process of applying for replacement SSN cards and would reduce processing time and repeated trips to FOs due to inadvertent mistakes, such as missing or incorrect identification.
At the same time, most commenters emphasized the need to ensure the security of data during the SSN replacement card online application process. Specifically, commenters expressed concerns regarding hacking, identity theft, and fraud prevention.
We also take our fraud prevention responsibility very seriously. We verify customer identity using information available via a variety of data sources to ensure that all online communication is with the proper individual. We are fully compliant with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) e-authentication guidance for Federal agencies and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) electronic authentication guidelines.
We employ a dynamic enterprise-wide cyber security program and leverage a defense-in-depth strategy. We work diligently to detect attacks, identify suspicious activities, and systematically respond to software and hardware vulnerabilities as they are identified. We collaborate with White House national security staff, the Federal Chief Information Officer, the Department of Homeland Security's United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, and various law enforcement agencies to address cyber threats.
In the event that we detect suspicious activity, we will refer the customer to the local Social Security office for in-person assistance.
We process the vast majority of original SSN applications for children as part of the official birth registration process described in § 422.103(a)(2) that generally takes place at a U.S. hospital shortly after a child's birth. While we
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule meets the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and was reviewed by OMB.
We certify that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it would affect individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
Although the regulatory changes described below are not subject to OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the new electronic SSN replacement card application will require OMB PRA approval. We sought public comment in two separate PRA
Administrative practice and procedure, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend 20 CFR chapter III, part 422, subpart B as set forth below:
Secs. 205, 232, 702(a)(5), 1131, and 1143 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405, 432, 902(a)(5), 1320b–1, and 1320b–13), and sec. 7213(a)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 108–458.
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(e)
The revisions read as follows:
(a)
(c)
(i) Your age, date of birth, or parents' names; or
(ii) Your photograph or physical description.
(2) A birth record is not sufficient evidence to establish identity for these purposes.
(g)
(a)
Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, DoD.
Final rule.
This rule establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for DoD assistance to non-Government entertainment media productions such as feature motion pictures, episodic television programs, documentaries, and computer-based games. This rule provides for oversight of production assistance decisions at centralized and senior levels of DoD to ensure consistency of approach among DoD and Service components with respect to support for entertainment media productions, including documentaries.
This rule is effective September 9, 2015.
Philip M. Strub, (703) 695–2936.
DoD is updating its policy for support to entertainment-oriented media productions, including documentaries. The increased and higher-level oversight is required to eliminate inconsistencies and ambiguities in guidance for and supervision of DoD activities to ensure common standards are met in providing support, and that production support is appropriate. The rule also includes two DoD Production Assistance Agreements (PAA) as samples. These documents explain the terms under which DoD provides assistance to production companies for projects that have been approved for DoD support.
(a) This rule includes documentaries within the category of non-government, entertainment-oriented media productions and requires approval of production assistance for such entertainment-oriented media productions at the DoD level vice the Service level.
(b) This rule includes two sample DoD Production Assistance Agreements (PAAs), one for documentary productions and one for all other entertainment media productions. This rule also assigns the authority for signing both types of agreements to the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (ATSD(PA)), or the ATSD(PA)'s designee.
(c) This rule addresses how military personnel may appear in entertainment media. This rule requires the written permission of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (or his/her designee) in order for active duty military personnel to serve as actors in significant roles and in roles beyond the scope of their normal duties.
First, the support and assistance to non-government entertainment media productions will be at no additional cost to the government and taxpayers. Once DoD has agreed with a production company to provide production assistance and the parties have signed a Production Assistance Agreement, operations, and maintenance, supply and equipment costs incurred by DoD (collectively) as a direct consequence of providing support will be reimbursed by the non-government entertainment production company. Additionally, the sample production assistance agreements provide for the production company to indemnify and hold harmless the DoD for claims arising from the production company's possession or use of DoD property or other assistance in connection with the production. Support to non-government entertainment media may be provided based on a number of factors: whether the production presents a reasonably realistic depiction of the Military Services and the DoD, whether the production is informational and considered likely to contribute to public understanding of the Military Services and the DoD, or whether the production may benefit Military Service recruiting and retention programs.
The revisions to this rule will be reported in future status updates as part of DoD's retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563 completed in August 2011. DoD's full plan can be accessed at:
The Department of Defense published a proposed rule in the
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be a significant regulatory action, although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This document will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.
We certify this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the entities who receive production assistance are those who affirmatively request it, and therefore, interact with DoD solely on a voluntary basis. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
This final rule does not create any new or affect any existing collections, and therefore, does not require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This rule will not have a substantial effect on the States; the relationship between the National Government and the States; or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of Government.
Entertainment, Media productions, Documentaries.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DoD adds 32 CFR part 238 to read as follows:
10 U.S.C. 2264; 31 U.S.C. 9701.
This part establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for DoD assistance to non-Government entertainment media productions such as feature motion pictures, episodic television programs, documentaries, and electronic games.
This part:
(a) Applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the Department of Defense (referred to collectively in this part as the “DoD Components”).
(b) Does not apply to productions that are intended to inform the public of fast-breaking or developing news stories.
Unless otherwise noted, this term and its definition are for the purposes of this part.
It is DoD policy that:
(a) DoD assistance may be provided to an entertainment media production, to include fictional portrayals, when cooperation of the producers with the Department of Defense benefits the Department of Defense, or when such cooperation would be in the best interest of the Nation based on whether the production:
(1) Presents a reasonably realistic depiction of the Military Services and the Department of Defense, including Service members, civilian personnel, events, missions, assets, and policies;
(2) Is informational and considered likely to contribute to public understanding of the Military Services and the Department of Defense; or
(3) May benefit Military Service recruiting and retention programs.
(b) DoD assistance to an entertainment-oriented media production will not deviate from established DoD safety and environmental standards, nor will it impair the operational readiness of the Military Services. Diversion of equipment, personnel, and material resources will be kept to a minimum.
(c) The production company will reimburse the Government for any expenses incurred as a result of DoD assistance rendered in accordance with the procedures in this part.
(d) Official activities of Service personnel in assisting the production; use of official DoD property, facilities, and material; and employment of Service members in an off-duty, non-official status will be in accordance with the procedures in this part.
(e) Footage shot with DoD assistance and official DoD footage released for a specific production will not be reused for or sold to other productions without Department of Defense approval.
(a) The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (ATSD(PA)) will serve as the sole authority for approving DoD assistance, including DoD involvement in marketing and publicity, to non-Government entertainment-oriented media. The ATSD(PA) will make DoD commitments, in consultation with the Heads of the Military Components, only after:
(1) The script, treatment, or narrative description is found to qualify in accordance with the general principles in § 238.4(a).
(2) The support requested is determined to be feasible.
(3) For episodic television, motion pictures, and other nondocumentary entertainment media productions, the producer has an acceptable public exhibition agreement with a recognized exhibition entity (
(b) The Heads of the Military Components will develop procedures for implementing this part and will ensure that the requirements of this part are met.
(a)
(2) Official activities of Service members in assisting the production must be within the scope of normal
(3) Official personnel services and DoD material will not be employed in such a manner as to compete directly with commercial and private enterprises. DoD assets may be provided when similar civilian assets are not reasonably available.
(4) The production company may hire Service members in an off-duty, non-official status to perform as extras or actors in minor roles, etc., provided there is no conflict with any existing Service regulation. In such cases, contractual arrangements are solely between those individuals and the production company; however, payment should be consistent with current industry standards. The producer is responsible for resolving any disputes with unions governing the hiring of non-union actors and extras. Service members accepting such employment will comply with the standards of conduct in DoD Directive 5500.07, “Standards of Conduct” (available at
(5) The production company will restore all Government property and facilities used in the production to the same or better condition as when they were made available for the company's use. This includes cleaning the site and removing trash.
(6) The DoD project officer, described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, may make DoD motion and still media archival materials available when a production qualifies for assistance in accordance with the general principles in § 238.4(a).
(b)
(ii) Production company officials requesting DoD assistance will submit a completed script (or a treatment or narrative description for documentaries), along with a list of desired support. If a definitive list is not available when the script is initially submitted, requirements should be stated in general terms at the outset. However, no DoD commitment will be made until the detailed list of support requested has been reviewed and deemed to be feasible.
(iii) OATSD(PA) will coordinate the review of scripts, treatment, or narrative description submitted for production assistance consideration. The coordinated review will include each Military Service depicted in the script. Although no commitment for assisting in the production is implied, OATSD(PA) may provide, or authorize the Military Services to provide, further guidance and suggestions for changes that might resolve problems that would prevent DoD assistance.
(2)
(3)
(A) Act as liaison between the production company and the Secretaries of the Military Departments and maintain contact with OATSD(PA) through appropriate channels. In this regard, the project officer will serve as the central coordinator for billing the producer and monitoring payments to the Government. (See paragraph (d) of this section for billing procedures.)
(B) Advise the production company on technical aspects and arrange for information necessary to ensure reasonably accurate and authentic portrayals of the Department of Defense.
(C) Maintain liaison with units and commands providing assistance to ensure timely arrangements consistent with the approved support.
(D) Coordinate with installations or commands that intend to provide support to the production to ensure that no material assistance is provided before a Production Assistance Agreement is signed by both DoD and the production company.
(E) When DoD assistance to the production requires the production company to reimburse the Government for additional expenses, develop an estimate of expenses based on the assistance requested, and ensure that these are reflected in the Production Assistance Agreement.
(F) Coordinate with each installation or command providing assets to the production to ensure the production company receives accurate and prompt statements of charges assessed by the Government and that the Government receives sufficient payment for any additional expenses incurred to support the production.
(G) For project officers assigned to a documentary or a non-documentary television series, maintain close liaison with the producer(s) and writers in developing story outlines. All story ideas considered for further development by the production company should be submitted to OATSD(PA) to provide the earliest opportunity for appraisal.
(ii) When considered to be in the best interest of the Department of Defense, the assigned project officer may provide “on-scene” assistance to the production company. Military or civilian technical
(A) Assignment will be at no additional cost to the Government. The production company will assume payment of such items as travel (air, rental car, reimbursement for fuel, etc.) and per diem (lodging, food and incidentals).
(B) Assignment should be for the length of time required to meet preproduction requirements through completion of photography. When feasible, assignment may be extended to cover post-production stages and site clean-up.
(iii) Additional project officer responsibilities, when considered to be in the best interest of the Department of Defense, will include:
(A) Supervising the use of DoD equipment, facilities, and personnel.
(B) Attending pertinent preproduction and production conferences, being available during rehearsals to provide technical advice, and being present during filming of all scenes pertinent to the Department of Defense.
(C) Ensuring proper selection of locations, appropriate uniforms, awards and decorations, height and weight standards, grooming standards, insignia, and set dressing applicable to the military aspects of the production. This applies to active duty members as well as paid civilian actors.
(D) Arranging for appropriate technical advisers to be present when highly specialized military technical expertise is required.
(E) Ensuring that the production adheres to the agreed-upon script and list of support to be provided.
(F) Authorizing minor deviations from the approved script or list of support to be provided, so long as such deviations are feasible, consistent with the safety standards, and in keeping with the approved story line. All other deviations shall be referred for approval to OATSD(PA) through appropriate channels.
(G) In accordance with the Production Assistance Agreement, providing notice of non-compliance, and when necessary, suspending assistance when action by the production company is contrary to stipulations governing the project and suspension is in the best interest of the Department of Defense until the matter is resolved locally or by referral to OATSD(PA).
(H) Attending the approval screening of the production, unless the Military Department concerned, OATSD(PA), and the production company mutually agree otherwise.
(I) Determining whether the production company will need to obtain the written consent of DoD personnel who may be recorded, photographed, or filmed by the production company, including when the production company uses the personally identifying information (PII) of DoD personnel. The likeness of DoD personnel in any imagery is included in the meaning of PII. If the recording or imagery captures medical treatment being performed on DoD personnel, the project officer shall require the production company to gain written consent from such DoD personnel. In the case of DoD personnel who are deceased or incapacitated, the project officer shall require the production company to gain written consent from the next of kin of the deceased or incapacitated DoD personnel.
(c)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(d)
(1) Each installation or Military Component will provide the production company with individual statements of charges assessed for providing assets to assist in the production. Unless agreed otherwise, statements should be presented to the production company within 45 days from the last day of the month in which filming and/or photography is completed to ensure prompt and complete accounting of charges for DoD assistance.
(2) The production company will be billed for only those expenses that are considered to be additional expenses to the Government. In accordance with paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section, the assigned project officer will serve as the central coordinator for submitting statements to the producer and monitoring receipt of payment to the Government. Items for which the costs may be reimbursed to the Government include:
(i) Petroleum, oil, and lubricants for equipment used.
(ii) Depot maintenance for equipment used.
(iii) Cost incurred in diverting or moving equipment.
(iv) Lost or damaged equipment.
(v) Expendable supplies.
(vi) Travel and per diem (unless reimbursed under 31 U.S.C. 1353).
(vii) Civilian overtime.
(viii) Commercial power or other utilities for facilities kept open beyond normal duty hours or when the production company's consumption of utilities is significant, based on average usage rates.
(ix) Should the production company not comply with requested clean-up required by production, project officer will require production company to hire a cleaning company. Should the production company not provide for the necessary clean-up, it shall reimburse the Government for any additional expenses incurred by the Government in performing such clean-up.
(3) The production company will be required to reimburse the Government for all flying hours related to production assistance, including takeoffs, landings, and ferrying aircraft from military locations to filming sites, except when such missions coincide with and can be considered legitimate operational and training missions. The production company will be required to reimburse the Government for all steaming days related to production assistance, including all costs (tugs, harbor pilots and port costs) required to move ships from military locations to filming sites, except when such missions coincide with and can be considered legitimate operational and training missions. These reimbursements will be calculated at the current DoD User Rates.
(4) In cases where provision of support provides a significant benefit to DoD, the production company will not be required to reimburse the Government for military or civilian manpower (except for civilian overtime) when such personnel are officially assigned to assist in the production. However, this limitation does not apply to Reserve Component personnel assigned in an official capacity, because such members are called to active duty at additional cost to the Government to perform the assigned mission. Reimbursement for Reserve Component personnel in an official capacity will be at composite standard pay and reimbursement rates for military personnel published annually by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/DoD Chief Financial Officer.
(5) Normal training and operational missions that would occur regardless of DoD assistance to a particular production are not considered to be chargeable to the production company.
(6) Beyond actual operational expenses, imputed rental charges ordinarily will not be levied for use of structures or equipment.
(7) The production company will provide proof of adequate industry standard liability insurance, naming DoD as an additional insured entity prior to the commencement of production involving DoD. The production company will maintain, at its sole expense, insurance in such amounts and under such terms and conditions as may be required by DoD to protect its interests in the property involved.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the S.R. 50 Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 260.7, at Surf City, NC. This deviation is necessary to facilitate reconstruction of the bridge fender system. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 4 a.m. on August 17, 2015 to 2 p.m. October 23, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2015–0746], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398–6222, email
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the S.R. 50 Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(2) to facilitate reconstruction of the bridge fender system.
Under the normal operating schedule for the S.R. 50 Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 260.7, at Surf City, NC in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(2); the draw shall open on signal for commercial vessels; open on signal for recreational vessels, except between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour. The bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 13 feet above mean high water.
Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be closed to navigation from 4 a.m. to 2 p.m., Monday through Friday; except for scheduled openings at 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon, and openings for commercial tug and barge traffic unable to transit through the bridge during a scheduled opening, if at least 3 hours notice is given. At all other times the bridge will operate under its normal operating schedule in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(2). The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedules that govern the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge across the Beach Thorofare, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 67.2, at Atlantic City, NJ and US40–322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge across the Inside Thorofare, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ. This deviation is necessary to facilitate the 2015 Atlantic City Beach Concerts. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 8:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on August 16 and August 20, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2015–0735], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398–6222, email
The New Jersey Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge and US40–322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.733(e) and (f), respectively, to facilitate the 2015 Atlantic City Beach Concerts.
Under the normal operating schedule for the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge across the Beach Thorofare, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 67.2, at Atlantic City, NJ in 33 CFR 117.733(e); the bridge need only open on the hour from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., from April 1 through October 31. Under the normal operating schedule for the US40–322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge across the Inside Thorofare, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ in 33 CFR 117.733(f); the draw shall open on signal; except that, from June 1 through September 30 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour and half hour, and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need not open. The vertical clearances in the closed-to-navigation position of the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge and US40–322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge are 20 feet and 10 feet, respectively, above mean high water.
Under this temporary deviation, the bridges will be closed to navigation from 8:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on August 16 and August 20, 2015. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.
Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridges in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedules for these bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedules that govern the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge across the Beach Thorofare, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 67.2, at Atlantic City, NJ and US40–322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge across the Inside Thorofare, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ. This deviation is necessary to facilitate the 2015 Atlantic City Air Show. This deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. on September 2, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG–2015–0736], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398–6222, email
The New Jersey Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge and US40–322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.733(e) and (f), respectively, to facilitate the 2015 Atlantic City Air Show.
Under the normal operating schedule for the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge across the Beach Thorofare, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 67.2, at Atlantic City, NJ in 33 CFR 117.733(e); the bridge need only open on the hour from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., from April 1 through October 31. Under the normal operating schedule for the US40–322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge across the Inside Thorofare, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ in 33 CFR 117.733(f); the draw shall open on signal; except that, from June 1 through September 30 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., the draw need only open on the hour and half hour, and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., the draw need not open. The vertical clearances in the closed-to-navigation position of the Route 30 (Absecon Boulevard) Bridge and US40–322 (North Albany Avenue) Bridge are 20 feet and 10 feet, respectively, above mean high water.
Under this temporary deviation, the bridges will be closed to navigation from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. on September 2, 2015. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.
Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridges in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedules for these bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that extends 500 meters from the outer edge of the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER. This safety zone will be in effect both when the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER is anchored and when deploying and recovering moorings. This safety zone will be in effect when the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER is on location in order to drill exploratory wells at various prospects located in the Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska, from 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2015 through 11:59 p.m. on October 31, 2015. The purpose of the temporary safety zone is to protect the drillship from vessels operating outside the normal shipping channels and fairways.
This rule is effective without actual notice from August 10, 2015 until October 31, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from July 1, 2015 to August 10, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket number USCG–2015–0248. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email LCDR Jason Boyle, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (dpi); telephone 907–463–2821,
The Coast Guard published an NPRM for this safety zone on May 4, 2015 (80 FR 25256). Two comments from the public were received during the 30 day comment period. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.
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 Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER while anchored or deploying and recovering moorings on location in order to drill exploratory wells in several prospects located in the Chukchi Sea during the 2015 drilling season.
The request for the temporary safety zone was made by Shell Exploration & Production Company due to safety concerns for both the personnel aboard the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER and the environment. Shell Exploration & Production Company indicated that it is highly likely that any allision or inability to identify, monitor or mitigate any risks or threats, including ice-related hazards that might be encountered, may result in a catastrophic event. Incursions into the safety zone by unapproved vessels could degrade the ability to monitor and mitigate such risks. In evaluating this request, the Coast Guard explored relevant safety factors and considered several criteria, including but not limited to: (1) The level of shipping activity around the operation; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the vessel; (3) concerns for the environment given the sensitivity of the environmental and the importance of fishing and hunting to the indigenous population; (4) the lack of any established shipping fairways, and fueling and supply storage/operations which increase the likelihood that an allision would result in a catastrophic event; (5) the recent and potential future maritime traffic in the vicinity of the proposed areas; (6) the types of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the proposed area; (7) the structural configuration of the vessel, and (8) the need to allow for lawful demonstrations without endangering the safe operation of the vessel. For any group intending to conduct lawful demonstrations in the vicinity of the rig, these demonstrations must be conducted outside the safety zone.
Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the criteria, IMO guidelines, and existing regulations warrant the establishment of the temporary safety zone. The regulation significantly reduces the threat of allisions that could result in oil spills, and other releases. Furthermore, the regulation increases the safety of life, property, and the environment in the Chukchi Sea by prohibiting entry into the zone unless specifically authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, or a designated representative. Due to the remote location and the need to protect the environment, the Coast Guard may use criminal sanctions to enforce the safety zone as appropriate.
The temporary safety zone will be around the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER while anchored or deploying and recovering moorings on location in order to drill exploratory wells in various locations in the Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska during the 2015 timeframe.
Shell Exploration & Production Company has proposed and received permits for drill sites within the Burger prospects, Chukchi Sea, Alaska.
During the 2015 timeframe, Shell Exploration & Production Company has proposed drilling exploration wells at various Chukchi Sea prospects depending on favorable ice conditions, weather, sea state, and any other pertinent factors. Each of these drill sites will be permitted for drilling in 2015 to allow for operational flexibility in the event sea ice conditions prevent access to one of the locations. The number of actual wells that will be drilled will depend on ice conditions and the length of time available for the 2015 drilling season. The predicted “average” drilling season, constrained by prevailing ice conditions and regulatory restrictions, is long enough for two to three typical exploration wells to be drilled.
The actual order of drilling activities will be controlled by an interplay between actual ice conditions immediately prior to a rig move, ice forecasts, any regulatory restrictions with respect to the dates of allowed operating windows, whether the planned drilling activity involves only drilling the shallow non-objective section or penetrating potential hydrocarbon zones, the availability of permitted sites having approved shallow hazards clearance, the anticipated duration of each contemplated drilling activity, the results of preceding wells and Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation plan requirements.
All planned exploration drilling in the identified lease will be conducted with the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER.
The DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER has a “persons on board” capacity of 124, and it is expected to be at capacity for most of its operating period. The DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER's personnel will include its crew, as well as Shell employees, third party contractors, Alaska Native Marine Mammal Observers and possibly Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) personnel.
While conducting exploration drilling operations, the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER will be anchored using an anchoring system consisting of an 8-point anchored mooring spread attached to the onboard turret and could have a maximum anchor radius of 3,600 ft (1,100 m). The center point of the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER will be positioned within the prospect location in the Chukchi Sea.
The DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER will move into the Chukchi Sea on or about July 1, 2015 and onto a prospect location when ice allows. Drilling will conclude on or before October 31, 2015. The drillship and support vessels will depart the Chukchi Sea at the conclusion of the 2015 drilling season.
One comment from the public was received during the 30 day comment period expressing concern that the safety zone was larger than necessary and that it could unnecessary impede vessel movement. The comment proposed a smaller safety zone of 50 meters with a “no wake” restriction extending 250 meters. The Coast Guard considered this comment, but has decided not to adopt the commenter's suggestion. Considering the size of the ocean, we do not believe a 500-meter safety zone presents an unreasonable restriction of movement. Furthermore, considering the size and speed of the drillship and associated drilling operations, we believe that a 50-meter zone would not ensure the safety of boaters in the area. Finally, we note that a “no-wake zone” would not have any effect in protecting boaters from the
Additionally, one commenter questioned whether the safety zone applied when the vessel is moving. It would apply during that time, for the safety of other vessels. The commenter also suggested that the safety zone should not extend 500 meters past the mooring. For reasons described below, we agree with the commenter's suggestion in this regard.
The Coast Guard made one change to the proposed rule. The original proposed rule had called for safety zones at every point where the vessel's mooring spread intersected with the ocean's surface. After consideration of the comments and additional clarification from Shell Exploration & Production Company, the Coast Guard determined that the mooring system utilized on this vessel is configured such that its lines will not break the ocean's surface beyond the vessel's outer edge. Therefore, the Coast Guard deleted reference to such additional safety zones and corresponding marking buoys from the final rule.
The temporary safety zone will encompass the area that extends 500 meters from the outer edge of the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER. This safety zone will be in effect both when the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER is anchored and when deploying and recovering moorings. No vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in this proposed safety zone except the following: An attending vessel or a vessel authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF–FM Channel 13 or 16 or by telephone at 907–463–2000.
The Coast Guard developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or Section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the location of the DRILLSHIP NOBLE DISCOVERER on the Outer Continental Shelf and its distance from both land and safety fairways. Vessels traversing waters near the proposed safety zone will be able to safely travel around the zone without incurring additional costs.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Coast Guard has considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the Burger Prospects of the Chukchi Sea.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact or a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will enforce a safety zone around a drilling unit facility that is in areas of the Chukchi Sea not frequented by vessel traffic and is not in close proximity to a safety fairway. Further, vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone without incurring additional costs.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
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 so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LCDR Jason Boyle, Coast Guard Seventeenth District, Office of Prevention; telephone 907–463–2821,
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it 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 $100,000,000.00 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such 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.
The Coast Guard has 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 would not create an
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Coast Guard analyzed this rule 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under
Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 147 as follows:
14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(b)
(1) An attending vessel; or
(2) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, or a designated representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the St. Lawrence River, Ogden Island, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the St. Lawrence River during the Waddington Homecoming fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display.
This rule will be effective and enforced from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on August 8, 2015.
Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG–2015–0715]. 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 LTJG Amanda Garcia, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone716–843–9343, email
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 because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.
Between 8:45 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. on August 8, 2015, a fireworks display will be held on the shoreline of the St. Lawrence River on Ogden Island, NY. It is anticipated that numerous vessels will be in the immediate vicinity of the launch point. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that such a launch proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.
With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Waddington Homecoming fireworks display. This zone will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on August 8, 2015. This zone will encompass all waters of the St. Lawrence River; Ogden Island, NY within a 700-foot radius of position 44°52′8.44″ N and 075°12′35.84″ W (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
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 conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. 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. 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 will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the St. Lawrence River on the evening of August 8, 2015.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 90 minutes late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local 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
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 the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it 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, 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, 195; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of an August 19, 2011 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Wyoming that are intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on September 9, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0351. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 303–312–7104,
On September 21, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule revising the 1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA, within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. EPA refers to these specific submittals as “infrastructure” SIPs because they are intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM
The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called “good neighbor” provisions) require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. The two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will (element 1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C (element 3) to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or (element 4) to protect visibility.
On August 19, 2011, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) made a submission certifying that Wyoming's SIP is adequate to implement the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA did not receive any comments on the May 18, 2015 proposal.
EPA is approving the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Wyoming's August 19, 2011 submission. We are approving elements 1 and 2 of this portion of the submission based on EPA's supplemental evaluation of relevant technical information, which supports a finding that emissions from Wyoming do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA is also approving element 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) from Wyoming's August 19, 2011 submission, based on a finding that the Wyoming SIP is adequate to meet the PSD requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and,
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 9, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition reads as follows:
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Arizona to address the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each State adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA. We refer to such SIP revisions as “infrastructure” SIPs because they are intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS including, but not limited to, legal authority, regulatory structure, resources, permit programs, monitoring, and modeling necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. In addition, we are approving several state provisions addressing CAA conflict of interest and monitoring requirements into the Arizona SIP.
This final rule is effective on September 9, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action, identified by Docket ID Number EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0258. The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at
Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 947–4152, email:
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
CAA section 110(a)(1) requires each state to submit to EPA, within three years after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, an infrastructure SIP revision that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) sets the content requirements of such a plan, which generally relate to the information and authorities, compliance assurances, procedural requirements, and control measures that constitute the “infrastructure” of a state's air quality management program. These infrastructure SIP elements required by section 110(a)(2) are as follows:
• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international pollution abatement.
• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government agencies.
• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal of modeling data.
• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: (i) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs required under part D (nonattainment NSR), and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure for the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).
On November 12, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a revised NAAQS for Pb.
On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a revised NAAQS for 8-hour Ozone.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has submitted several infrastructure SIP revisions pursuant to EPA's promulgation of the NAAQS addressed by this rule, including the following:
• October 14, 2011—“Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2008 Lead NAAQS,” to address all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements, except for section 110(a)(2)(G),
• December 27, 2012—“Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS,” to address all of the CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (2012 Ozone I–SIP Submittal).
• December 6, 2013—“Submittal of Maricopa County Rule 100 revising the Maricopa County Portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure” from Eric Massey, Director of ADEQ (2013 Maricopa County Submittal). Maricopa County Rule 100 was submitted to address a deficiency in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the SIP for Maricopa County concerning conflict of interest requirements for hearing boards.
• December 19, 2013—“Submittal of Pima County Rules revising the Pima County Portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure” from Eric Massey, Director of ADEQ (2013 Pima County Submittal). This submittal included Pima County Rule 17.04.190 “Composition,” adopted September 28, 1993; Pima County Rule 17.12.040 “Reporting for Compliance Evaluations,” adopted September 28, 1993; and Pima County Rule 17.24.040 “Reporting Requirements,” adopted April 19, 2005 for inclusion into the Arizona SIP. These rules were submitted to address deficiencies in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the SIP concerning conflict of interest requirements for hearing boards and section 110(a)(2)(F) of the SIP concerning stationary source monitoring and reporting.
• September 4, 2014—“Submittal of Pinal County Rule 1–3–140 Revising the Pinal County Portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure” from Eric Massey, Director of ADEQ (2014 Pinal County Submittal). This submittal included Pinal County Rule 1–3–140 “Definitions,” adopted July 23, 2014 for inclusion into the Arizona SIP. Pinal County Rule 1–3–140 was submitted to address a deficiency in section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the SIP for Pinal County concerning conflict of interest requirements for hearing boards.
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened on November 24, 2014, the date of its publication in the
Under CAA section 110(k)(3) and based on the evaluation and rationale presented in the proposed rule, the technical support document and this final rule, EPA is approving the 2011 Pb I–SIP Submittal, the 2012 Ozone I–SIP Submittal, the 2013 Maricopa County Submittal, the 2013 Pima County Submittal and the 2014 Pinal County Submittal with respect to the following infrastructure SIP requirements:
• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest, and oversight of local and regional government agencies.
• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.
In addition, we are approving into the SIP certain regulatory provisions included in the 2013 Pima County and Maricopa County Submittals, and in the 2014 Pinal County Submittal, as discussed in the TSD.
We are not acting today on those elements of the infrastructure SIP that address the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J) and (K) of the Act. On October 29, 2012, ADEQ submitted “New Source Review State Implementation Plan Submission” and on July 2, 2014 submitted “Supplemental Information to 2012 New Source Review State Implementation Plan Submission”. These submissions address the permitting portions of I–SIP elements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D), (J) and (K) of the Act and will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking.
Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act. All of the elements of the infrastructure SIP that we are approving, as explained in the TSD, improve the SIP by replacing obsolete statutes or regulations and by updating the state and local agencies' SIP implementation and enforcement authorities. We have determined that our approval of the elements discussed above complies with CAA section 110(l) because the SIP revision would not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and the SIP revision clarifies and updates the SIP. Our TSD contains a more detailed discussion of our evaluation.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Arizona Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The 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 action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on August 4, 2015.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(166) The following plan was submitted on October 14, 2011, by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(
(167) The following plan was submitted on December 27, 2012 by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(
(168) The following plan was submitted on December 6, 2013 by the Governor's designee.
(i)
(A) Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
(
(169) The following plan was submitted on December 19, 2013 by the Governor's designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Pima County Department of Environmental Quality.
(
(
(170) The following plan was submitted on September 4, 2014 by the Governor's designee.
(i)
(A) Pinal County Air Quality Control District.
(
(l)
(m)
(n)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a May 11, 2012 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Colorado that is intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on September 9, 2015.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0346. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 303–312–7104,
On September 21, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule revising the 1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA, within three years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. EPA refers to these specific submittals as “infrastructure” SIPs because they are intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or revised NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM
The interstate transport provisions in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called “good neighbor” provisions) require each state to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct elements related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across state lines. The two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants that will (element 1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same NAAQS. The two elements under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C (element 3) to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or (element 4) to protect visibility. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP shall contain adequate provisions insuring compliance with applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement).
On May 11, 2012, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) submitted an interstate transport SIP which concluded that Colorado meets all of the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA did not receive any comments on the May 12, 2015 proposal.
EPA is approving all four interstate transport elements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) from Colorado's May 11, 2012 submission. This approval is based on EPA's finding that emissions from Colorado do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA is also approving the 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) portion of Colorado's submission, based on our finding that the State's existing SIP is adequate to meet the requirements of this element for the 2006 24-hour PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and,
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 9, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) Addition to the Colorado State Implementation Plan of the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP regarding 2006 PM
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Emergency rule; request for comments.
This emergency rule establishes a 1,600 Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) limit for the Western and Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Non-Rockfish Program trawl catcher vessel sector (Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector) that is immediately available for use by the sector until the limit is reached or December 31, 2015. On January 1, 2015, an annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 2,700 Chinook salmon became available for use by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector implementing Amendment 97 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the GOA (FMP). On May 3, 2015, and considerably earlier than had been expected, NMFS prohibited directed fishing for groundfish by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector after determining that the sector had exceeded its annual PSC limit of 2,700 Chinook salmon. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS recently discovered that the use of Chinook salmon PSC by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector in the first few months of 2015 was exorbitantly greater than the historical use, which was relied on in developing the Chinook salmon PSC limit for this sector, and that this discrepancy in use was not foreseen when the PSC limit of 2,700 Chinook salmon for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector was implemented under Amendment 97. Due to the directed fishing closure, significant amounts of non-pollock groundfish remain unharvested by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, and fishermen, shoreside processors, and communities that participate in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector have limited alternatives to mitigate the resulting significant, negative economic effects. This emergency rule is necessary to relieve a restriction that is preventing non-pollock groundfish harvest by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector while continuing to limit the amount of Chinook salmon PSC used by this sector. This rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable law.
The amendments to § 679.21(i)(2)(iii) and (i)(7)(i) are effective August 10, 2015. The amendment to § 679.21(i)(8) is effective August 10, 2015, through December 31, 2015. Comments must be received by September 9, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0082, by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
• Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668.
Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this emergency rule may be obtained from
Jeff Hartman, 907–586–7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) under the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the GOA (FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
This emergency rule establishes a 1,600 Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) limit for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector that is immediately available for use by the sector in Western and Central GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries until the limit is reached or December 31, 2015, whichever occurs first. The following sections describe: (1) The non-pollock trawl fisheries and Amendment 97 to the FMP; (2) the estimation of Chinook salmon PSC in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector; (3) the implementation of Amendment 97 in 2015; and (4) the emergency rule and justification for emergency action.
Trawl groundfish fisheries that do not target pollock (
The Council and NMFS have adopted various measures intended to control the catch of species taken incidentally in groundfish fisheries. Certain species are designated as “prohibited species” in the FMP because they are the target of other, fully utilized domestic fisheries. The prohibited species in the FMP are Pacific halibut, Pacific herring, Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, king crab, and Tanner crab. One of the prohibited species of greatest concern to the Council and NMFS is Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon is a prohibited species in the groundfish fisheries because it is a culturally and economically valuable species that is fully allocated and for which State of Alaska and Federal managers seek to conservatively manage harvests. The Council and NMFS have established a range of management measures to constrain the impact of GOA groundfish fisheries on Chinook salmon. A summary of these measures is provided in Section 1.5.2 of the RIR.
NMFS has implemented two specific programs to limit Chinook salmon bycatch in the GOA trawl fisheries. In 2012, NMFS implemented Amendment 93 to the FMP to establish separate Chinook salmon PSC limits for the directed pollock trawl fisheries in the Western and Central GOA (77 FR 42629, July 20, 2012). These limits require NMFS to close the directed pollock fishery in the Western or Central GOA if the applicable PSC limit is reached (see regulations at § 679.21(h)(6)). The annual Chinook salmon PSC limit for the directed pollock fishery in the Western GOA is 6,684 Chinook salmon, and the annual Chinook salmon PSC limit for the directed pollock fishery in the Central GOA is 18,316 Chinook salmon (see regulations at § 679.21(h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii)). Collectively, the Chinook salmon PSC limit established for the pollock trawl fisheries in the Western and Central GOA is 25,000 Chinook salmon. Amendment 93 is described in more detail in the Amendment 93 Analysis, the final rule implementing Amendment 93 (77 FR 42629, July 20, 2012), and Section 1.5.3 of the RIR.
In 2013, the Council voted to adopt Amendment 97 to the FMP to establish separate Chinook salmon PSC limits for the directed non-pollock trawl fishery in the Western and Central GOA. NMFS approved Amendment 97 in 2014 (79 FR 71350, December 2, 2014), and it became effective on January 1, 2015. Amendment 97 is designed to meet three management goals. The first goal is to avoid exceeding the annual catch threshold of 40,000 Chinook salmon identified in the incidental take statement accompanying the November 30, 2000, biological opinion on the effects of the Alaska groundfish fisheries on salmon of the Pacific Northwest that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The second goal is to minimize Chinook salmon bycatch to the extent practicable, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and National Standard 9. The third goal is to increase the amount of Chinook salmon stock of origin information available to NMFS and the Council. This third goal is not modified or otherwise affected by this emergency rule and is not addressed further. Amendment 97 is described in more detail in the Amendment 97 Analysis, the final rule implementing Amendment 97 (79 FR 71350, December 2, 2014), and Section 1.5.4 of the RIR.
For purposes of managing Chinook salmon bycatch in the Western and Central GOA non-pollock trawl fishery, Amendment 97 includes a long-term average annual Chinook salmon PSC limit of 7,500 Chinook salmon and implements this by establishing separate Chinook salmon PSC limits for three fishery sectors: (1) the Trawl Catcher/Processor (C/P) Sector; (2) the Rockfish Program Catcher Vessel (CV) Sector; and (3) the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. Each of these sectors is described in Section 1.5.1 of the RIR.
Amendment 97 establishes annual base Chinook salmon PSC limits of 3,600 Chinook salmon for the Trawl C/P Sector, 1,200 Chinook salmon for the Rockfish Program CV Sector, and 2,700 Chinook salmon for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. Additionally, Amendment 97 includes authority for NMFS to reallocate Chinook salmon PSC from the Rockfish Program CV Sector to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector (see regulations at § 679.21(i)(4)). NMFS is authorized to reallocate all of the Rockfish Program CV Sector's unused Chinook salmon PSC limit in excess of 150 salmon to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector on October 1 of each year, and all remaining unused Chinook salmon PSC to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector on November 15 of each year. If a sector reaches or is projected to reach its Chinook salmon PSC limit, NMFS will close directed fishing for all non-pollock groundfish species by vessels in that sector for the remainder of the calendar year (see regulations at § 679.21(i)(7)). Each sector is subject to its own annual Chinook salmon PSC limit, and NMFS manages each sector separately. The rationale for the Chinook salmon PSC
The Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector is composed of non-pollock trawl CVs authorized to fish for groundfish in the GOA that are not fishing under the authority of a Rockfish Program Cooperative Quota Permit. This sector fishes primarily for Pacific cod in the Central and Western GOA, and arrowtooth flounder, flathead sole, rex sole, deepwater flatfish, and shallow-water flatfish in the Central GOA. For a more detailed description of the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, see Section 1.5.1 of the RIR.
In recommending and approving the 2,700 Chinook salmon PSC limit for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, both the Council and NMFS determined that the limit would accommodate groundfish harvests in most years in this sector. The Council and NMFS selected the Chinook salmon PSC limit of 2,700 after considering the historic amount of Chinook salmon PSC used by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector based on available fishery observer data during the time period analyzed and the management of the fishery at that time. These factors are briefly described and summarized in the following paragraphs. Additional detail is available in the Amendment 97 Analysis (see
According to the Amendment 97 Analysis, the Chinook salmon PSC limit of 2,700 salmon is approximately 8 percent greater than the estimated average annual amount of Chinook salmon PSC used in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector (2,489 salmon) during a representative 5-year period (2007 through 2011) analyzed by the Council and NMFS. The Amendment 97 Analysis shows that the 2,700 Chinook salmon PSC limit for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector would have closed the directed groundfish fisheries for this sector in two out of five years during 2007 through 2011 if that PSC limit had been in effect.
Data from 2007 through 2011 in the Amendment 97 Analysis indicate that almost all of the Chinook salmon PSC by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector occurred in the Central GOA. Average annual Chinook salmon PSC for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector from 2007 through 2011 in the Western GOA was 44 Chinook salmon, ranging from a high of 107 Chinook salmon in 2008 to a low of zero Chinook salmon in 2011. Therefore, Chinook salmon PSC in the Central GOA represented nearly 98 percent of the average annual Chinook salmon PSC, and the Western GOA represented only 2 percent of the Chinook salmon PSC in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector from 2007 through 2011. Additionally, the data in the Amendment 97 Analysis show that Chinook salmon PSC in the Western GOA occurs during the first few months of the year when Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector vessels are participating in a Pacific cod fishery in the Western GOA. When that fishery closes, Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector vessels fish in the Central GOA for the remainder of the year. See Section 1.5.7 of the RIR for additional detail.
NMFS uses observer data to account for Chinook salmon PSC by participants in the GOA groundfish fisheries, including the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector.
Prior to 2013, NMFS did not deploy observers on vessels that were less than 60 feet in length overall. Because a number of vessels within the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector vessels that participate in non-pollock groundfish fisheries in the Western GOA are less than 60 feet in length, NMFS estimated Chinook salmon PSC in the Western GOA for this sector by using observer information from a different group of vessels that are equal to or greater than 60 feet in length and that typically participate in Central GOA non-pollock groundfish fisheries. The Council relied on these estimates of Chinook salmon PSC in developing its Chinook salmon PSC limit for the Non-RF Program CV Sector. Those estimates were the best available data for Chinook salmon PSC use in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector during the years examined by the Council in the Amendment 97 Analysis.
NMFS implemented the restructured observer program in 2013 (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). An important change in sampling methodology under the new observer program is to deploy observers on trawl vessels under 60 feet and greater than 40 feet. NMFS had not deployed observers on vessels of this length prior to the restructured program. In 2013 and 2014, NMFS included these vessels in the partial coverage category as part of the “vessel selection” pool.
In order to address issues that had developed with observer coverage rates on vessels under 60 feet in the “vessel selection” pool, as documented in the 2013 and 2014 Annual Report for the North Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Observer Program, NMFS moved vessels less than 60 feet from the “vessel selection” pool to the “trip selection” pool for 2015. Issues with the vessel selection pool include an incomplete sampling frame and difficulty achieving a target number of vessels to be observed. The move of vessels to the trip selection pool increased observer deployment on vessels under 60 feet in length overall, including vessels under 60 feet that participate in Western GOA non-pollock groundfish fisheries within the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. NMFS believes the change has improved observer data by better representing fishing events.
Amendment 97, and the Chinook salmon PSC limit of 2,700 Chinook salmon for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, became effective on January 1, 2015. Based on observer data from January through April 2015, NMFS estimated Chinook salmon PSC use in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector at 1,056 Chinook salmon in the Western GOA and 1,568 Chinook salmon in the Central GOA. Therefore, on April 30, 2015, NMFS determined that the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector would reach its Chinook salmon PSC limit of 2,700 Chinook salmon and published an information bulletin notifying the public that NMFS was prohibiting directed fishing by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector as soon as possible to prevent the sector from exceeding its Chinook salmon PSC limit. On May 3, 2015, NMFS published a rule prohibiting directed fishing for non-pollock groundfish species by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector for the remainder of 2015 (May 6, 2015, 80 FR 25967).
At its June 2015 meeting, the Council received information from NMFS and the public concerning the data leading to the directed fishing closure of the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector and the effects of the closure on participants in the GOA (See section 1.5.7. and 1.6 of the RIR). After considering this information, the Council recommended, by a 10 to 1 vote, that NMFS implement an emergency rule that would allocate an additional 1,600 Chinook salmon to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector that is immediately available for use by
This emergency rule implements a 1,600 Chinook salmon PSC limit for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector through a new regulatory paragraph at § 679.21(i)(8). The Council recommended an additional PSC limit of 1,600 Chinook salmon based on the average amount of Chinook salmon PSC used by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector to harvest its average amount of groundfish after May 1 (effectively the date of the closure in 2015) until the end of the year. Based on data in Section 1.6.1 of the RIR, NMFS agrees with the Council that an average of 1,600 Chinook salmon PSC are used by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector after May 1, based on Chinook salmon PSC use from 2010 through 2014. NMFS agrees that an additional 1,600 Chinook salmon will likely support prosecution of the groundfish fisheries in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector for the remainder of 2015.
The Chinook salmon PSC limit implemented by this emergency rule is separate and distinct from the sector's annual Chinook salmon PSC limit established by regulations at § 679.21(i)(3)(i)(C). Any amount of Chinook salmon PSC that were used in excess of the sector's annual limit will not be deducted from the PSC limit established by this emergency rule. The 1,600 Chinook salmon PSC limit established by this emergency rule is available for use by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector starting on August 10, 2015 until it is reached or December 31, 2015, whichever occurs first. Any amount of the 1,600 Chinook salmon PSC limit that remains unused on December 31, 2015, will not be available to the sector for the 2016 fishing year.
The Chinook salmon PSC reallocation provisions at § 679.21(i)(4) will continue to apply under this emergency rule, in the event that Rockfish Program CV Sector Chinook salmon PSC is available to reallocate to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector beginning on October 1, 2015. At this time, NMFS anticipates a small reallocation of PSC, or none at all, to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector beginning on October 1, 2015, based on current and anticipated use of Chinook salmon PSC in the Rockfish Program CV Sector through the remainder of 2015 (see Section 1.4 of the RIR for additional detail). If there is Chinook salmon PSC available for reallocation on October 1, 2015, or November 15, 2015, the total Chinook salmon PSC available for use by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector in 2015 will be slightly increased.
Regulations at § 679.21(i)(2)(i) are amended to include reference to the new Chinook salmon PSC limit of 1,600 Chinook salmon for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. Regulations at § 679.21(i)(7)(i), which describe the procedure NMFS follows for closing a non-pollock trawl sector if a Chinook salmon PSC limit is eached, are amended to include reference to the new Chinook salmon PSC limit for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector.
Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides authority for rulemaking to address an emergency. Under that section, a Council may recommend emergency rulemaking if it finds an emergency exists. NMFS's Policy Guidelines for the Use of Emergency Rules provide that the only legal prerequisite for such rulemaking is that an emergency must exist, and that NMFS must have an administrative record justifying emergency regulatory action and demonstrating compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Standards (see NMFS Instruction 01–101–07 (March 31, 2008) and 62 FR 44421, August 21, 1997). Emergency rulemaking is intended for circumstances that are “extremely urgent,” where “substantial harm to or disruption of the . . . fishery . . . would be caused in the time it would take to follow standard rulemaking procedures.”
Under NMFS' Policy Guidelines for the Use of Emergency Rules, the phrase “an emergency exists involving any fishery” is defined as a situation that meets the following three criteria:
(1) Results from recent, unforeseen events or recently discovered circumstances;
(2) Presents serious conservation or management problems in the fishery; and
(3) Can be addressed through emergency regulations for which the immediate benefits outweigh the value of advance notice, public comment, and deliberative consideration of the impacts on participants to the same extent as would be expected under the normal rule making process.
The following sections review each of these criteria and describe why the Council and NMFS determined that the May 3, 2015, closure of the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector groundfish fisheries and the establishment of a 1,600 Chinook salmon PSC limit for the remainder of 2015 meets these criteria.
The Council and NMFS recently discovered that the use of Chinook salmon PSC in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector in early 2015 was exorbitantly greater than historical use, and that this significant discrepancy was unforeseen and unexpected. The use of Chinook salmon PSC by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector in the Western GOA resulted in the sector's reaching its Chinook salmon PSC limit much earlier than anticipated—the amount of Chinook salmon PSC taken in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector closed all of this sector's non-pollock groundfish fisheries approximately seven months before these fisheries would typically close. From January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015 (the date the fleet was notified of the impending closure of the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector), Chinook salmon PSC use in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector in the Western GOA was estimated at 1,056 Chinook salmon. This amount is nearly 10 times greater than the maximum amount of Chinook salmon PSC used by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector during any complete calendar year from 2007 through 2011 (in 2008, 107 Chinook salmon were used in the Western GOA during the entire year). Chinook salmon PSC use by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector from January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015, was nearly 24 times the average annual Chinook salmon PSC use in the Western GOA from 2007 through 2011 (44 Chinook salmon). See Section 1.5.7 in the RIR for additional detail.
The unexpectedly high use of Chinook salmon PSC in the Western GOA resulted in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector reaching its PSC limit even though Chinook salmon use in the Central GOA from January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015, was not unexpectedly high (1,568 Chinook salmon). Chinook salmon PSC use in the Central GOA in 2015 prior to May 1, 2015, was less than the maximum amount of Chinook salmon PSC used from January 1 through April 30 during any of the years the Council and NMFS considered when recommending Amendment 97 (2,424 Chinook salmon PSC were used prior to May 1 in 2010), and only slightly greater than the average Chinook salmon PSC use during the January 1 through April 30 time period from 2007 through 2011 (1,011 Chinook salmon PSC were used on average during these years). Section 1.5.7 in the RIR provides additional detail. The magnitude of Chinook salmon use by the sector in the Western
This unforeseen and unexpected increase in the amount of Chinook salmon PSC use occurred after the implementation of improved Chinook salmon PSC data collection on vessels in the Western GOA. As described earlier, NMFS implemented a restructured North Pacific Groundfish and Halibut Observer Program (Observer Program) in 2013 (77 FR 70062, November 21, 2012). Prior to 2013, no observer data were collected on vessels less than 60 feet in length overall, and observer data collected on vessels 60 feet in length overall and greater were used to generate Chinook salmon PSC estimates for these smaller vessels. Participation in a particular fishery may be dominated by vessels larger or shorter than 60 feet in length overall and Chinook salmon PSC use is likely to vary among fisheries depending on the location and timing of a fishery. Because the majority of vessels that participate in the Western GOA groundfish fisheries are less than 60 feet in length overall and were unobserved before 2013, the data used to estimate Chinook salmon PSC use in the Amendment 97 Analysis were derived from vessels greater than 60 feet in length overall.
The use of data available under the restructured Observer Program, including data from vessels not previously observed in the Western GOA, has resulted in estimates of a substantial and unexpected amount of Chinook salmon PSC. This unforeseen and recently discovered increase in the use of Chinook salmon PSC in the Western GOA contributed significantly to the total amount of Chinook salmon PSC used by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector and led to the closure of the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector fisheries.
The Council and NMFS determined that this emergency rule criterion is met because the early closure prevents the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector from harvesting thousands of metric tons of groundfish and results in foregone revenue to harvesters, processors and communities that participate in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. The closure is estimated to prevent harvest of 13,000 to 15,000 metric tons of groundfish that would otherwise be available for harvest to this sector through the remainder of 2015 based on an analysis of average groundfish catch by this sector for the years 2012 through 2014 and 2010 through 2014 (see Section 1.5 of the RIR for additional detail). The lost revenue from this forgone harvest is estimated to be approximately $4.6 million in ex-vessel value and $11.3 million in first wholesale value (see Section 1.6.1 of the RIR).
Shoreside processors and the community of Kodiak, Alaska, are disproportionately affected by this closure because after May, groundfish harvested by the Non-Rockfish CV Sector is almost exclusively delivered to shoreside processors operating in Kodiak (see Section 1.6.1 of the RIR). Sections 1.5.7 and 1.6.1 of the RIR provide additional information on the expected effects of the directed fishing closure of the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector on harvesters, processors, and the community of Kodiak. This emergency rule is the only mechanism to restore the foregone harvest and lost revenue because other groundfish fisheries that could substitute for these losses are fully allocated and are not available to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector.
The Council and NMFS have determined that a 1,600 Chinook limit will likely allow the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector to harvest remaining amounts of groundfish. If 1,600 Chinook salmon PSC are made available to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector by mid-August, NMFS anticipates that most, if not all, the fall Pacific cod fishery will be harvested by the sector, and a substantial portion of the forgone flatfish for the latter half of 2015 will be harvested. The Council's objective for this Emergency Rule was to restore the lost harvesting opportunities to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector to the maximum extent possible while continuing to impose a limit on the use of Chinook salmon PSC in the GOA trawl fisheries that likely will not exceed the combined Chinook salmon PSC limits established under Amendments 93 and 97.
The Council and NMFS also determined that implementation of this emergency rule will not create conservation issues with regard to Chinook salmon. The Council and NMFS considered the original and continuing goals for Amendment 97 to the FMP: to avoid exceeding Chinook salmon PSC use of 40,000 Chinook salmon in the GOA trawl groundfish fisheries, and to minimize bycatch of Chinook salmon to the extent practicable. The Council made its emergency rule recommendation after considering the average annual use of Chinook salmon PSC by all GOA trawl sectors for the most recent five years (2010 through 2014), total use of Chinook salmon PSC by all GOA trawl sectors from January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015, and anticipated use of Chinook salmon PSC by all GOA trawl sectors for the remainder of 2015 (from May 1 through December 31). Based on this review of historic, current, and anticipated Chinook salmon PSC use from all trawl sectors in the Western and Central GOA, the Council and NMFS concluded that the combined GOA trawl Chinook salmon PSC in 2015 will not exceed 40,000 even with implementation of the emergency rule.
The Council and NMFS also concluded that although the GOA trawl groundfish fisheries will be authorized to take a maximum of 34,100 Chinook salmon in 2015 under current regulations and this emergency rule, it is highly unlikely that the additional allocation of 1,600 Chinook salmon for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector will result in total Chinook salmon PSC in the GOA trawl groundfish fisheries for 2015 exceeding 32,500 Chinook salmon, the total combined pollock and non-pollock Chinook salmon PSC limits. Sections 1.5.7 and 1.6.1 of the RIR describe the historic, current, and anticipated Chinook salmon PSC use in each of the GOA pollock and non-pollock trawl sectors, including the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. The data from Table 2 in the RIR at Section 1.4.3 show that an average of over 13,000 Chinook salmon were left unused by the GOA pollock sector in 2013 and 2014. Including 2012, 2013, and 2014, the average Chinook salmon PSC limit remaining from the pollock PSC limit of 25,000 was over 11,000 Chinook salmon. Of the 11,000 Chinook salmon remaining in the GOA pollock fishery, over 8,000 Chinook salmon were left unused from the Central GOA, and over 3,000 were left unused in the Western GOA. Finally, the Council considered the demonstrated ability of the voluntary catch share agreements in the GOA pollock fishery and controls implemented by this sector to control Chinook PSC use (see Section 1.2.1.2 in this RIR). Based on these data, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that it is highly unlikely that this emergency rule will result in total Chinook salmon PSC from all GOA trawl groundfish fisheries exceeding 32,500 Chinook salmon. The emergency rule will allow NMFS to open non-pollock groundfish fisheries for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector but still limit the overall amount of Chinook salmon PSC use by this sector.
NMFS and the Council have determined that the emergency situation created by the May 3, 2015, closure can be addressed by emergency regulations. As explained earlier, an additional allocation of 1,600 Chinook salmon PSC can be provided to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector without creating conservation and management issues for the resource or direct users of Chinook salmon and consistent with the goals of Amendment 97 (see Sections 1.6.1 and 1.6.2 of the RIR for additional detail).
To address the emergency, NMFS must implement an emergency rule that waives the notice-and-comment rulemaking period. The benefits of waiving notice-and-comment rulemaking will serve the industry and public by allowing for additional harvest of groundfish by the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. Any delay that results in implementing rulemaking will reduce opportunities to harvest non-pollock groundfish species such as flatfish and Pacific cod. The Pacific cod fishery reopens for this sector in early September, and represents the primary fall opportunity for restoring lost catches and groundfish revenue for this sector. Sections 1.6.1 and 1.6.2 of the RIR describe the potential additional harvest opportunities for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector in greater detail.
Without the waiver of notice-and-comment rulemaking, the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector will not have sufficient time to prosecute these fisheries as intended. Flatfish and Pacific cod trawl fisheries are high volume fisheries that require extended fishing time. Fishing time would be extremely limited, or unavailable, with notice-and-comment rulemaking. For example, the trawl Pacific cod fishery closes by regulation on November 1, 2015, so the directed Pacific cod fishery is only available for harvest during a limited period of time. Vessel owners need time to secure new crew, which may have shifted into other groundfish fisheries, non-groundfish fisheries or other activities. In addition, vessel owners need sufficient lead time to revise fishing plans, restock vessels, change gear, and have the vessel travel to and from the fishing grounds to prosecute the reopened fisheries.
Processors also require lead time to plan for new deliveries of groundfish that they have ceased to process due to the closure. Once the summer production cycle was altered by eliminating landings from the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, processors removed these traditional fishery products from their annual processing cycle and budget planning. Processors will need to secure market orders with buyers for desired finished product forms and establish pricing. Packaging materials and shipping containers must be delivered to processing plants. Processing factories must be reconfigured to process groundfish. Processors will also need to secure and assign labor to these fisheries. This emergency rule needs to be effective in advance of the start of the fisheries in order to provide processors with the time needed to plan and prepare for processing operations. Therefore, the benefits of the waiver of public notice and comment more than offset the value of standard notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Any change to the Chinook salmon PSC limit for the non-Rockfish Program CV Sector will require an amendment to the FMP amendment. Secretarial review of FMP amendments must follow the process set forth in section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires more time to complete than is available to provide relief for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector. While the normal rulemaking process is the preferred avenue for making regulatory changes, as it provides interested parties the full ability to comment, the Council and NMFS have determined that in this case, the cost of the foregone harvest opportunity outweighs the benefit of using the more protracted, standard process because it would be ineffective for addressing the immediate issue. The Council initiated a typical fishery management plan amendment process in June 2015 to address this situation in a more permanent manner.
The purpose of this emergency rule is to promulgate a temporary regulatory amendment that would provide a one-time allocation of additional Chinook salmon PSC to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, while allowing continued analysis of the issue in a separate, and standard, amendment process. This emergency rule is needed to re-open groundfish trawl fisheries in order to temporarily ameliorate unforeseen economic consequences due to the unexpectedly high use of Chinook salmon PSC in the Western GOA.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this emergency rule is consistent with the National Standards, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This emergency rule will allow groundfish fisheries for the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector to be reopened as early as August 2015 to address the unforeseen, early closing of these fisheries in early May 2015. Once groundfish seasons are reopened, this emergency rule is anticipated to allow for harvest of most of the remainder of the non-pollock fisheries available to this sector and should prevent prolonged economic losses from the closure to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector and processors receiving landings from this sector. The reopened fisheries may partially restore the indirect economic effects to the community of Kodiak that would otherwise be lost if the fishery closing is allowed to extend to the end of 2015 GOA groundfish season, which is currently scheduled for December 31, 2015. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment, impacted entities would likely be prevented from harvesting the 13,000 to 15,000 metric tons of groundfish that would otherwise be available to impacted entities through the remainder of 2015. The lost revenue from this forgone harvest is estimated to be approximately $4.6 million in ex-vessel value and $11.3 million in first wholesale value. Fishermen, shoreside processors, and communities that participate in the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector would have limited alternatives to mitigate this significant, negative economic impact due to the directed fishing closure. Providing an additional PSC limit of 1,600 Chinook salmon to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector as soon as possible is likely to restore a substantial portion of the foregone groundfish harvest due to the closure, restore the associated harvesting and processing revenues, and provide benefits to communities engaged in these fisheries, primarily the community of Kodiak.
As explained earlier, after the closure of the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector on May 3, 2015, NMFS became aware of the significant difference in Chinook salmon PSC use in 2015 in comparison with the level of use anticipated in the Amendment 97 Analysis. The Council and NMFS had no way of foreseeing that the amount of Chinook salmon PSC taken by this sector would be so much greater than the historic number of Chinook salmon PSC. The Chinook salmon PSC limit was reached quickly,
Finally, the time required for notice-and-comment rulemaking would not provide relief from the closure of these fisheries because it would not provide sufficient time for participants to harvest enough groundfish to offset the foregone revenue due to the closure. The Magnuson-Stevens Act FMP amendment process sets forth certain requirements that must be followed, such as a 60-day comment period on an FMP amendment. Because the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector must re-open by mid-August, there is not enough time to follow the FMP amendment process prescribed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and provide sufficient time for the sector to prosecute critical fisheries that are typically open the first few days of September, or for processing operations to prepare for receiving groundfish from landings in September. For fishery participants to prosecute these reopened fisheries in early September they must contact, secure, and redeploy crew; as well as restock vessels, change gear, and travel to the fishing grounds. For processors to be prepared to accept groundfish deliveries from these vessels in early September, they must secure market orders, prepare packaging materials, and shipping containers, as well as contact, secure and train and house processing laborers. NMFS has no other way than this emergency rule to amend these PSC limits in a timely manner to restore forgone fishing opportunities for 2015. Allowing for access to the remaining groundfish harvest for the rest of 2015 provides immediate economic benefits that outweigh the value of the deliberative notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
Similarly, for the reasons above that support the need to implement this emergency rule in a timely manner, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness provision of the Administrative Procedure Act and make the emergency rule effective immediately upon publication in the
This action is being taken pursuant to the emergency provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is exempt from OMB review. The RIR prepared for this emergency rule is available from NMFS (see
This emergency rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the rule is not subject to the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii)
(7) * * *
(i) Vessels in a sector defined at paragraph (i)(2) of this section will catch the applicable Chinook salmon PSC limit specified at paragraph (i)(3)(i) or paragraph (i)(8) of this section for that sector, NMFS will publish notification in the
(8) From August 10, 2015 until December 31, 2015, NMFS establishes a Chinook salmon PSC limit of 1,600 in the Western and Central reporting areas of the GOA for the Non-Rockfish Program catcher vessel Sector defined in paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this section.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Request for information; Extension of comment period.
We published a Request for Information in the
The comment period for the Request for Information published at 80 FR 34097, June 15, 2015, which originally was to close August 14, 2015, is extended through October 13, 2015.
We invite you to submit comments on this Request for Information. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
S. Brett Offutt, Director, Litigation and Economic Analysis Division, P&SP, GIPSA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250–3601, (202) 690–4355,
GIPSA published a Request for Information in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG Model G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103 TWIN II, and G103A TWIN II ACRO gliders. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a broken bell-crank installed in the air brake control system. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 24, 2015.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co.KG, Steige 3, D–88487 Walpertshofen, Germany; phone: ++49
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329–4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2015–0116, dated June 24, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
A report was received concerning a broken bell-crank, installed in the air brake control circuit approximately 1.4 m outside the wing root rib of a GROB G 103 Twin II sailplane. Preliminary investigation results revealed additional cases of cracks on the same part, installed in the air brake control systems of the early Twin II type design.
The same bell-cranks are also installed at the same location in the control systems of other models belonging to the same type design (see list of affected models under Applicability).
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the air brake system, possibly resulting in reduced control of the sailplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Fiberglas-Technik issued Technische Mitteilung (TM)/Service Bulletin (SB) TM–G08/SB–G08 (one document) and Anweisung (A)/Instructions (I) A/I–G08 (one document) to provide instructions for a check of the air brake locking forces, the inspection of the bell-crank and, if cracks are found, replacement of the bell-crank.
Additionally, TM–G07/SB–G07 (one document) and A/I–G07 (one document) provide instructions for the installation of inspection openings in the wing of GROB G 103 TWIN II and G 103 A TWIN II ACRO sailplanes to facilitate the inspection of the bell-crank. (For the TWIN ASTIR and TWIN ASTIR TRAINER sailplanes, such an opening is required by LBA AD 92–190/2 (GROB SB 315– 45/2.) This installation is optional for sailplanes not exceeding the original intended life limit.
For the reason described above, this AD requires a check of the air brake locking forces, an inspection for cracks in the air brake control unit and, if cracks are found, replacement of the affected flight control system parts. This AD is a temporary measure and further AD action may follow.
You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG has issued Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), (TM–G08)/(SB–G08), Ausgabe (English translation: Edition) April 24, 2015; and Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Anweisung (English translation: Instructions), (A/I–G08), Ausgabe (English translation: Edition) April 24, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the air brake locking forces; inspecting the bell-crank; and, if cracks are found during the inspections, replacing the bell-crank. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We consider this AD interim action. The design approval holder is working toward a terminating action for the inspections. We may take further AD action in the future.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 106 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 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 the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $18,020, or $170 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would be as follows:
• Replacement of bell-crank would take about 5 work-hours per product. Required parts would cost about $566 for a total of $991 per product.
• Installation of optional inspection openings would take about 15 work-hours per product. Required parts would cost about $1,004 for a total of $2,279 per product.
We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120–0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
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 September 24, 2015.
None.
This AD applies to Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG Model G103 TWIN ASTIR, G103 TWIN II, and G103A TWIN II ACRO gliders, all manufacturer serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a broken bell-crank installed in the air brake control system. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a broken bell-crank which could lead to failure of the air brake system, possibly resulting in reduced control.
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, inspect the locking forces of the air brake control unit, and, if any discrepancy is found, before further flight, correct the locking forces. Do the inspection and correction of any discrepancy following the instructions of Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), (TM–G08)/(SB–G08), Ausgabe (English translation: Edition) April 24, 2015; and Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Anweisung (English translation: Instructions), (A/I–G08), Ausgabe (English translation: Edition) April 24, 2015.
This service information contains German to English translation. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) used the English translation in referencing the document. For enforceability purposes, we will refer to the Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner service information as it appears on the document.
(2) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the bell-crank installed in the air brake control system, and, if any cracks are found, before further flight, replace the bell-crank with a serviceable part. Do the inspection and replacement following the instructions of Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), (TM–G08)/(SB–G08), Ausgabe (English translation: Edition) April 24, 2015; and Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Anweisung (English translation: Instructions), (A/I–G08), Ausgabe (English translation: Edition) April 24, 2015.
In the lower wing surface inspection, openings near the bell-crank may be installed to simplify the inspection and make a possible replacement of the bell-crank possible. This optional installation is described in GROB Luft Und Raumfahrt Service Bulletin 315–45/2, dated December 21, 1995; and Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), (TM–G07)/(SB–G07), Ausgabe (English translation: Edition) April 24, 2015.
(3) Within 30 days after replacing a bell-crank as required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, report the inspection results of the removed bell-crank to Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG. You may find contact information for Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner GmbH & Co. KG in paragraph (h) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2015–0116, dated June 24, 2015; GROB Luft Und Raumfahrt Service Bulletin 315–45/2, dated December 21, 1995; and Fiberglas-Technik Rudolf Lindner Technische Mitteilung (English translation: Service Bulletin), (TM–G07)/(SB–G07), Ausgabe (English translation: Edition) April 24, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would revise HUD's regulations for reviewing the previous participation in federal programs of certain participants seeking to take part in multifamily housing and healthcare programs administered by HUD's Office of Housing. Specifically, the proposed rule would clarify and simplify the process by which HUD reviews the previous participation of participants that have decision-making authority over their projects as one component of HUD's responsibility to assess financial and operational risk to the projects in these programs. The proposed rule would clarify which individuals and entities will be reviewed, HUD's purpose in conducting such review, and describe the review to be undertaken. By targeting more closely the individuals and actions that would be subject to prior participation review, HUD not only brings greater certainty and clarity to the process but provides HUD with flexibility as to the necessary previous participation review for entities and individuals that is not possible in a one-size fits all approach. Through this rule, HUD proposes to replace the current previous participation regulations in their entirety.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., weekdays, at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled in advance by calling the Regulations Division at 202–708–3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at
Aaron Hutchinson, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6178, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202–708–3994 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339 (this is not a toll-free number).
Currently, applicants seeking to participate in HUD's multifamily housing and healthcare programs must certify that all principals involved in a proposed project have acted responsibly and have honored their legal, financial, and contractual obligations in their previous participation in HUD programs, in certain programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and in projects assisted or insured by state and local government housing finance agencies. HUD's regulations governing the assessment of previous participation are codified in 24 CFR part 200, subpart H (Subpart H), and require applicants to complete a very detailed and lengthy certification form (HUD Form 2530).
The 2530 form currently requires disclosure of all principals to be involved in the proposed project, a list of projects in which those principals have previously participated or currently participate in, a detailed account of the principals' involvement in the listed project(s), and assurances that the principals have upheld their
Since the regulations were last revised, with the changing deal structures and transaction practices, it has become apparent that the current regulations are both over-inclusive and under-inclusive, creating unnecessary burdens for participants and HUD alike. For example, the current review and certification process requires submittal of information about the entities' organizational structures and detailed information about each entity in the organizational structure. This information is often duplicative of information that HUD collects elsewhere in program application procedures. The previous participation review process set forth in the current regulations can obfuscate what entities and individuals exercise true control over a project. Applicants are often highly complex entities. Current procedures have not kept step with contemporary organizational structures or transactional practices. For example, the current regulations' definitions pre-date the development of limited liability companies as an organizational entity.
Participants in HUD's multifamily housing and healthcare programs have long complained about the delays with HUD's previous participation process because of the overly detailed information required to be submitted. Complaints focused on the difficulties associated with obtaining information from all the limited partner investors in individual projects and in duplicating information for multiple levels of affiliates. Current regulations require that HUD field offices send certain requests for determination to HUD headquarters instead of resolving them at the field office level, which contributes to further delays. The process set forth in the current regulations for appealing adverse determinations is cumbersome and yet fails to specify that participants can participate in the appeal or submit information they deem relevant to the appeal. Participants in HUD's multifamily housing and healthcare programs also stated that the previous participation process requires participants to complete a Form 2530 for each project, regardless of the number of Forms 2530 each participant completed in the recent past, regardless of how many projects the participant is involved in each year, and regardless of whether the participant is a well-established, experienced institutional entity already familiar to HUD. Moreover, the Form 2530 is not tailored to any particular program or set of circumstances. Yet, the current regulations require its use for all programs requiring previous participation review.
Over the years, HUD has made efforts to improve the process and minimize the time and collection burden it takes to undergo the previous participation review process. In 1998, a housing re-engineering task force met with members of the multifamily housing industry to discuss suggestions for improving HUD's previous participation process.
Since 2007, HUD has not undertaken further rulemaking to improve the previous participation process, but has taken incremental steps designed to minimize burden. On January 22, 2010, HUD issued Housing Notice H2010–04, which revised the previous participation process with respect to placing “flags” for certain conditions pertaining to the multifamily housing and healthcare programs process. A flag generally will necessitate additional review by HUD. The 2010–04 notice issued by HUD limited the appropriateness of flags related to failing scores under the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) physical inspection process to those situations in which a property has a REAC score below 60 but above 30. Under the notice, such properties are no longer required to be flagged in APPS, but instead the owner of the property is provided the opportunity to meet with the applicable HUB or Program Center to discuss the identified physical deficiencies, and work out a plan to correct the deficiency or deficiencies.
While the guidance provided in the Housing notices and the new Form 2530 PDF with fillable sections have provided some improvement to the previous participation review process, significant improvement is not achieved by solely changing the form by which information is submitted. HUD recognizes that to achieve the improvement that HUD and HUD's multifamily housing and healthcare programs industry partners seek, HUD must change the process. In this regard, HUD is continuing to review its previous participation review practices for potential improvements. These revised regulations are one piece of those continuing efforts.
In soliciting public comment on regulations on which HUD should focus on streamlining and reducing burden, through notice published on March 2, 2011, at 76 FR 11395,
Changes to the regulations governing the previous participation process would benefit both HUD's multifamily housing and healthcare participants and HUD. The detailed prescriptive procedure in the current regulations is at once overly inclusive and under-inclusive, in some instances making it difficult for HUD to review the previous participation of certain controlling entities and individuals with control, while at other times requiring HUD to review the previous participation of entities and individuals that will not exercise control over a proposed project.
The proposed rule would revise the Subpart H regulations in their entirety, replacing the current prior participation review process. While the current regulations mandate that Form HUD 2530 be used, the proposed rule would shift the emphasis of the regulations from this specific form to the substance of what is being asked from whom. This would provide HUD with flexibility to develop form(s) specifically tailored to certain programs, which seek information relevant to those programs, and expand electronic data practices for gathering information. This approach would further decrease the burden of information collection imposed on applicants. The proposed revised process would also clarify when past participation review is triggered. Furthermore, the proposed rule streamlines the appeals process for applicants who receive adverse determinations and specifies that they have a right to participate in the appeal and submit information they may feel is helpful in their circumstances.
Because the instructions of the 2530 form mirror the requirements of the existing regulations, it is assumed that the instructions will need to be revised once the regulations are finalized, following consideration of public comments received in response to this proposed rule. Although the proposed regulations envision greatly reducing the burden of completing the 2530 form, because information will be collected from substantially fewer entities, the substance of the information collected is anticipated to remain largely the same. The information sought by the 2530 form is directed to obtaining core performance information that is needed of an entity that has control over the project. The APPs system will continue to be available for use.
The proposed rule would consolidate the central concepts currently codified in Subpart H into four regulatory sections. These proposed sections are: § 200.214 (Covered Projects), § 200.216 (Controlling Participants), § 200.218 (Triggering Events), and § 200.220 (Previous Participation).
First, proposed § 200.214 establishes the new term “Covered Project” to refer to the types of proposed projects that subject certain entities and individuals to previous participation review. The definition of Covered Project would include many of the categories of projects currently listed in § 200.217, which describes the types of projects that require principals to submit their previous participation certification. It also includes a category for projects insured under sections 542(b) and 542(c) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 17107 note), which sections provide HUD with insurance authority independent of the National Housing Act and authorizes certain risk-sharing arrangements with certain entities.
Proposed § 200.216 would identify the individuals and entities that are subject to previous participation review. This concept is currently captured in HUD's existing codified regulations in the definition for “Principal” in § 200.215(e) as well as in § 200.218, which sets out who must certify and sign Form 2530. Proposed § 200.216 would establish the new term “Controlling Participant,” in order to clarify that HUD will only seek information pertaining to the previous participation of those individuals or entities who will exercise control over the proposed project. The definition for Controlling Participant would be narrower than the specific types of individuals and entities included in the existing definition for “principal”; instead of including any individuals or entities who have any interest in the project other than an arms-length fee arrangement for professional services. Instead of including long lists of enumerated individuals and affiliate entities, the definition for Controlling Participant would include the persons or entities determined by HUD to have control over the finances or operation of a proposed project. As required by the Preservation Approval Process Act of 2007, investor entities with limited liability in Covered Projects benefiting from low-income housing tax credits, that do not have operational or policy control or influence over a Controlling Participant are all specifically excluded from previous participation review. The proposed regulation would expand this exemption to investors in other kinds of tax credits who also do not exercise control of the project.
Proposed § 200.218 would establish the concept of a “Triggering Event,” which specifically identifies which actions taken by a Controlling Participant would require the submission of materials for the purpose of undergoing previous participant review.
Proposed § 200.220 would describe what is involved in a previous participation review. The purpose of the review is to focus on the prior performance of Covered Projects in which the Controlling Partner exercised actual or constructive control and to determine whether any serious findings reflect adversely on the Controlling Participants' integrity, competency, or ability to exercise control of a Covered Project responsibly.
In addition, the proposed rule would add the term “Commissioner” to the definitions for Subpart H. The subpart H regulations would be revised to clarify that HUD's decision making authority in the review process resides with the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner (Commissioner), and the Commissioner's designees.
Under the current regulations, HUD is required to evaluate applicants' prior performance using specific criteria set out in the definition for “risk” in § 200.215 and using the standards for disapproval outlined in § 200.230. HUD has found these criteria and standards to be constraining and, at times, have presented an unnecessarily high bar to participation by qualified applicants. In other instances, HUD has found these criteria and standards to insufficiently cover a circumstance that HUD determines should constitute an impermissible risk to the Department. Nor is previous participation review the primary avenue for the Department to assess the risk of a project; various application and underwriting procedures assess different components of risk. Previous participation review is merely one component of assessing risk, and the proposed rule more accurately reflects its purpose.
Controlling Participants who are debarred, suspended, subject to restrictions under 2 CFR part 2424, or prohibited from doing business with any other federal department or federal agency are automatically precluded from participation in federal programs,
Collectively, these changes would significantly reduce the initial paperwork burden for applicants and would allow the Department to undertake a targeted review to those who control the finances and/or operation of a project.
In addition to the proposed regulatory changes discussed above, the proposed rule would make several other streamlining and clarifying changes. For example, § 200.230 of the currently codified regulations requires HUD to consider particular kinds of events or flags in its evaluation of applicants, even when these may not be relevant or indicative of real risk. Any flag is enough to delay a project and can stand as an obstacle to the applicant's participation. The proposed rule refocuses the purpose of this previous participation review. If a violation rises to the level of indicating unacceptable risk, in accordance with contemporary transactional practices, the violation must be mitigated. If not, HUD and the participant have more flexibility in how and when to mitigate the violation. In addition, §§ 200.241–200.245 in the currently codified regulations establish a detailed appeals process for applicants who receive an adverse determination. The proposed rule would streamline these regulations addressing the appeals process by consolidating them into a single section. Proposed § 200.222 would substitute the opportunity for a hearing before the standing Multifamily Participation Review Committee with the opportunity for reconsideration before a review committee or a reviewing officer, as established by the Commissioner. Further, the proposed rule explicitly provides that the applicant have an opportunity to participate in this reconsideration process and submit information on their behalf; the current regulations lack these provisions.
HUD believes these proposed changes significantly reduce the burden of the previous participation process, which has long been subject to complaints of being too burdensome a process. HUD welcomes comments on how this process may be further streamlined but preserves HUD's right and need to determine the suitability of applicants to participate in HUD's multifamily housing and healthcare programs.
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.
This rule was determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, nor was it found to be an economically significant regulatory action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order.
This rule responds to the direction of Executive Order 13563 to reduce burden. As discussed in this preamble, HUD stakeholders have long complained about the previous participation process, and HUD has offered measures over the past to improve this process. However these measures were not successful in providing a significant overhaul of the previous participation review process sufficient to remedy the common complaints. HUD believes that this proposal to streamline the previous participation review process strikes the appropriate balance between allowing HUD to effectively assess the suitability of applicants to participate in HUD's multifamily housing and healthcare programs, while interjecting sufficient flexibility into the process in order to remove a one-size-fits-all review process. Such a balance best allows HUD to make determinations of suitability in order to accurately access risk.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
As has been discussed in this preamble, this rule proposes to greatly streamline HUD's previous participation review process. As noted earlier in this preamble, and discussed in more detail in the preceding section, this process has long been the subject of complaint by HUD participants as an overly burdensome process. HUD believes that the changes proposed by this rule would allow HUD to better consider the differences of any applicant and tailor requested information to that applicant, including whether the applicant is a small entity. For these reasons, HUD has determined that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in this preamble.
This proposed rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern, or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this proposed rule is categorically excluded from
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Order. This rule does not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments nor preempts state law within the meaning of the Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.
The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The burden of information collection in this proposed rule is estimated as follows:
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the information collection requirements in the proposed rule regarding:
(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) Whether the proposed collection of information enhances the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Whether the proposed information collection minimizes 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 (
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding the information collection requirements in this rule. Under the provisions of 5 CFR part 1320, OMB is required to make a decision concerning this collection of information between 30 and 60 days after today's publication date. Therefore, a comment on the information collection requirements is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives the comment within 30 days of today's publication. This time frame does not affect the deadline for comments to the agency on the proposed rule, however. Comments must refer to the proposal by name and docket number (FR–5850–P–01) and must be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Fax number: (202) 395–6947 and Colette Pollard, HUD Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 2204, Washington, DC 20410.
Interested persons may submit comments regarding the information collection requirements electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment opportunity, Fair housing, Housing standards, Lead poisoning, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble above, and in accordance with HUD's authority under 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 200 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1702–1715z–21; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
It is HUD's policy that, in accordance with the intent of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701
As used in this subpart:
The following types of multifamily and healthcare projects are Covered Projects subject to the requirements of this subpart, provided however that single family projects are excluded from the definition of Covered Projects:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Interest reduction payments under section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–1);
(2) Rent Supplement payments under section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s); or
(3) Project-based housing assistance payment contracts under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), excluding those issued pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13).
(a)
(1) An owner of a Covered Project;
(2) A borrower of a loan financing a Covered Project;
(3) A management agent;
(4) An operator (in connection with healthcare projects insured under the following section of the National Housing Act: section 232 (12 U.S.C. 1715w) and section 242 (12 U.S.C. 1715z–7));
(5) A master tenant (in connection with any multifamily housing project insured under the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701
(6) A general contractor;
(7) In connection with a hospital project insured under section 242 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–7), members of a hospital Board of Directors (or similar body) and executive management (such as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) that HUD determines to have control over the finances or operation of a Covered Project; and
(8) Any other person or entity determined by HUD to have control over the finances or operation of a Covered Project.
(b)
(c)
(1) Investor entities with limited liability in Covered Projects benefiting from tax credits, including but not limited to low-income housing tax credits pursuant to section 42 of title 26 of the United States Code, whether such investors are syndicators, direct investors or investors in such syndicators and/or investors;
(2) Individuals or entities that do not have operational or policy control or influence over an entity that is a Controlling Participant;
(3) Mortgagees acting in their capacity as such; and
(4) Public housing agencies (PHAs), where the PHA is acting in its capacity as a PHA owning or operating public housing.
Each of the following is a Triggering Event that may subject a Controlling Participant to Previous Participation review under § 200.220:
(a) An application for FHA mortgage insurance, excluding applications already approved by HUD;
(b) An application for funds provided by HUD, such as but not limited to supplemental loans or flexible subsidy loans;
(c) A request to change any Controlling Participant with respect to a Covered Project;
(d) A request for consent to an assignment of a housing assistance payment contract under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 or of another contract pursuant to which a Controlling Participant will receive funds in connection with a Covered Project;
(e) A bid to purchase a Covered Project or mortgage note held by the Commissioner; or
(f) A sale of a HUD-held mortgage affecting a Covered Project, or a sale of any HUD-held Covered Project that is now or will be subject to a Use Agreement or any other continuing HUD requirements or affordability restrictions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, HUD may elect to refrain from conducting Previous Participation review under this subsection where a bidder's Previous Participation has already been reviewed under paragraph (e) of this section, in order to avoid a duplicative review.
(a)
(2) The Commissioner will not review Previous Participation for interests acquired by inheritance or by court decree.
(3) In connection with the submittal of an application for any Triggering Event, applicants shall identify the Controlling Participants and, to the extent requested by HUD, make available to HUD the Controlling Participant's Previous Participation in Covered Projects.
(b)
(2) The Commissioner shall provide notice of the determination to the Controlling Participant including the reasons for disapproval or limitation. The Commissioner may provide notice of the determination to other parties, as well, such the FHA-approved lender in the transaction.
(c)
(2) The Commissioner may disapprove a Controlling Participant if the Commissioner determines:
(i) The Controlling Participant is restricted from doing business with any other department or agency of the federal government; or
(ii) The Controlling Participant's record of Previous Participation reveals significant risk to proceeding with the Triggering Event.
(d)
(1) Condition or limit the Controlling Participant's participation;
(2) Temporarily withhold issuing a determination in order to gather more necessary information; or
(3) Require the Controlling Participant to remedy or mitigate outstanding violations of HUD requirements to the Commissioner's satisfaction in order to participate in the Triggering Event.
(a) Where participation in a Triggering Event has been disapproved, otherwise limited or conditioned because of Previous Participation review, the Controlling Participant may request reconsideration of such determination by a review committee or reviewing officer as established by the Commissioner.
(b) The Controlling Participant shall submit requests for such reconsideration in writing within 30 days of receipt of the Commissioner's notice of the determination under § 200.220.
(c) The review committee or reviewing officer shall schedule a review of such requests for reconsideration. The Controlling Participant shall be provided advance written notification of such a review. The Controlling Participant shall be provided the opportunity to submit such supporting materials as the Controlling Participant desires or as the review committee or reviewing officer requests.
(d) Before making its decision, the review committee or reviewing officer will analyze the reasons for the decision(s) for which reconsideration is being requested, as well as the documents and arguments presented by the Controlling Participant. The review committee or reviewing officer may affirm, modify, or reverse the initial decision. Upon making its decision, the review committee or reviewing officer will provide written notice of its determination to the Controlling Participant setting forth the reasons for the determination(s).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
Written comments must be received on or before September 9, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0483, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jeff Hunt at (206) 553–0256,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble:
On July 1, 1987, the EPA promulgated revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) for particulate matter focused on inhalable coarse particles (PM
On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the particulate matter standards to establish the fine particulate matter (PM
On January 27, 1997, the EPA approved
In this action, as the Governor's designee for revisions to the Washington SIP, Ecology requested that the EPA approve changes to
As discussed above, the 1994 p.m.
The primary element of the solid fuel burning device regulations to help ensure maintenance of the NAAQS is the episodic curtailment program which restricts the use of woodstoves and fireplaces on days that are conducive to the buildup of particulate matter concentrations. The curtailment program restricts the use of woodstoves and fireplaces by calling stage 1 and stage 2 burn bans consistent with the changes to Chapter 70.94.473 of the Washington Clean Air Act.
In addition to the episodic curtailment program, the regulations include provisions that impose restrictions on what can be burned in woodstoves and fireplaces at any time. The regulations require that seasoned wood (defined as wood with a moisture content of 20% or less) be burned in woodstoves and fireplaces. The regulations also specifically prohibit the burning of garbage (and other named materials) in woodstoves and fireplaces, but does allow the burning of paper sufficient to start a fire. These provisions control the particulate matter emissions from woodstoves and fireplaces on a continuous basis, whereas the episodic curtailment program imposes additional restrictions on the use of woodstoves and fireplaces only when necessary to address the potential buildup of particulate matter concentrations.
Finally, the regulations establish a 20% opacity limit on smoke from residential woodstoves and fireplaces. This provision provides a visual indicator for the proper operation of a woodstove or fireplace, including the use of properly seasoned wood. The 20% opacity limit applies at all times except during the starting of a fire and the refueling of a woodstove or fireplace. However, during those times, the episodic curtailment program and other restrictions regulating fuel contained in the provisions described above continue to apply, as clarified in the June 22, 2015 letter from the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency.
Accordingly, this combination of regulatory provisions constitutes continuous emission limitations, consistent with Federal Clean Air Act requirements. Specifically, reliance on the episodic curtailment program and other provisions regulating fuel described above serves as an adequate alternative emission limit during the starting and refueling of fires in residential woodstoves and fireplaces, when use of the 20% opacity limits would be infeasible. Reliance on those requirements during starting and refueling periods is limited and specific to the operation of residential stoves and fireplaces, minimizes the frequency and duration of those periods, and minimizes the impact of emissions on ambient air quality during those periods, while the episodic curtailment program ensures that emission impacts are avoided during potential worst-case periods. While the EPA's guidance on alternative emission limits also specifies that the owner or operator's actions during startup and shutdown periods should be documented by signed, contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence, application of this recordkeeping requirement in this case would be an unreasonable burden for individual home heating situations. See 80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015 [relevant discussion begins on page 33913].
The EPA is proposing to approve Washington's SIP revision received July 10, 2015. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference into the SIP the SRCAA regulations shown in Table 1. In addition, Ecology and SRCAA submitted Section 8.11,
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to revise our incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—Table 9 “Additional Regulations Approved for the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) Jurisdiction” to reflect the regulations shown in Table 1. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the 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 it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. This SIP revision is not approved to apply in Indian reservations in the State or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, and Particulate matter.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a draft state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on June 1, 2015, for parallel processing, to address the emissions statement requirements for the State's portion of the Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas (Memphis, TN-MS-AR) 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the “Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area” or “Area”). Annual emissions reporting (
Written comments must be received on or before September 9, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0247, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Bell can be reached at (404) 562–9088 and via electronic mail at
Consistent with EPA regulations found at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting review of a SIP submittal, parallel processing allows a state to submit a plan to EPA prior to actual adoption by the state. Generally, the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action, and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the
If the revision that is finally adopted and submitted by the State is changed in aspects other than those identified in the proposed rulemaking on the parallel process submission, EPA will evaluate those changes and if necessary and appropriate, issue another notice of proposed rulemaking. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been adopted by the state and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
On June 1, 2015, the State of Mississippi, through MDEQ, submitted a formal letter request for parallel processing of a draft SIP revision that the State had already taken through public comment. The letter also contains a schedule for final adoption of the draft SIP revision. MDEQ requested parallel processing so that EPA could begin to take action on its draft SIP revision in advance of the State's submission of the final SIP revision. As stated above, the final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revision has been: (1) Adopted by Mississippi, (2) submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP; and (3) evaluated by EPA, including any changes made by the State after the June 1, 2015, draft was submitted to EPA.
On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm).
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS, based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour
Based on the nonattainment designation, Mississippi is required to develop a nonattainment SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements. Specifically, pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B), Mississippi is required to submit a SIP revision addressing emissions statements requirements.
Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NO
On June 1, 2015, Mississippi submitted a draft SIP revision, for parallel processing, containing an emissions statements requirement related to its portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area.
Mississippi's June 1, 2015, draft submission seeks to include 11 Mississippi Administrative Code (MAC), Part 2, Chapter 11, “Regulations for Ambient Air Quality Non-Attainment Areas,” into its SIP to meet the emissions statements requirement of the CAA section 182(a)(3)(B).
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to finalize regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to finalize the incorporate by reference of 11 MAC, Part 2, Chapter 11 entitled “Regulations for Ambient Air Quality Non-Attainment Areas.” EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
EPA is proposing to approve the draft SIP revision submitted by Mississippi on June 1, 2015, to incorporate 11 MAC, Part 2, Chapter 11, “Regulations for Ambient Air Quality Non-Attainment Areas,” into its SIP to meet the section 182(a)(3)(B) emissions statements requirement for the Mississippi portion of the Memphis, TN-MS-AR Area. EPA has preliminarily concluded that the State's submission meets the requirements of sections 110 and 182 of the CAA.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) seeks comment on proposed changes to its rules governing the Emergency Alert System (EAS) to incorporate three new event codes into and revise two geographic location codes identified in the EAS rules.
Comments are due on or before September 9, 2015 and reply comments are due on or before September 24, 2015.
You may submit comments, identified by EB Docket No. 04–296 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lisa Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418–7452, or by email at
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
1. In the
2. The EAS is a national public warning system through which broadcasters, cable systems, and other service providers (EAS Participants) deliver alerts to the public to warn them of impending emergencies and dangers to life and property. The primary purpose of the EAS is to provide the President with “the capability to provide immediate communications and information to the general public at the national, state and local levels during periods of national emergency.” The EAS also is used by state and local governments, as well as NWS, to distribute alerts. According to NWS, about 90 percent of all EAS activations are generated by NWS and relate to short-term weather events. The Commission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the NWS implement the EAS at the federal level. The EAS is a broadcast-based, hierarchical alert message distribution system through which an alert message originator at the local, state or national level encodes (or arranges to have encoded) a message in the EAS Protocol, which provides basic information about the emergency involved. The message is then broadcast by one or more EAS Participants and subsequently relayed from one station to another until all affected EAS Participants have received the alert and delivered it to the public. This process of EAS alert distribution among EAS Participants is often referred as the “daisy chain” distribution architecture.
3. The EAS Protocol utilizes fixed codes to identify various aspects of the alert. Of particular relevance to this
4. NWS requests that the Commission add a new “Extreme Wind Warning” (EWW) event code to provide the public with advance notice of the onset of extreme sustained surface winds (greater than or equal to 115 miles per hour) associated with a major land-falling hurricane (category 3 or higher). NWS explains that use of the “Tornado Warning” (TOR) event code, then the only available code to warn of high winds, caused confusion when used to warn of Hurricane Charley's high winds in 2004. NWS states that although it started using the EWW code during the 2007 hurricane season, EAS Participants are “reluctant to add and relay the new [e]vent [c]ode via the EAS, fearing FCC adverse action without addition of the new EWW Event Code to the Part 11.” According to NWS, no other existing EAS event code is adequate or acceptable to activate the EAS for an extreme wind warning. Although section 11.31 of the rules contains other codes regarding hurricanes (
5. NWS also requests that the Commission add two new event codes covering storm surges: “Storm Surge Watch” (SSA) and “Storm Surge Warning” (SSW). NWS indicates that the “Storm Surge Watch/Warning will be issued when there is a significant risk of life-threatening inundation from rising water moving inland from the ocean.” In the event of a storm surge, a watch (SSA) would be issued 48 hours in advance of the event taking place and a warning (SSW) would be issued 36 hours in advance of the event, and will help to mitigate damage from storm surge, the leading cause of death in tropical cyclones.
6. In support of its request, NWS notes that it currently does not explicitly issue warnings for storm surge, notwithstanding that the National Hurricane Center (NHC) has vigorously advocated for a storm surge watch and storm surge warning for a number of years. The NWS explains that, according to the NHC, “storm surge losses in the hundreds or thousands of lives have occurred in every coastal state from Texas to South Carolina, and in some states north of there.” NWS explains that “[w]hile the threatening winds of a hurricane are important, most deaths from tropical cyclones result from storm surge.” NWS further explains that “current Hurricane Watch/Warning does not provide clear or sufficient information to allow citizens to determine if they are threatened by wind or storm surge or both.” NWS notes that issuing storm surge watch/warning conditions is supported by both the NHC and FEMA, and that storm surge warnings are utilized by the government meteorological services of other nations, such as Environment Canada, and that use of such warnings has been advocated by the World Meteorological Organization for member nations. Accordingly, the NWS requests that the Commission revise its EAS rules to add Storm Surge Watch and Warning codes so that the NWS may offer these alerts to the public.
7. The Commission proposes adding both the extreme wind warning and storm surge event codes to section 11.31(e) of the Commission's rules, thus authorizing their use by EAS Participants. The Commission believes that extreme wind and storm surge events pose significant dangers to human health and property, dangers that the Commission's current EAS rules are not designed to prevent. The Commission observes that not revising the EAS rules to allow the NWS to warn the public of these events risks unnecessary harm to the public, a risk inconsistent with the Commission's statutory mandate of “promoting the safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.” The Commission thus tentatively concludes that the event codes NWS proposes could promote public safety by saving lives and reducing the potential for injuries and damage to property. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.
8. On a more granular level, the Commission seeks comment on whether the addition of the EWW, SSA, and SSW event codes would promote the public interest by enabling the public to deal more effectively with emergency situations, and, if so, how the specificity added by use of the codes would assist the public in these regards. The Commission observes that the NWS previously documented the confusion associated with using the TOR event code for non-tornados in its
9. The Commission also seeks comment regarding the extent to which these new event codes will help promote safety of life and property. With respect to Hurricane Katrina, for example, NWS states that “[a]t least [1,500] people lost their lives during Katrina, and many of those deaths occurred because of storm surge, either directly or indirectly.” In addition, NWS states that “Katrina also caused well over $100 billion in damage from its surge and winds.” The Commission also notes that a recent analysis of data from Atlantic tropical cyclones occurring from 1963–2012 indicates that 49 percent of all deaths directly attributable to those events were caused by storm surge. Further, storm surge damage is not limited to coastal areas. According to NHC data, for example, the storm surge (measured as water height above normal astronomical tide level) experienced in New York State during Hurricane Sandy reached 9.4 feet in the Battery on the southern tip of Manhattan, and caused (with some
10. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs for implementing the proposed event codes. NWS states that the additional costs associated with the addition of these new event codes will be minimal and can generally be added through a firmware and/or software update. Several EAS equipment manufacturers confirm NWS's contentions. Trilithic Inc. (Trilithic), for example, states that, for its two EAS encoder/decoder models currently deployed in the field, the event codes can be added through a software update, adding that “[t]he modifications are minimal and there would be no cost passed onto our customers.” Monroe Electronics, Inc. (Monroe), states that the event codes could be implemented in its EAS device models through a software update, “downloaded by users from Monroe's secure site, and applied to each EAS device by the user, with basic instructions provided by Monroe or its Digital Alert Systems subsidiary.” Similarly, Sage Alerting Systems, Inc. (Sage), states that end users could implement the proposed event codes by downloading a settings file. The Commission tentatively concludes that the costs for implementing the proposed event codes will be nominal to manufacturers and either nominal or non-existent for EAS participants. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion and the costs for individual EAS Participants.
11. The Commission notes that Sage observes that one of its EAS device models in the field can no longer support software updates and, therefore, presumably cannot be updated with the proposed event codes. The Commission seeks comment on how this might affect the adoption of these additional event codes and to what extent this device model is being used by EAS Participants. How do the costs associated with implementing these event codes compare with the benefit that might result from their implementation?
12. Finally, the Commission seeks comment generally on whether it should make any other changes to the event codes currently set forth in the EAS Protocol. Are the event codes proposed by NWS the right event codes? Is there a better way to address the issues identified by NWS than these proposed changes?
13. NWS requests that the Commission revise the areas defined in the geographic location codes identified in section 11.31(f) of the EAS rules as location codes 75 and 77, which cover offshore marine areas. These location codes, and their defined areas, like all of the Offshore (Marine Areas) location codes contained in the EAS Protocol, were originally adopted in 2002 pursuant to a request by NWS. Currently, the marine area defined for location code 75 covers “Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East Coast, south of Currituck Beach Light, N.C., following the coastline into Gulf of Mexico to Bonita Beach, FL, including the Caribbean,” while location code 77 covers “Gulf of Mexico, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast from the Mexican border to Bonita Beach, FL.” NWS indicates that it has changed the end point it uses for generating weather alerts for both of these areas from Bonita Beach, FL, to Ocean Reef, FL, and, accordingly, requests that the area covered by location code 75 be changed to “Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East Coast, south of Currituck Beach Light, NC, following the coastline to Ocean Reef, FL, including the Caribbean,” and that the area covered by location code 77 be changed to “Gulf of Mexico, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast from the Mexican border to Ocean Reef, FL.” According to the NWS, allowing the EAS rules to contain definitions for the two offshore location codes that are inconsistent with the definitions that NWS has implemented for issuing its alerts may cause confusion for broadcasters, the emergency management community and the maritime commerce community, particularly when tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings are issued for southern Florida. NWS notes that it has checked with several EAS encoder/decoder manufacturers, and was informed that the cost and time to make the requested change would be nominal.
14. The Commission proposes revising section 11.31 of its rules to adopt the definitional changes for location codes 75 and 77. As indicated above, location codes 75 and 77 were added as location codes in 2002 pursuant to a request by NWS, and this proposed rule change amounts to a modification of a location definition created and primarily used by the NWS. The Commission observes that, like all the Offshore (Marine Areas) location codes, location codes 75 and 77 are used with the Special Marine Warning (SMW) event code, among others, and thus are vital to maintaining the efficiency of marine operations and safety of vessels and their crews. The Commission also observes that NWS has indicated that it is already applying the revised definitions for location codes 75 and 77 in the field, which suggests a potential for confusion among EAS Participants, the emergency management community and the maritime commerce community in a major hurricane corridor of the United States if the definitions for these location codes currently identified in section 11.31(f) are not harmonized with NWS's usage. The Commission also proposes revising footnote 1 of section 11.31 to delete the reference to a past deadline and to clarify that the numbers assigned to the offshore marine areas listed in the table of geographic areas in section 11.31(f), while consistent with the format of the state and territory location codes derived from the ANSI standard, are not a product of that standard, but rather were assigned by the NWS.
15. With respect to cost considerations, NWS states that it has checked with several EAS encoder/decoder manufacturers, and was informed that the cost and time to make the requested change would be nominal. Recent submissions by EAS equipment manufacturers suggest that the costs to EAS Participants for implementing these changes in their EAS equipment—like the event codes discussed in the previous section—are likely to be
16. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to revise the geographic descriptions for location codes 75 and 77, as requested by NWS. Is such action necessary to prevent or ameliorate potential confusion among broadcasters, the emergency management community and the maritime commerce community that might otherwise exist if the current descriptions for these location codes in section 11.31(f) were left unchanged and continued to diverge from present usage by NWS? Would the proposed amendments to location codes 75 and 77 enhance the efficiency of marine operations and safety of vessels and their crews, and otherwise benefit the public? With respect to costs, the Commission seeks comment on whether the costs of implementing these proposed revisions to the location codes would be
17. The Commission believes that the prompt deployment of alerts using these new codes is consistent with the safety of the public in affected areas. The Commission realizes that in order to ensure the full distribution to an affected community of an alert that uses one of these new codes, all EAS participants in the EAS distribution relay chain for that community must have equipment that is programmed to receive and process the new codes. Accordingly, the Commission proposes that EAS equipment manufacturers integrate these codes into equipment yet to be manufactured or sold, and make necessary software upgrades available to EAS Participants no later than six months from the effective date of any rules adopted as a result of this notice. The Commission also would encourage State Emergency Coordination Committees (SECCs) to update their state and local EAS plans and to take any other steps necessary to ensure the smooth implementation of these new codes within their states (
The Commission believes that enabling these codes in this timeframe will not unduly burden EAS Participants or EAS equipment manufacturers. The Commission notes that the record indicates that most EAS device models already are capable of processing these codes, or can be made to do so with minor software modifications. Further, as the Commission has clarified previously, modifications to authorized EAS equipment that are necessary to implement revisions to the EAS event codes and location codes may be implemented as Class I permissive changes that do not require prior authorization to be implemented. Accordingly, the Commission suggests that the implementation schedule proposed herein would afford a reasonable period of time and would not present any undue burden. The Commission seeks comment on this conclusion.
18. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
19. In this
20. Authority for the actions proposed in this
21. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Below is a description and estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the adopted rules.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Financial Network, Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database as of March 31, 2013, about 90 percent of an estimated 1,385 commercial television stations in the United States have revenues of $38.5 million or less. Based on this data and the associated size standard, the Commission concludes that the majority of such establishments are small. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (“NCE”) stations to be 396. The Commission does not have revenue estimates for NCE stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for their operations, so the Commission will assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. In addition, there are approximately 567 licensed Class A stations, 2,227 licensed low-power television (“LPTV”) stations, and 4,518 licensed TV translators. Given the nature of these services, the Commission will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
27. The Commission notes that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. The Commission estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities affected by the proposed rules, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
28. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any television stations from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37. None.
38. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”
39. The rule changes contemplated by the
40. None.
41. This document contains no proposed new or modified information collection requirements. Accordingly, the Commission does not need to seek comment from the general public and OMB on any information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by PRA, nor does the Commission seek specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
42. The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as “permit-but-disclose” proceedings in accordance with the Commission's
43. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS:
• Paper Filers: Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
44. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. Written public comments are requested in the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this document, as set forth on the first page of this document, and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
46. Accordingly,
47.
48.
Radio, Television, Emergency alerting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 11 to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(f) * * *
Research, Education, and Economics, USDA.
Solicitation of members.
In accordance with the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.A. 5843), the United States Department of Agriculture announces the solicitation for nominations to fill five vacancies on the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC), a subcommittee of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics (NAREEE) Advisory Board.
The deadline for nominations is August 28, 2015.
The nominee's name, resume, completed Form AD–755, and any letters of nomination or support must be submitted via one of the following methods:
(1) Email to
(2) By mail delivery service to REE Advisory Board Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 332A, Jamie L. Whitten Building, Washington, DC 20250.
Michele Esch, Executive Director, REE Advisory Board Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Jamie L. Whitten Building, Room 332A, Washington, DC 20250–0321; telephone: 202–720–3684; fax: 202–720–6199; or email:
Nominations are open to
Appointments to the National Genetic Research Advisory Council will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Festo Corporation (Festo), an operator of FTZ 46, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility located in Mason, Ohio. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 22, 2015.
The Festo facility is located within Site 9 of FTZ 46. The facility is used for the production of pneumatic and electronic cylinders and drives, valve manifolds, and electronic control systems used for industrial automation applications. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Festo from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Festo would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to pneumatic and electric cylinders and drives, valve manifolds, and electronic control systems (duty rates ranges from free to 2.7%) for the foreign status components noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.
The components sourced from abroad include: Light oils/hydrocarbon mixtures; greases; aluminum oxides; petroleum lubricants; adhesives; pastes; epoxies; Loctite; Scotch Weld; Thermaglue; Araldite; simson; heat transfer pastes; polymer adhesives; polyacetals; acrylic and plastic rods/sticks/profiles shapes; plastic pipes/hoses (and with fittings)/tubes/sleeves/couplings/ plugs/adapters/unions/connectors/connection sets; plastic adhesive tape/foil/strip/labels/stickers/films/sheets/covers/boxes/packaging/bins/lids/cases/containers/bags/sacks/caps/covers/ handles/knobs/o-rings/washers/belts/fasteners; polyvinyl chloride plates/sheets/film/foil/strip; rubber rods/tubes/profiles/strips/sheets/plates/pipes/hoses/hose sets/conveyor belts/gaskets/seals/o-rings/stops/rings/discs/plugs; cases; plywood; paperboard cartons/boxes/cases/containers; paper tape/labels/stickers/manuals/printed materials/posters; felt (HTSUS Subheading 5602.21); transmission/conveyor belts; glass containers; stainless steel strips/coils/bars/rods; steel tubes/pipes/profiles/bars/rods/pipe fittings/sleeves/elbows/unions/bends/rings/grommets/gaskets/connectors/couplings/adapters/bushings/nipples/elbows/plugs/ferrules/flanges/bellows/inserts/glands/containers/grills/netting/fencing/stops/caps/dowels/pins/leaf springs/plug seals/ring seals/straps/extensions; steel fasteners (screws, cotters and pins, washers, spacers, rivets, bolts, studs, nuts, inserts); copper nipples/couplings/unions/sleeves/banjos/plugs/adapters/pillars/wires/bushings; copper fasteners (rivets, cotters, cotter pins, nuts, bolts, screws, plug screws); aluminum-aluminum alloy profiles/strips/sheets/plates/tubes/unions/adapters/flanges/banjos/containers for liquefied or compressed gases/couplings/bushings/couplings/spacers/washers/rings/sleeves/supports/gaskets/brackets/mountings/connectors/fittings/branch modules/ring pieces/sub-bases); aluminum fasteners (screws, rivets, pins, nuts; nickel fittings); castors; latches; adjustor knobs; rails; handles; base metal hoses/pipes/tubes/bellows/unions; identification plates; hydraulic engines and motors; pneumatic engines/motors/cylinders/actuators; diaphragm pumps; air compressors; air dryers; membrane dryer service kit; air/water/gas filters and cartridges; filter gaskets; humidifiers; inlet units; vacuum units; solenoid blocks; clean air restrictors; purifying equipment; air manifold assemblies; filling/closing/sealing/labeling/capsuling machines; lubricators; airgun nozzle/oiler bowls; data storage units; printed circuits; handling modules; grippers; valves (pressure-reducing, hydraulic/pneumatic, check, ball, solenoid, regular, ballcocks, angle, inline, gate, hand) and related parts; ball/needle/housed/plain shaft bearings and related cups, bushings, discs, spacers, housings; camshafts; crankshafts; transmission shafts; gears; gear racks; gear boxes; ball screws; pulleys; free wheel units; axles kits; clamping sleeves; coupling housings; drive shafts; motor flanges; pinions; metal gaskets; synchronous electric motors; AC/DC motors and related parts; electrical transformers; power supplies; permanent magnets; electromagnetic couplings/lifting heads/work holders and related parts; clutches; brakes; lithium batteries; voltage regulators; cassettes; software on compacts disks; memory/smart cards; electrical items (resistors, capacitors, motor starters, controllers, circuit breakers, terminals, starters, overload protectors, splices, connectors, switches, fuses, relays, switches, plug sockets, terminal strips/sockets, cat5 couplers, boxes, bridges, grounding sets, manifolds, modules, multipoles); motor controllers; motor controls; interfaces; bus nodes; control blocks; operating units; sensor boxes; PLC boards; printed circuit board assemblies; flat electrical modules and related covers, housings, frames; electric modules (analogue, branch, flat, input, output, extension); mercury vapor lamps; diodes; light emitting diodes; electronic simulators; demonstration kits; ethernet cables; electric cables; connecting lines; insulated wires; wiring harnesses; electrical conductors; fiber optic cables; conduit tubing; insulating fittings; insulating fittings; prisms; mirrors; lenses; liquid crystal devices; lasers; optical appliances/instruments; disc calculators; slide rules; micrometers; calipers; gauges; rulers/tape measures; measuring devices and related parts; demonstration instruments; barometers; thermometers; flow meters; sensors; pressure gauges/transmitters; oscilloscopes/graphs; optical instruments; testing devices; temposonics; pneumatic industrial process control instruments; and, time delay inserts (duty rate ranges from free
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 21, 2015.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Pierre Duy at
On April 22, 2015, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Port of Stockton, California, grantee of FTZ 231, requesting to expand Subzone 231A subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 231, on behalf of Medline Industries, in Lathrop, California.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) by Miami-Dade County, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 281, requesting authority to expand its zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)) to include a new magnet site in Miami, Florida. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on August 4, 2015.
FTZ 281 was established by the Board under the alternative site framework on August 2, 2012 (Board Order 1844, 77 FR 47816, 8/10/2012). The zone currently has a service area that includes the northern half of Miami-Dade County and consists of the following sites (three magnet and thirty-one usage-driven):
The applicant is now requesting authority to expand its zone to include an additional magnet site:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 9, 2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 26, 2015.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
On November 26, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Peter Gromacki (“Gromack”), was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701,
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS received notice of Gromacki's conviction for violating the IEEPA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Gromacki to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS received a submission from Gromacki. Based upon my review and consideration of that submission, and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Gromacki's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of ten (10) years from the date of Gromacki's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Gromacki had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Pursuant to Sections 766.25(h) and 766.23 of the Regulations, the Director of BIS's Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, may, in order to prevent evasion of a denial order, make a denial order applicable not only to the respondent, but also to other persons related to the respondent by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business.
As provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, BIS gave notice to JEN Fibers, LLC (“JEN Fibers”) and Performance Engineered Nowovens, LLC (“Performance Engineered”) that its export privileges under the Regulations could be denied for up to ten (10) years due to its relationship with Gromacki and that BIS believed that naming JEN Fibers and Performance Engineered as persons related to Gromacki would be necessary to prevent evasion of a denial order imposed against Gromacki. In providing such notice, BIS gave JEN Fibers and Performance Engineered an opportunity to oppose their addition to the Gromacki Denial Order as related parties.
Having received and reviewed a submission from Gromacki, I have decided, following consideration of that submission and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, to include name JEN Fibers and Performance Engineered as Related Persons and make this Denial Order applicable to JEN Fibers and Performance Engineered, thereby denying their export privileges for ten (10) years from the date of Gromacki's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which JEN Fibers and Performance Engineered had an interest at the time of Gromacki's conviction. The 10-year denial period is scheduled to end on November 26, 2023.
Gromacki is the owner of JEN Fibers and Performance Engineered and operates both businesses from his home. Therefore, JEN Fibers and Performance Engineered are related to Gromacki within the meaning of Section 766.23. BIS also has reason to believe that JEN Fibers and Performance Engineered should be added as a related persons in order to prevent evasion of this Denial Order.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
First, from the date of this Order until November 26, 2023, Peter Gromacki, with a last known address of 88 White Bridge Road, Middletown, NY 10940, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents, or representatives, and JEN Fibers LLC and Performance Engineered Nonwovens, LLC, with a last known address of 88 White Bridge Road, Middletown, NY 10940, and when acting for or on their behalf, their successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, agents, or representatives (each as “Denied Person” and collectively the “Denied Persons”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including but not limited to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.
Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Third, in addition to the Related Person named above, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other individual, firm, corporation, or other association or organization or other person related to a Denied Person by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order if necessary to prevent evasion of this Order.
Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 and Section 766.25(g) of the Regulations, Gromacki may file an appeal of the issuance of this Order against him with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.
Fifth, in accordance with Part 756 and Section 766.23(c) of the Regulations, JEN Fibers and Performance Engineered may file an appeal of their naming as related persons in this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. This appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.
Sixth, a copy of this Order shall be provided to Gromacki, JEN Fibers and Performance Engineered and shall be published in the
Seventh, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until November 26, 2023.
This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain pasta (pasta) from Italy. The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. We preliminarily find that DeMatteis Agroalimentare S.p.A. (DeMatteis) (also known as, DeMatteis Agroalimentare SpA) and La Molisana S.p.A. received countervailable subsidies during the POR. We are rescinding the review with respect to Industria Alimentare Filiberto Bianconi 1947 S.p.A. (Bianconi) and Delverde Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (Delverde), as both companies timely withdrew their requests for review. For reasons discussed below, the Department preliminarily intends to rescind the review, in part, with respect to La Molisana Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (LMIA). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Jennifer Meek or Joseph Shuler, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–2778 and (202) 482–1293, respectively.
The scope of the order consists of certain pasta from Italy. The merchandise subject to the order is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy,” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated July 31, 2015 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), and hereby adopted by this notice.
The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each program found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a countervailable subsidy,
In making the preliminary findings, we relied, in part, on an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts available in accordance with
As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the companies Bianconi, and Delverde timely withdrew their requests for administrative review of themselves. No other parties requested reviews of these companies. The Department, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), is therefore rescinding this administrative review with respect to Bianconi and Delverde.
We initiated a review for LMIA. However, as explained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the record demonstrates that LMIA ceased operations prior to the POR. Moreover, La Molisana reported that all entries under either company name (La Molisana or LMIA) were of subject merchandise produced and exported by La Molisana. Accordingly, because we find that LMIA was not operational during the POR, and made no entries of subject merchandise during the POR, we preliminarily intend to rescind the review with respect to LMIA.
In accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated individual subsidy rates for De Matteis and La Molisana for the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. We preliminarily find that the net subsidy rates for DeMatteis and La Molisana are as follows:
The Department intends to disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including our analysis of and responses to issues raised by the parties in their comments, within 120 days after publishing these preliminary results.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we assigned a subsidy rate for the producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
For the rescinded companies, countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
Also in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above for De Matteis and La Molisana, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most-recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
These preliminary results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). Also, as explained in this notice, the Department is amending its final affirmative CVD determination to correct the rate assigned to Shandong Yongsheng Rubber Group Co., Ltd. (Yongsheng). In addition, the Department is amending the final affirmative AD determination to correct the rate assigned to the GITI companies
Emily Halle at (202) 482–0176 (CVD); or Toni Page at (202) 482–1398 (AD), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On June 18, 2015, with respect to passenger tires from the PRC,
The scope of these orders is passenger vehicle and light truck tires. Passenger vehicle and light truck tires are new pneumatic tires, of rubber, with a passenger vehicle or light truck size designation. Tires covered by these orders may be tube-type, tubeless, radial, or non-radial, and they may be intended for sale to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market.
Subject tires have, at the time of importation, the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Subject tires may also have the following prefixes or suffix in their tire size designation, which also appears on the sidewall of the tire:
Prefix designations:
P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars.
LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks.
Suffix letter designations:
LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service.
All tires with a “P” or “LT” prefix, and all tires with an “LT” suffix in their sidewall markings are covered by this investigation regardless of their intended use.
In addition, all tires that lack a “P” or “LT” prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, as well as all tires that include any other prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that is among the numerical size designations listed in the passenger car section or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, as updated annually, unless the tire falls within one of the specific exclusions set out below.
Passenger vehicle and light truck tires, whether or not attached to wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported attached to a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope.
Specifically excluded from the scope are the following types of tires:
(1) Racing car tires; such tires do not bear the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall and may be marked with “ZR” in size designation;
(2) new pneumatic tires, of rubber, of a size that is not listed in the passenger car section or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book;
(3) pneumatic tires, of rubber, that are not new, including recycled and retreaded tires;
(4) non-pneumatic tires, such as solid rubber tires;
(5) tires designed and marketed exclusively as temporary use spare tires for passenger vehicles which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall are listed in Table PCT–1B (“T” Type Spare Tires for Temporary Use on Passenger Vehicles) of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
(b) the designation “T” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation, and,
(c) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed is 81 MPH or a “M” rating;
(6) tires designed and marketed exclusively for specialty tire (ST) use which, in addition, exhibit each of the following conditions:
(a) The size designation molded on the tire's sidewall is listed in the ST sections of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
(b) the designation “ST” is molded into the tire's sidewall as part of the size designation,
(c) the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “For Trailer Service Only” or “For Trailer Use Only”,
(d) the load index molded on the tire's sidewall meets or exceeds those load indexes listed in the Tire and Rim Association Year Book for the relevant ST tire size, and
(e) either
(i) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed does not exceed 81 MPH or an “M” rating; or
(ii) the tire's speed rating molded on the sidewall is 87 MPH or an “N” rating, and in either case the tire's maximum pressure and maximum load limit are molded on the sidewall and either
(1) both exceed the maximum pressure and maximum load limit for any tire of the same size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book; or
(2) if the maximum cold inflation pressure molded on the tire is less than any cold inflation pressure listed for that size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, the maximum load limit molded on the tire is higher than the maximum load limit listed at that cold inflation pressure for that size designation in either the passenger car or light truck section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book;
(7) tires designed and marketed exclusively for off-road use and which, in addition, exhibit each of the following physical characteristics:
(a) The size designation and load index combination molded on the tire's sidewall are listed in the off-the-road, agricultural, industrial or ATV section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book,
(b) in addition to any size designation markings, the tire incorporates a warning, prominently molded on the sidewall, that the tire is “Not For Highway Service” or “Not for Highway Use”,
(c) the tire's speed rating is molded on the sidewall, indicating the rated speed in MPH or a letter rating as listed by the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, and the rated speed does not exceed 55 MPH or a “G” rating, and
(d) the tire features a recognizable off-road tread design.
The products covered by the orders are currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.10.10.10, 4011.10.10.20, 4011.10.10.30, 4011.10.10.40, 4011.10.10.50, 4011.10.10.60, 4011.10.10.70, 4011.10.50.00, 4011.20.10.05, and 4011.20.50.10. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.99.45.10, 4011.99.45.50, 4011.99.85.10, 4011.99.85.50, 8708.70.45.45, 8708.70.45.60, 8708.70.60.30, 8708.70.60.45, and 8708.70.60.60. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
On June 11, 2015, the Department issued its affirmative final determination in the AD investigation.
After analyzing the comments and rebuttals received, we determine, in accordance with section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made ministerial errors in our calculations for the
On June 11, 2015, the Department issued its affirmative final determination in the CVD investigation.
After analyzing the comments and rebuttals received, we determined, in accordance with section 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made ministerial errors in certain calculations for the
As stated above, on August 3, 2015, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination in its
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of passenger tires from the PRC. These antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of passenger tires from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 27, 2015, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of passenger tires from the PRC as described in the “Scope of the Orders” section, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 27, 2015, the date of publication in the
Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated below, adjusted, where appropriate, for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through, as discussed above.
Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination in an AD investigation may not remain in effect for more than four months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four month period to no more than six months. At the request of the GITI companies, who account for a significant proportion of passenger tires from the PRC, we extended the four-month period to no more than six months in this case.
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of passenger vehicle tires from the PRC, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 26, 2015, the date the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows.
With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of passenger tires from the PRC, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 29, 2014 (
As stated above, on August 3, 2015, in accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination in this investigation, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of passenger tires from the PRC, and that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from the PRC that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances finding.
In accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of passenger tires from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 1, 2014, the date of publication of the
In accordance with Section 703(d) of the Act, the provisional measures period for the CVD investigation ended on March 31, 2015 and CBP was instructed to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of passenger vehicle tires from the PRC, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 31, 2015, the date the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to reinstitute suspension of liquidation, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the
With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of passenger tires from the PRC, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated countervailing duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 2, 2014 (
This notice constitutes the AD and CVD orders with respect to passenger tires from the PRC pursuant to sections 736(a) and 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find an updated list of orders currently in effect by either visiting
These orders and the amended
Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, Subsidies Enforcement Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651; as amended by Pub. L. 106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), the Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security determine,
On May 29, 2015, Texas University Health Science Center officials notified the Department that they wished to withdraw the above-referenced application for duty-free entry of a scientific instrument. They noted that the instrument will be cleared through Customs with duty paid by the vendor in order to be used at a trade show for demonstrations. As noted in the regulations at section 301.5(g), the Department of Commerce shall discontinue processing an application when a request has been made by the applicant to withdraw the application. Therefore, the Department of Commerce has discontinued the processing of this application, in accordance with section 301.5(g) of the regulations.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico.
Effective date: August 10, 2015.
Elizabeth Eastwood or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3874 or (202) 482–5973, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the order is seamless refined copper pipe and tube. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7411.10.1030 and 7411.10.1090, and also may enter under HTSUS subheadings 7407.10.1500, 7419.99.5050, 8415.90.8065, and 8415.90.8085. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), unless this deadline is extended.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Golden Dragon 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 companies involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 41 days after the publication date 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 seamless refined copper pipe and tube from Mexico 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 Golden Dragon will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established 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; (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 for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 26.03 percent, the all-others rate established in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(4).
This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce
Notice of open meeting.
The Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) is a Federal Advisory Committee established to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, the NOAA Administrator, on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 303 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998, as amended, and such other appropriate matters that the Under Secretary refers to the Panel for review and advice.
The public meeting will be held from September 16–18, 2015, September 16, 10:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; September 17, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; and September 18, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All meetings times are EDT.
Silver Spring, MD, with the meeting location to be posted online at the Web site below. Please refer to the following Web site for updates on the location, agenda, presentations, speaker's biographies, and Web conferencing service sign up:
Visit the NOAA HSRP Web site at
The meeting will be open to the public and public comment periods (on-site) will be scheduled at various times throughout the meeting. Public comment periods will be included in the draft and final agendas posted on the HSRP Web site listed above and written comments are welcome in advance. Each individual or group making verbal comments will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. Comments will be recorded. Advance written comments should be submitted to
The Panel will hear from Federal agencies and non-Federal associations about their mission or business uses for NOAA's navigation services; what value these services bring; and what improvements could be made to NOAA's navigation services. Other business will include reports by the HSRP working groups on their progress or results in response to NOAA's tasking on coastal intelligence and resilience, and emerging Arctic priorities.
The Panel will consider input from these discussions to develop recommendations for the NOAA Under Secretary to improve NOAA's navigation services.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Douglas Potts, (978) 281–9341 or
This request is for an extension of a currently approved collection associated with the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Greater Atlantic Region manages these fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Northeastern United States through the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The regulations implementing the FMP are specified at 50 CFR part 648 subpart E.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements at §§ 648.74, 648.75, and 648.76 form the basis for this collection of information. We request information from surfclam and ocean quahog individual transferable quota (ITQ) permit holders to issue ITQ permits and to process and track requests from permit holders to transfer quota share or cage tags. We also request information from surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ permit holders to track and properly account for surfclam and ocean quahog harvest shucked at sea. Because there is not a standard conversion factor for estimating unshucked product from shucked product, NMFS requires vessels that shuck product at sea to carry on board the vessel a NMFS-approved observer to certify the amount of these clams harvested. This information, upon receipt, results in an efficient and accurate database for management and monitoring of fisheries of the Northeastern U.S. EEZ.
Georges Bank has been closed to the harvest of surfclams and ocean quahogs since 1990 due to red tide blooms that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). In 2013, a portion of Georges Bank was reopened with certain restrictions. We request information from surfclam and ocean quahog ITQ permit holders who fish in the reopened portion of the Georges Bank Closed Area to ensure compliance with the Protocol for Onboard Screening and Dockside Testing in Molluscan Shellfish. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the commercial fishing industry, and NMFS developed the PSP protocol to test and verify that clams harvested from Georges Bank continue to be safe for human consumption. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program adopted the PSP protocol at the October 2011 Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference.
Forms are online at
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of public comment.
This notice announces the dates of a comment period during which the public is invited to provide input on two interrelated multistakeholder community proposals. Together, the proposals set forth a plan for transitioning NTIA's stewardship role over the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions. The purpose of this notice is to encourage interested parties to comment on the two connected proposals—the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan and the Enhancements to Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Accountability Related to the IANA Stewardship Transition. NTIA will utilize the input provided in making its determination of whether the proposals have received broad community support and whether the plan satisfies the criteria required to transition its stewardship role.
Comments on the IANA Stewardship Transition Plan are due on or before September 8, 2015; comments on the Enhancements to ICANN Accountability are due on or before September 12, 2015.
Written comments on the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal should be submitted at
Ashley Heineman, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4701, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0298; email
A July 1, 1997, Executive Memorandum directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the Internet's domain name system (DNS) in a manner that increases competition and facilitates international participation in its management.
• Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
• Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
• Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and
• Maintain the openness of the Internet.
Consistent with the clear policy expressed in bipartisan resolutions of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives
The ICG and CCWG are now seeking public comment on their respective recommendations. Comments provided will be used by NTIA to determine whether the proposals satisfy NTIA's criteria and have received broad community support. Comments will also be considered in any NTIA certification before the U.S. Congress that may be required prior to terminating the existing IANA functions contract currently in place between NTIA and ICANN.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.
Notice of application.
EDF Trading North America, LLC (Applicant) has applied to renew its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before September 9, 2015.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE–20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On June 17, 2010, DOE issued Order No. EA–367 to the Applicant, which authorized the Applicant to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities. That authority expired on June 17, 2015. On July 24, 2015, the Applicant filed an application with DOE for renewal of the export authority contained in Order No. EA–367 for an additional five-year term. The applicant states that it has not engaged in any electricity export transactions to Canada since its authorization expired on June 17, 2015, and will not engage in any until the Department renews its authorization to do so.
In its application, the Applicant also states that it does not own or operate any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that the Applicant proposes to export to Canada would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning the Applicant's application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA–367–A. An additional copy is to be provided directly to both Eric Dennison, EDF Trading North America, LLC, 4700 West Sam Houston Parkway North, Suite 250, Houston, TX 77041 and Kenneth W. Irvin, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K. Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.
A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021,
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee under Section 9008(d) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that agencies publish these notices in the
August 27, 2015 8:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m.
August 28, 2015 8:30 a.m.–1:00 p.m.
Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street NW., Washington, DC 20008.
Elliott Levine, Designated Federal Official for the Committee, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–1476; Email:
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Chevron Power Holdings Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 24, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original license to construct the Coleman Hydroelectric Project, located on Little Timber Creek near the Town of Leadore, in Lemhi County, Idaho, and has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. The project would not occupy any federal lands.
The draft EA includes staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the draft EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
For further information, contact Jim Hastreiter at (503) 552–2760.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Comment request.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collections FERC–725G1 to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the
Comments on the collection of information are due by September 9, 2015.
Comments filed with OMB, identified by the FERC–725G1 information should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. RD14–14–000, by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
Take notice that on July 31, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Wolverine Pipe Line Company filed a petition for declaratory order seeking approval of proposed priority service terms, committed rate structure and contract provisions underlying Detroit Metro System project, designed to transport refined petroleum products from Chicago area refineries in Illinois and Indiana to Buckeye Partners' Woodhaven terminal in Michigan.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Thunder Spirit Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 24, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
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:
On April 21, 2015, Commission staff issued a public notice for Murphy Dam, LLC's preliminary permit application to study the feasibility of the Murphy Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 14670. The proposed project would be located on the Connecticut River, near Pittsburg, Coos County, New Hampshire.
The notice established June 20, 2015, as the deadline to file motions to intervene. On July 22, 2015, the Connecticut River Watershed Council, Inc. filed a late motion to intervene in the proceeding. Pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in the table in Unit II of this notice, and opens a public comment period on the proposed decisions. This notice also opens the dockets and announces the availability of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for 2-propen-1-aminium,
Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit II.A., by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the table in Unit II.
1.
2.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown in the following table, and opens a 60-day public comment period on the proposed interim decisions.
The registration review final decisions for these cases are dependent on the assessments of listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), determinations on the potential for endocrine disruption, and/or assessments of exposure and risk to pollinators.
The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier documents related to the registration review of the case. For example, the review typically opens with the availability of a Summary Document, containing a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final Work Plan typically is placed in the docket following public comment on the initial docket. Following a period for public comment on the proposed interim decisions announced in this notice, the Agency will issue interim registration review decisions for products containing the affected active ingredients.
The registration review program is being conducted under congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for reviewing pesticide registrations, originally with a goal of reviewing each pesticide's registration every 15 years to ensure that a pesticide continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The Agency's final rule to implement this program was issued in the
The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decisions. All comments should be submitted using the methods in
The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and, as appropriate, will provide a “Response to Comments Memorandum” in the docket for each of the pesticides included in the table in Unit II. The interim registration review decision will explain the effect that any such comments had on the decision and provide the Agency's response to significant comments, as needed.
Background on the registration review program is provided at:
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Region 2, of a proposed settlement agreement pursuant to Section 122(h) of CERCLA, entered into by and EPA, Region 2, and Patterson Fuel Oil Co., Inc. (“Settling Party”), pertaining to the Gowanus Canal Superfund Site (“Site”) located in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Settling Party agrees to pay EPA $100,000.00 for the recovery of response actions incurred at the Site.
The Settlement Agreement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or to take administrative action against the Settling Party pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a), with regard to the Site, as defined in the Settlement Agreement. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the Settlement Agreement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the Settlement Agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed Settlement Agreement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2 offices, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007–1866.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 9, 2015.
The proposed Settlement Agreement can be viewed at
A copy may also be obtained from Brian Carr, Assistant Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866, 212–637–3170,
Brian Carr, Assistant Regional Counsel, at the address, email or telephone number stated above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; correction.
On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development (ORD), gave notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Subcommittee in the
The Designated Federal Officer via mail at: Cindy Roberts, Mail Code 8104R, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564–1999; or via email at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed partial consent decree; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA” or the “Act”), notice is hereby given of a proposed partial consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:
Written comments on the proposed partial consent decree must be received by September 9, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number OGC–2015–0544, online at
Stephanie L. Hogan, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564–3244; fax number: (202) 564–5603; email address:
The proposed partial consent decree would partially resolve a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club seeking to compel the Administrator to take actions under CAA section 110(c)(1) and (k)(2). The Plaintiff's lawsuit alleged that EPA has a mandatory duty to: (1) Promulgate a FIP for the State of Texas that meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM
The proposed partial consent decree does not resolve Plaintiff's claim with respect to the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 PM
On July 28, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its opinion in
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed partial consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed partial consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to this proposed partial consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the partial consent decree will be affirmed.
The official public docket for this action (identified by OGC–2015–0544) contains a copy of the proposed partial consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566–1752.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at
You may submit comments as provided in the
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Washington's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.
EPA's approval is effective September 9, 2015 for the State of Washington's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.
Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566–1175,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On December 14, 2009, the Washington State Department of Health (WA DOH) submitted an amended application titled “Washington State Lab Electronic Reporting System” for revision to its EPA-approved program under title 40 CFR part 142 to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed WA DOH's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision/modification set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Washington's request to revise its Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the
WA DOH was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of Washington's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's
(1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
(2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request;
(3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: Blue Sky Broadcasting, Station KPND, Facility ID 5992, BPH–20150717AAV, From Sandpoint, ID, To Dear Park, WA; Educational Media Foundation, Station KARQ, Facility ID 90988, BPED–20150706ACR, From San Andreas, CA, To Linden, CA; Educational Media Foundation, Station WDKL, Facility ID 64662, BPH–20150601ACZ, From Grafton, WV, To Loch Lynn Heights, MD; J&W Communications LLC, Station WAOQ, Facility ID 825, BPH–20150515ABK, From Brantley, AL, To Goshen, AL; Lakewood Communications LLC, Station WKSR–FM, Facility ID 27422, BPH–20150702AAL, From Lawrenceburg, TN, To Pulaski, TN; Lazer Licenses, LLC, Station KCAL, Facility ID 55416, BP–20150603AAS, From Redlands, CA, To Grand Terrace, CA; Mississippi College, Station WHJT, Facility ID 43180, BPH–20150618AAS, From Clinton, MS, To Kearney Park, MS; MTD, Inc., Station KNMB, Facility ID 87766, BPH–20150610AAR, From Cloudcroft, NM, To Capitan, NM; Northwest Indy Radio, Station KBSG, Facility ID 174954, BPED–20150610AAD, From Hoquiam, WA, To Raymond, WA; Radio Dalhart, Inc., Station KHJQ, Facility ID 82894, BPH–20150625ACH, From Leakey, TX, To Concan, TX; S and H Broadcasting, LLC, Station KVGH, Facility ID 2316, BPH–20150622AFT, From North Shore, CA, To Bermuda Dunes, CA; Top O' Texas Ed B/Casting Foundation, Station KOGC, Facility ID 174505, BPED–20150611ABM, From Wheeler, TX, To Carter, OK.
The agency must receive comments on or before October 9, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Tung Bui, 202–418–2700.
The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System,
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639–7570 or send an email to
Monitoring and Reporting System for the National Tobacco Control Program—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) works with states, territories, tribal organizations, and the District of Columbia (collectively referred to as “state-based” programs) to develop, implement, manage, and evaluate tobacco prevention and control programs. Support and guidance for these programs have been provided through cooperative agreement funding and technical assistance administered by CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP).
NCCDPHP cooperative agreements DP15–1509 (National State-Based Tobacco Control Programs) and DP14–1410PPHF14 (Public Health Approaches for Ensuring Quitline Capacity) continue to support efforts since 1999 to build state health department infrastructure and capacity to implement comprehensive tobacco prevention and control programs. Through these cooperative agreements, health departments in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam are funded to implement evidence-based environmental, policy, and systems strategies and activities designed to reduce tobacco use, secondhand smoke exposure, tobacco-related disparities and associated disease, disability, and death.
As part of routine monitoring, assessing progress, and ensuring accountability, cooperative agreement awardees will report information about their work plan objectives, activities, and performance measures. Each awardee will submit an Annual Work Plan Progress Report using an Excel-
In Year one, each awardee will have additional burden related to initial population of the reporting tools. Initial population of the Work Plan Tool is estimated to be six hours per response, and initial population of the Budget Tool is estimated to be four hours per response. Initial population of the tools is a one-time activity which is annualized over the three years of the information collection request. Due to annualization, the 53 awardees are represented as 18 awardees (53/3) in the burden table. After completing the initial population of the tools, pertinent information only needs to be updated for each annual report. The same instruments will be used for all information collection and reporting.
Awardees will upload their information to
OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation in the information collection is required as a condition of funding. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 445.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of two public advisory committees of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Stephanie L. Begansky at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at:
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Stephanie L. Begansky at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of Class Deviation from Competition Requirements for the Health Center Program.
In accordance with the Awarding Agency Grants Administration Manual (AAGAM) Chapter 2.04.103, the Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC) has been granted a class deviation from the exceptions to maximum competition requirements contained in the AAGAM Chapter 2.04.104A–5 to provide additional funding without competition to the 144 Health Center Program award recipients whose budget period ends November 30, 2015, for up to 5 months. The extension allows BPHC to eliminate the December 1 budget period start date by redistributing these grants to established start dates later in the fiscal year, thereby allowing award recipients comparable opportunity to prepare and submit applications while allowing BPHC to remain compliant with internal process timelines.
Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 254b, as amended).
BPHC uses the information award recipients report annually via the Uniform Data System (UDS) to objectively determine the patient and service area requirements that new and continuing applications must address. The requirements are available for applicant use in June. The deviation allows BPHC to redistribute the award recipients with December 1 starting dates to budget period start dates later in the fiscal year, thus allowing these award recipients comparable opportunity to prepare and submit applications while allowing BPHC to remain compliant with internal process timelines. By September 15, 2015, $85,451,535 will be awarded to these 144 award recipients to continue approved activities for up to 5 months. Award recipients will report progress and financial obligations made during their budget period extension through routine reports.
Olivia Shockey, Expansion Division Director, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration at 301–443–9282 or
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:
The Committee will break into Subcommittees and depart for site visits Thursday morning, September 10, at approximately 8:30 a.m. Subcommittees will visit the Otter Tail County Public Health Department in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, and the Sanford Heath Detroit Lakes Clinic in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota. The day will conclude at the Shooting Star Hotel with a period of public comment at approximately 5:00 p.m.
The Committee will meet to summarize key findings and develop a work plan for the next quarter and the following meeting on Friday morning, September 11, at 8:30 a.m.
Persons interested in attending any portion of the meeting should contact Pierre Joseph at the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) via telephone at (301) 945–0897 or by email at
Part A of the HHS Organization Manual Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is being amended at Chapter AP, “Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA),” as last amended at 70 FR 61621–22, dated Oct. 25, 2005. Over the past several years, ASPA has been refining its organizational structure to improve its strategic and operational communication capacities to more effectively support the mission and strategic priorities of the Department. A substantive element of this change has been a shift from a purely operational structure focusing on defined services to one that builds a whole-of-ASPA approach that draws on all communication skills across each of three key portfolios—health care, public health, and human services. The proposed organizational realignments will, therefore, update and revise ASPA's structure to reflect this more functional, strategic operational approach. The changes are described below:
I. Under Part A, Chapter AP, Section AP.00 Mission, delete in its entirety and replace with the following:
AP.00 Mission: The ASPA serves as the Secretary's principal counsel on public affairs, leading efforts across the Department to promote transparency, accountability and access to critical public health and human services information to the American people. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs conducts national public affairs programs, provides centralized leadership and guidance for public affairs activities within HHS' Staff and Operating Divisions and regional offices, manages the Department's digital communications and administers the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. The Division leads the planning, development and implementation of emergency incident communications strategies and activities for the Department. The ASPA reports directly to the HHS Secretary.
II. Under Part A, Chapter AP, Section AP.10 Organization, delete in its entirety and replace with the following:
AP.10 Organization. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, headed by the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA) who reports to the Secretary, supports public affairs efforts for three primary issue areas: Public Health, Human Services, and Health Care. ASPA consists of the following organizations:
III. Under Section AP.20 Functions, delete in its entirety, and replace with the following:
A. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (AP)—Provides executive leadership, policy direction, and management strategy for the Department's public affairs programs and activities. Counsels and acts for the Secretary and the Department in carrying out responsibilities under statutes, Presidential directives, and Secretarial orders for informing the general public, specialized audiences, HHS employees, and other Federal employees about the programs, policies, and services of the Department. Establishes and enforces policies and practices which produce an accurate, clear, efficient, and consistent flow of information to the general public and other audiences about departmental programs and activities. Provides
In addition, the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA) serves as the HHS Agency Chief FOIA Officer (ACFO), pursuant to Executive Order 13392 and the Freedom of Information Act, as amended by Public Law 110–175, 121 Stat. 2524, 5 U.S.C. 552(k). In this capacity, the ASPA/ACFO is responsible for administering information access and privacy protection laws and HHS regulations implementing these laws to ensure Department wide consistency in information disclosure, confidentiality policies, practices and procedures. Such laws include the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, as well as the open meetings provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Government in the Sunshine Act and the disclosure provisions of the Ethics in Government Act.
B. The Office of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (APE)—Responsible for developing effective strategies to publicize Departmental policies, goals and accomplishments, activities related to the Department's communications services and public affairs policy analysis, and management oversight of the Strategic Planning Division and the Speechwriting Division. Provides advice and assistance on all public affairs matters, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs; coordinates with ASPA's Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Public Affairs (Public Health, Health Care, Human Services) in providing prompt response to media and public inquiries, and in helping the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs generate a strategic focus for stories and other information products that the Department develops and wishes to highlight. Manages or coordinates the conduct of high priority media campaigns and information programs in the Department. Acts as liaison to private sector organizations, to the Operating and Staff Divisions, to the public affairs units in the HHS Operating Divisions and Regions and to other Federal agencies, including OMB and the Office of Public Liaison at the White House. Initiates, designs and effects outreach programs for all organizations, associations and individuals concerned with the broad range of policies, programs and issues of the Department. Performs special assignments which involve and cut across Department programs and activities to achieve broadly defined public affairs management and program objectives. Interacts with internal and external organizations, groups and individuals to secure and provide information concerning matters affecting HHS policy, interests, and initiatives. Represents the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs in conveying official viewpoints and policy considerations of the Department and the Administration.
B1. Strategic Planning Division (APE1)—Provides strategic, long-term vision and strong leadership on public health, health care, and human services initiatives. Collaborates with and has the authority to work across HHS Staff/Operating Divisions and White House Press Offices. Leads implementation of strategic plans and coordinates earned, digital, and specialty media staff across the Department to boost impact, ensuring the right message is delivered to the right audience through the right channel. Advises the Secretary and Senior Staff on tactics, timing and level of investment in accordance with the Department's strategic priorities. Provides proactive consultation and advice to HHS Staff/Operating Divisions, including regional staff, regarding the dissemination of information on programs, policies, and initiatives; while ensuring the wide dissemination of accurate materials to the American public. Participates with the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA), the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (PDAS), and other ASPA staff in discussions with staff across the Department on cross-cutting issues regarding overall policies, planning, issues, concerns and activities and related health care programs. Works with all HHS Staff/Operating Divisions to develop a long-term outreach strategy, coordinate in-house communications efforts, and ensure consistency with plain writing directives. Promotes full and open participation in the communications process and develops reports and recommendations, ensuring full review and vetting of drafts by appropriate staff between and among ASPA's customers and stakeholders at all levels. Researches, understands, and translates for a lay audience laws, policies, regulations and precedents applicable to public health, health care, and human services. Oversees the document clearance process and the prioritization of rollouts while taking into account internal and external feedback. Coordinates and/or prepares briefings, memos, policy calendars and other information material for use by the Secretary, HHS, at Secretarial and senior staff briefings, the White House, and for congressional and other briefings.
B2. Speechwriting Division (APE2)—Serves as the principal resource with the Department for reviewing and editing written materials reflecting the views of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Chief of Staff. Prepares speeches, statements, articles, and related material for the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Chief of Staff and other top Departmental officials. Researches and prepares Op Ed pieces, features, articles, and stories for the media.
C. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (Public Health) (APB)—The Public Health team works with agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes for Health, and others on initiatives and strategies to promote public health, improve health outcomes, prevent disease, respond to outbreaks, and accelerate scientific discovery. Key priorities include helping Americans achieve and maintain a healthy weight, preventing and reducing tobacco use, supporting the National HIV/AIDS strategy, and implementing a modern food safety system. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (Public Health)—DAS–PH—provides advice and assistance on all public affairs matters within ASPA's public health portfolio, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and in coordination with the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. In this capacity, the DAS–PH: Provides prompt responses to media and public inquiries; and generates a strategic focus for stories and other information products or outputs that the Department develops and wishes to
D. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (Health Care) (APC)—The Health Care team works to advance a 21st century healthcare system that delivers high quality, affordable care to all Americans. The team works with agencies such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to improve access, quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the nation's healthcare. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (Health Care)—DAS–HC—provides advice and assistance on all public affairs matters within ASPA's healthcare portfolio, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and in coordination with the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. In this capacity, the DAS–HC: Provides prompt responses to media and public inquiries; and generates a strategic focus for stories and other information products or outputs that the Department develops and wishes to highlight; Conducts an active communication program with the public on behalf of the Department through the media and other avenues of communication in order to further public understanding of its policies, programs and issues; Coordinates press activities with the White House Press Office and other government departmental press operations; Responds to inquiries from Congress, other arms of the government, media and the public that involves the collection of data. A key initiative in the DAS–HC portfolio is to help implement the Affordable Care Act, which is providing new coverage options and tools for Americans to make informed choices about their health.
E. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (Human Services) (APD)—The Human Services team helps Americans of all ages and backgrounds live full, productive lives: Kids getting a “Head Start” through early childhood education, families transitioning out of poverty to economic independence, teens and adults recovering from mental illness and addiction, and seniors participating in communities that value their contributions. These and other human service programs are carried out by the Administration for Children and Families, Administration for Community Living, Indian Health Service, Office for Civil Rights, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (Human Services)—DAS–HS—provides advice and assistance on all public affairs matters within ASPA's healthcare portfolio, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and in coordination with the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. In this capacity, the DAS–HS: Provides prompt responses to media and public inquiries; and generates a strategic focus for stories and other information products or outputs that the Department develops and wishes to highlight; Conducts an active communication program with the public on behalf of the Department through the media and other avenues of communication in order to further public understanding of its policies, programs and issues; Coordinates press activities with the White House Press Office and other government departmental press operations; Responds to inquiries from Congress, other arms of the government, media and the public that involves the collection of data. In addition, the DAS–HS provides direction and oversight to the Broadcast Communications Division (BCD) and the Digital Communications Division (DCD).
E.1 Broadcast Communications Division—BCD (APD1)—Collaborates with subject matter experts and key stakeholders to create useful and cost effective video products that support Departmental goals. Provides a wide range of video production and A/V services. Operates the HHS studio and coordinates activities with other HHS studios as required. Under the direction of the ASPA, supports key initiatives for the Secretary and all HHS Staff Divisions by developing and implementing media campaigns and special projects. Acts as liaison to broadcast organizations. Supports A/V services in the Humphrey Auditorium and Great Hall.
E.2 Digital Communications Division—DCD (APD2): Leads the development and review of HHS Web content, social media, and supporting technologies. Recommends and implements digital (including Web) information policy, standards, guidance, and tools for the Department. Assesses the content and usability of all proposed Department-wide and Office of the Secretary (OS)-level Web sites to ensure they are consistent with Departmental policies and goals. Manages the daily operations of the main HHS/OS public Web site (HHS.gov) and associated social media; the Department's priority Web sites and several cross-federal topic Web sites, such as FoodSafety.gov and Flu.gov, Secretary-level Web pages; and the HHS intranet. Runs the Department's user experience (UE) program, including two usability laboratories; responsible for Section 508 (accessibility) compliance across all Departmental digital communications platforms, including Web.
F. Executive Officer/Deputy Agency Chief FOIA Officer (APA)—Coordinates ASPA's day-to-day operations, overseeing management operations and policy, workforce plans and other human resources activities, and general administrative support including information technology requirements. Oversees the formulation and execution of ASPA's annual budgets and financial operating plans. Ensures that ASPA effectively integrates its performance metrics and budget processes, in order to support informed decision-making related to funding constraints and program requirements and outcomes. Supports the development and implementation of management strategies, business processes, and standard operating procedures that fully support the attainment of ASPA program goals and mission critical initiatives.
ASPA's Executive Officer also serves as the designated Deputy Agency Chief FOIA Officer (DACFO) and is delegated authority to execute the provisions of EO 13392 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (k), as follows: Monitoring FOIA implementation throughout the department and keeping the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), HHS, and the U.S. Attorney General appropriately informed of HHS' performance in implementing FOIA; recommending to the Secretary adjustments to departmental practices, policies, personnel, and funding necessary to improve HHS implementation of FOIA; facilitating public understanding of the purposes of the statutory FOIA exemptions; establishing Departmental FOIA policies and providing training and technical assistance to the department's Operating
F1. Business Operations Division (APA1)—Directs ASPA budget formulation, execution and financial management; incorporating a results-oriented, program quality, and cost effectiveness focus into assessing and managing ASPA's resource requirements and developing and executing integrated performance-based budgets. Oversees and manages ASPA contracts and procurements, physical property, and information technology initiatives and requirements. Coordinates travel operations support, reporting, and auditing. Serves as ASPA's liaison to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR) for budget and finance matters and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA) for facilities, property accountability, and contract implementation and oversight matters. Additionally serves as the ASPA point of contact for departmental UFMS, PRISM, and acquisition management initiatives and for budget and performance integration inquiries from OMB and Congress.
F2. Administrative Operations Division (APA2)—Directs ASPA's human capital planning, human resources (HR) performance management, and other departmental HR policy and program requirements. Serves as ASPA's internal consultant and source of expert technical assistance on organizational development and human capital management (
F3. FOI/Privacy Acts Division (APA3)—Administers Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act issues and requests, including appeals for the Office of the Secretary. Supports and assists the execution of the ACFO/DACFO responsibilities to monitor and facilitate departmental compliance with public disclosure requirements; establish departmental Freedom of Information Act policies; coordinate, monitor, and compile reports to Congress; and provide technical assistance to the HHS Operating Divisions. Maintains the Department's index of materials mandated for public release by FOIA. In concert with Office of General Counsel staff, assists in developing regulations, policy interpretations, guidelines and procedures, and training programs for all Department components, as necessary and appropriate to implement FOIA and related legislation, including the Privacy Act, Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Provides responses to requests made to components of the Office of the Secretary pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and determines the availability of records and information under the law and HHS Regulations. Resolves questions regarding the release of records which overlap the FOIA and the Privacy Act. Analyzes and recommends action on FOIA and Privacy Act appeals for documents denied by officials in the Office of the Secretary.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice.
Section 3003(b)(3) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 mandates that the Health IT Standards Committee develop a schedule for the assessment of policy recommendations developed by the Health IT Policy Committee and publish it in the
Health IT Standards Committee's Schedule for the Assessment of Health IT Policy Committee Recommendations is as follows:
The National Coordinator will establish priority areas based in part on recommendations received from the Health IT Policy Committee regarding health information technology standards, implementation specifications, and/or certification criteria. Once the Health IT Standards Committee is informed of those priority areas, it will:
(A) Identify the best mechanism by which to organize itself in order to respond to the National Coordinator within 90 days with, at a minimum, the following:
(1) An assessment of what standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria are currently available to meet the priority area;
(2) An assessment of where gaps exist (
(3) a timeline, which may also account for NIST testing, where appropriate, and include dates when the Health IT Standards Committee is expected to issue recommendation(s) to the National Coordinator.
(B) Upon responding to the National Coordinator, the Health IT Standards Committee will:
(1) Approve a timeline by which it will deliver recommendations to the National Coordinator; and
(2) Determine whether to establish a task force to conduct research and solicit testimony, where appropriate, and issue recommendations to the full committee in a timely manner.
(C) Advise the National Coordinator, consistent with the accepted timeline in (B)(1) and after NIST testing, where appropriate, on standards, implementation specifications, and/or certification criteria, for the National Coordinator's review and determination whether or not to endorse the recommendations, and possible adoption of the proposed recommendations by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The standards and related topics which the Health IT Standards Committee is expected to address over the coming year include, but may not be limited to: Quality measurement; the extended portfolio of standards for the nationwide health information network; distributed queries and results; radiology; consumer-mediated information exchange; public health; data portability; and a process for the maintenance of standards.
For a listing of upcoming Health IT Standards Committee meetings, please visit the ONC Web site at
Notice of this schedule is given under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–5), section 3003.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Call for applications.
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) is seeking applications to the Health Information Technology Policy Committee (HITPC) and the Health Information Technology Standards Committee (HITSC).
The HITSC is charged to provide recommendations to the National Coordinator on standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for the electronic exchange and use of health information for purposes of adoption, consistent with the implementation of the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan, and in accordance with policies developed by the Health IT Policy Committee.
The Health IT Standards Committee was established under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111–5), section 13101, new Section 3003. Members of the Health IT Standards Committee are appointed by the Secretary, HHS and shall at least reflect providers, ancillary healthcare workers, consumers, purchasers, health plans, technology vendors, researchers, relevant Federal agencies, and individuals with technical expertise on health care quality, privacy and security, and on the electronic exchange and use of health information. Nominees of the HITSC should have experience promoting the meaningful use of health information technology and be knowledgeable in areas such as: small innovative health care providers, providers participating in payment reform initiatives, accountable care organizations, pharmacists, behavioral health professionals, home health care, purchaser or employer representatives, patient safety, health information technology security, big data, consumer e-health, personal health records, and mobile health applications.
Members will be selected in order to achieve a balanced representation of viewpoints, areas of experience, subject matter expertise, and representation of the health care system. Terms will be three (3) years from the appointment date to either the HITSC or HITPC. Members on both Committees serve without pay. However, members will be provided per diem and travel costs for Committee services.
The HITPC will be seeking applications for the following area of expertise:
• Consumer/Patient Representative
The HITSC will be seeking applications for the following areas of expertise:
• Technical Expertise, Small Innovative Provider
• Technical Expertise, CIO
• Health Plans Representative
• Technical Expertise, Health IT (2)
• Purchaser/Employer Representative
• Long-term Care Representative
• Ancillary Healthcare Worker Representative
For more information about the HITPC please visit:
For more information about the HITSC please visit:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announces the persons who will serve on the National Institutes of Health's Senior Executive Service 2015 Performance Review Board. This action is being taken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4), which requires that members of performance review boards be appointed in a manner to ensure consistency, stability, and objectivity in performance appraisals and requires that notice of the appointment of an individual to serve as a member be published in the
The following persons will serve on the NIH Performance Review Board, which oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals of the NIH Senior Executive Service (SES) members:
For further information about the NIH Performance Review Board, contact the Office of Human Resources, Executive Services Group, National Institutes of Health, Building 2, Room 5E18, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, telephone 301–402–7999 (not a toll-free number).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. A portion of this 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 for the review and discussion of grant applications. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the contact person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the contact person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number, and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxis, hotel, and airport shuttles, will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
In order to facilitate public attendance at the open session of Council in the main meeting room, Conference Room 6, please contact Ms. Lisa Kaeser, Program and Public Liaison Office, NICHD, at 301–496–0536 to make your reservation, additional seating will be available in the meeting overflow rooms, Conference Rooms 7 and 8. Individuals will also be able to view the meeting via NIH Videocast. Please go to the following link for Videocast access instructions at:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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 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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security
60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Canadian Border Boat Landing Permit (CBP Form I–68). CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or Information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before October 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments may be mailed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, at 202–325–0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
The information collected on CBP Form I–68 allows people who enter the United States from Canada by small pleasure boats to be inspected only once during the boating season, rather than each time they make an entry. This information collection is provided for by 8 CFR 235.1(g) and Section 235 of Immigration and Nationality Act. CBP Form I–68 is accessible at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This document announces U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) plan to modify the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) test concerning the transmission of electronic filings through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), known as the Partner Government Agency (PGA) Message Set test. These modifications extend the current PGA Message Set to cover entries arriving by ocean, truck, rail, and air modes of transportation at CBP-designated ports and expands the use of the ACE PGA Message Set for the transmission of U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) import data for entries of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment items. CBP invites public comment concerning the test program.
The modified PGA Message Set test will commence no earlier than August 10, 2015, and will continue until concluded by way of announcement in the
Comments concerning this notice and any aspect of this test may be submitted at any time during the test via email to Josephine Baiamonte, ACE Business Office (ABO), Office of International Trade at
For NHTSA-related PGA Message Set test questions, interested parties should send an email message to Clint Lindsay at
This test notice, and the Customs related electronic functions it describes, are part of the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP). NCAP was established in Subtitle B of Title VI—Customs Modernization, in the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103–182, 107 Stat. 2057, December 8, 1993) (Customs Modernization Act).
On December 13, 2013, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published in the
The PGA Message Set is the data required to satisfy the PGAs' reporting requirements.
ACE will enable the trade community to submit trade-related data, required by the PGAs, only once to CBP, thus improving communications between agencies and filers, and shortening entry processing time. This data must be submitted at any time prior to the arrival of the merchandise on the conveyance transporting the cargo to the United States as part of the ACE Cargo Release process. The data will be validated and made available to the relevant PGAs involved in import, export, and transportation-related decision making. The data will satisfy the filer's obligation to make entry and will allow for earlier release decisions and more certainty for the importer in determining the logistics of cargo delivery. Also, by virtue of being electronic, the PGA Message Set will eliminate the necessity for the submission and subsequent manual processing of paper documents.
The December 2013
For the convenience of the public, a chronological listing of
“Development of ACE Prototypes”. The procedures and criteria related to participation in the previous ACE notices remain in effect unless otherwise explicitly changed by this or subsequent notices published in the
The Customs Modernization Act provides the Commissioner of CBP with authority to conduct limited test programs or procedures designed to evaluate planned components of the NCAP. This test is authorized pursuant to section 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)) which provides for the testing of NCAP programs or procedures.
This document announces CBP's plan to expand the PGA Message Set to allow submission of certain data, which PGAs require, for informal and formal consumption entries arriving by air, ocean, rail, or truck mode of transportation.
At this time, a limited number of ports will be accepting PGA Message Set data. A list of those ports is provided on the following Web site:
CBP may expand this test to include additional ports in the future. CBP may also expand the commodities that are within the scope of the test, as indicated by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes, on the following Web site:
In addition, this document announces CBP's plan to expand the PGA Message Set test to include electronic filings of the NHTSA PGA Message Set for the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment items.
NHTSA is responsible for implementing and enforcing the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (49 U.S.C. 30101
Importers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items are required to file a HS–7 Declaration Form and supporting documents with CBP at the time of making entry. Alternatively, importers may file the HS–7 Declaration Form electronically via the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) and present the HS–7 Declaration Form's supporting documents to CBP at the time of entry. NHTSA staff may review the importer's entry information and make a determination as to whether the shipment should be released, detained, or refused. This may involve manual checking of key information against NHTSA databases. The current process is costly and inefficient because it relies on paper documents, and manual data validation and error correction. The review process can take several days during which more costs may be incurred for storage.
CBP is expanding the use of the PGA Message set to include the electronic filing of NHTSA-regulated motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment items for type “01” (consumption) and type “11” (informal) commercial entries
The technical requirements for submitting the NHTSA data elements are set forth in the supplemental Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (CATAIR) guidelines for NHTSA. These technical specifications, including the CATAIR chapters and applicable Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) codes, can be found at the following link:
The NHTSA-required entry data will be filed electronically once through the single window for use by both NHTSA and CBP, for pre-arrival screening, using the PGA Message Set. This will eliminate separate document filings for participating importers and as a result, reduce the overall paperwork burden on the importer and the port associated with these NHTSA-regulated shipments. It will also significantly reduce the initial processing and review time for motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment item entries, provide consistency of these reviews, and eliminate the costs of filing paper documents. The electronic filing will also allow automated checks of certain required information facilitating pre-arrival admissibility verifications, thereby focusing CBP and NHTSA resources on shipments of interest.
At this time, the test will include entries originating in the ocean, truck, rail, and air environment. Upon acceptance into this test, participants will be allowed to transmit the NHTSA data elements for entries originating in the air, ocean, rail, and truck environments, as specified in this notice. During this test, participants will collaborate with CBP and NHTSA to examine the effectiveness of the single window capability.
PGA Message Set test participants will be required to:
• Transmit the NHTSA Vehicle/Equipment Information Collection with the ports that are accepting the ACE PGA Message Set data. A current list of those ports is posted on the following Web site:
• Transmit, when applicable, the NHTSA Vehicle/Equipment Information Collection using the NHTSA PGA Message Set and the supporting documents via DIS. This information must be electronically transmitted to ACE using an ACE Entry Summary certified for cargo release at any time prior to the arrival of the merchandise on the conveyance transporting the cargo to the United States;
• Transmit the NHTSA Vehicle/Equipment Information Collection only as part of an ACE Entry Summary certified for cargo release;
• Transmit import filings to CBP via ABI in response to a request for documentation or in response to a request for release information for certified ACE Cargo Release;
• Only transmit to CBP information that has been requested by CBP or NHTSA;
• Use a software program that has completed ACE certification testing for the PGA Message Set; and
• Take part in a CBP evaluation of this test.
Participants are reminded that they should only file documents that CBP can accept electronically. The documents CBP can accept electronically are listed under the Document Image System (DIS) tab of the ACE Features page on the Web site
For purposes of this test, 19 CFR 12.80 will be waived for test participants only insofar as eliminating any requirement that may appear in these regulations to file a paper version of the DOT HS–7 Declaration Form or its supporting documents. In its place, test participants are required to transmit electronically the data elements contained in the DOT HS–7 Declaration Form via the PGA Message Set and the HS–7 Declaration Form's supporting documents via DIS. This document does not waive any recordkeeping requirements found in part 163 of title 19 of the CFR (19 CFR part 163) and the Appendix to part 163 (commonly known as the “(a)(1)(A) list”).
As announced in this notice, the use of the PGA Message Set test is expanding to accept DOT HS–7 Declaration Form data elements, also known as the NHTSA Vehicle/Equipment Information Collection, and supporting documents. All other eligibility criteria as specified in prior PGA Message Set test notices remain the same. To be eligible to apply for this modification of the PGA data message set test, the applicant must:
• Be a self-filing importer who has the ability to file ACE Entry Summaries certified for cargo release or a broker who has the ability to file ACE Entry Summaries certified for cargo release; and
• File entries for NHTSA-regulated commodities that are the subject of this test at the ports that are accepting PGA Message Set data.
CBP will accept an unlimited number of participants for the test. Test applicants must meet the eligibility criteria described in this document to participate in the test program.
Any party seeking to participate in the modified PGA Message Set test concerning NHTSA data should send an email message to Clint Lindsay at
Emails sent to the CBP client representative or to Steven Zaccaro must include the applicant's filer code and the port(s) at which they are interested in filing the appropriate PGA Message Set information.
At this time, PGA Message Set data may be submitted only for entries filed
Client representatives will work with test participants to provide information regarding the transmission of this data. CBP will begin to accept applications on August 10, 2015 and will continue to accept applications throughout the duration of the test. CBP will notify the selected applicants by email of their selection and the starting date of their participation. Selected participants may have different starting dates. Anyone providing incomplete information, or otherwise not meeting participation requirements, will be notified by email and given the opportunity to resubmit their application.
The modified test will begin no earlier than August 10, 2015 and will continue until concluded by way of announcement in the
All interested parties are invited to comment on any aspect of this test at any time. CBP requests comments and feedback on all aspects of this test, including the design, conduct, and implementation of the test, in order to determine whether to modify, alter, expand, limit, continue, end, or fully implement this program.
The collections of information in this test modification, DOT HS–7 Declaration Form and supporting documents have been reviewed by OMB in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control number 2127–0002. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
Data submitted and entered into the ACE Portal includes information that is exempt or restricted from disclosure by law, such as by the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905). As stated in previous notices, participation in this or any of the previous ACE tests is not confidential and upon a written Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, a name(s) of an approved participant(s) will be disclosed by CBP in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552.
A test participant may be subject to civil and criminal penalties, administrative sanctions, liquidated damages, and/or discontinuance from participation in this test for any of the following:
• Failure to follow the terms and conditions of this test.
• Failure to exercise reasonable care in the execution of participant obligations.
• Failure to abide by applicable laws and regulations that have not been waived.
• Failure to deposit duties or fees in a timely manner.
If the Director, Business Transformation, ACE Business Office (ABO), Office of International Trade finds that there is a basis for discontinuance of test participation privileges, the test participant will be provided a written notice proposing the discontinuance with a description of the facts or conduct warranting the action. The test participant will be offered the opportunity to appeal the Director's decision in writing within 10 calendar days of receipt of the written notice. The appeal must be submitted to Acting Executive Director, ABO, Office of International Trade by emailing
The Acting Executive Director will issue a decision in writing on the proposed action within 30 working days after receiving a timely filed appeal from the test participant. If no timely appeal is received, the proposed notice becomes the final decision of the Agency as of the date that the appeal period expires. A proposed discontinuance of a test participant's privileges will not take effect unless the appeal process under this paragraph has been concluded with a written decision adverse to the test participant.
In the case of willfulness or those in which public health, interest, or safety so requires, the Director, Business Transformation, ABO, Office of International Trade, may immediately discontinue the test participant's privileges upon written notice to the test participant. The notice will contain a description of the facts or conduct warranting the immediate action. The test participant will be offered the opportunity to appeal the Director's decision within 10 calendar days of receipt of the written notice providing for immediate discontinuance. The appeal must be submitted to Acting Executive Director, ABO, Office of International Trade by emailing
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) program data.
• EPA Vehicle and Engine (V&E) program data.
• EPA Notice of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices (NOA—EPA Form 3540–1) data.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), meat, poultry, and egg products data.
• U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment declaration (DOT HS–7 Declaration) data.
More information regarding requirements for PGA Information in ACE and Methods for Submissions is available on this Web site:
A chronological listing of
• ACE Portal Accounts and Subsequent Revision Notices: 67 FR 21800 (May 1, 2002); 69 FR 5360 and 69 FR 5362 (February 4, 2004); 69 FR 54302 (September 8, 2004); 70 FR 5199 (February 1, 2005).
• ACE System of Records Notice: 71 FR 3109 (January 19, 2006).
• Terms/Conditions for Access to the ACE Portal and Subsequent Revisions: 72 FR 27632 (May 16, 2007); 73 FR 38464 (July 7, 2008).
• ACE Non-Portal Accounts and Related Notice: 70 FR 61466 (October 24, 2005); 71 FR 15756 (March 29, 2006).
• ACE Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue (ESAR I) Capabilities: 72 FR 59105 (October 18, 2007).
• ACE Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue (ESAR II) Capabilities: 73 FR 50337 (August 26, 2008); 74 FR 9826 (March 6, 2009).
• ACE Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue (ESAR III) Capabilities: 74 FR 69129 (December 30, 2009).
• ACE Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue (ESAR IV) Capabilities: 76 FR 37136 (June 24, 2011).
• Post-Entry Amendment (PEA) Processing Test: 76 FR 37136 (June 24, 2011).
• ACE Announcement of a New Start Date for the National Customs Automation Program Test of Automated Manifest Capabilities for Ocean and Rail Carriers: 76 FR 42721 (July 19, 2011).
• ACE Simplified Entry: 76 FR 69755 (November 9, 2011).
• National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Tests Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Document Image System (DIS): 77 FR 20835 (April 6, 2012).
• National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Simplified Entry: Modification of Participant Selection Criteria and Application Process: 77 FR 48527 (August 14, 2012).
• Modification of NCAP Test Regarding Reconciliation for Filing Certain Post-Importation Preferential Tariff Treatment Claims under Certain FTAs: 78 FR 27984 (May 13, 2013).
• Modification of Two National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Tests Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Document Image System (DIS) and Simplified Entry (SE), 78 FR 44142 (July 23, 2013).
• Modification of Two National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Tests Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Document Image System (DIS) and Simplified Entry (SE); Correction; 78 FR 53466 (August 29, 2013).
• Modification of NCAP Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Cargo Release (formerly known as Simplified Entry): 78 FR 66039 (November 4, 2013).
• Post-Summary Corrections to Entry Summaries Filed in ACE Pursuant to the ESAR IV Test: Modifications and Clarifications: 78 FR 69434 (November 19, 2013).
• National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning the Submission of Certain Data Required by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food Safety and Inspection Service Using the Partner Government Agency Message Set Through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE): 78 FR 75931 (December 13, 2013).
• Modification of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Cargo Release for Ocean and Rail Carriers: 79 FR 6210 (February 3, 2014).
• Modification of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Cargo Release To Allow Importers and Brokers To Certify From ACE Entry Summary: 79 FR 24744 (May 1, 2014).
• Modification of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Cargo Release for Truck Carriers: 79 FR 25142 (May 2, 2014).
• Modification of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment Document Image System: 79 FR 36083 (June 25, 2014).
• Announcement of eBond Test: 79 FR 70881 (November 28, 2014).
• eBond Test Modifications and Clarifications: Continuous Bond Executed Prior to or Outside the eBond Test May Be Converted to an eBond by the Surety and Principal, Termination of an eBond, Identification of Principal on an eBond by Filing Identification Number, and Email Address Correction: 80 FR 899 (January 7, 2015).
• Modification of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Document Image System Relating to Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Document Submissions: 80 FR 5126 (January 30, 2015).
• Modification of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Test Concerning the use of Partner Government Agency Message Set through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) for the Submission of Certain Data Required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 80 FR 6098 (February 4, 2015).
• Announcement of Modification of ACE Cargo Release Test to Permit the Combined Filing of Cargo Release and Importer Security Filing (ISF) Data: 80 FR 7487 (February 10, 2015).
• Modification of NCAP Test Concerning ACE Cargo Release for Type 03 Entries and Advanced Capabilities for Truck Carriers: 80 FR 16414 (March 27, 2015).
• Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test: 80 FR 39790 (July 10, 2015).
• National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) Concerning Remote Location Filing Entry Procedures in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) and the Use of the Document Image System for the Submission of Invoices and the Use of eBonds for the Transmission of Single Transaction Bonds: 80 FR 40079 (July 13, 2015).
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security
60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Information (CBP Form I–736). CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or Information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before October 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments may be mailed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229–1177, at 202–325–0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the 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 estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Charter Renewal
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has determined that the renewal of the charter of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection User Fee Advisory Committee (UFAC) is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) performance of its duties. This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
If you desire to submit comments on this action, they must be submitted by October 9, 2015. Comments must be identified by docket number and may be submitted by
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344–1440; facsimile (202) 325–4290.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning revising a currently approved information collection to incorporate existing information collections in use without an OMB control number representing all information collections related to FEMA Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program requirements described in 44 CFR parts 350 and 352.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2015.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
John Schafer, Chief, Engineering and Technology Section, Professional Services and Integration, Technological Hazards Division, at 202–341–4896. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
FEMA's Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) Program coordinates the national effort to provide State, Tribal and local governments with relevant and executable planning, training, and exercise guidance and policies necessary to ensure that adequate capabilities exist to prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects of, respond to, and recover from incidents involving commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs).
The REP Program assists State, Tribal and local governments in the development and conduct of off-site REP emergency planning and preparedness activities within the emergency planning zones (EPZs) of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed commercial nuclear power facilities.
Sec. 109 of the NRC Authorization Act of 1980 (Public Law 96–295) directed the NRC to establish emergency preparedness as a criterion for licensing commercial NPPs. Specifically, section 109 of Public Law 96–295 directed the NRC to establish through rulemaking, (a) standards, developed with FEMA, for the evaluation of State and local government radiological emergency planning and preparedness; and (b) a requirement that the NRC will issue operating licenses. Before issuing a license the NRC also must determine that there is (i) a State or local emergency response plan compliant with the standards developed with FEMA or (ii) in the absence of such a plan, a State, local, or utility emergency response plan that provides reasonable assurance that public health and safety is not endangered by the NPP's operation.
In the communities surrounding commercial NPPs, 44 CFR 350.5(b) directs FEMA's REP Program to review offsite radiological emergency plans and preparedness. Approved plans and preparedness “must be determined to adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency.”
FEMA defines reasonable assurance as a determination that State, Tribal, local, and utility offsite plans and preparedness are adequate to protect public health and safety in the emergency planning areas of commercial NPPs. FEMA will consider plans, procedures, personnel, training, facilities, equipment, drills, and exercises, which in its professional judgment are important to the effective implementation of protective measures offsite in the event or any incident at a commercial NPP. FEMA will make its adequacy determination, supported by other Federal agencies, as necessary, by conducting inspections, providing Staff Assistance Visits (SAVs), organizing, conducting and reviewing training, participating in, observing and evaluating drills and exercises, and by being an engaged partner with Federal, State, Tribal, and local government officials and industry stakeholders.
State, Tribal, or local government participation in offsite radiological emergency planning and preparedness is voluntary. However, participation in the REP planning and preparedness process necessitates adherence to the program requirements as set forth in 44 CFR part 350, the joint NRC/FEMA document NUREG–0645/FEMA–REP–1, Rev. 1, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants” (and supplements), and the REP Program Manual (RPM). If State, Tribal, or local governments choose not to participate in REP planning, 44 CFR part 352 outlines the licensee's obligation to develop offsite plans/procedures to protect the public health and safety in accordance with the requirements in Executive Order 12657, as amended.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a public meeting of the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking (Council). The Council's purpose is to provide expertise and support to the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking. You may attend the meeting in person, or you may participate via telephone. At this time, we are inviting submissions of questions and information for consideration during the meeting.
1.
2.
We will not accept email or faxes. We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Ms. Christina Meister, International Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by email at
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), we announce that the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking (Council) will hold a meeting to discuss the implementation of the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, and other Council business as appropriate. The Council's purpose is to provide expertise and support to the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking.
You may attend the meeting in person, or you may participate via telephone. At this time, we are inviting submissions of questions and information for consideration during the meeting.
Executive Order 13648 established the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking on August 30, 2013, to advise the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking, through the Secretary of the Interior, on national strategies to combat wildlife trafficking, including, but not limited to:
1. Effective support for anti-poaching activities;
2. Coordinating regional law enforcement efforts;
3. Developing and supporting effective legal enforcement mechanisms; and
4. Developing strategies to reduce illicit trade and consumer demand for illegally traded wildlife, including protected species.
The eight-member Council, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, includes former senior leadership within the U.S. Government, as well as chief executive officers and board members from conservation organizations and the private sector. For more information on the Council and its members, visit
The Council will consider:
1. National Strategy updates and Task Force discussions,
2. Administrative topics, and
3. Public comment and response.
The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at
Members of the public who want to make an oral presentation in person or by telephone at the meeting will be prompted during the public comment section of the meeting to provide their presentation and/or questions. If you want to make an oral presentation in person or by phone, contact Ms. Christina Meister (
Registered speakers who want to expand on their oral statements, or those who wanted to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, are invited to submit written statements to the Council after the meeting. Such written statements must be received by Ms. Meister, in writing (preferably via email), no later than August 31, 2015.
You may submit your questions and information by one of the methods listed in
If you submit information via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions at
Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection at
Summary minutes of the meeting will be available on the Council Web site at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Request for nominees.
The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), after consultation with the Co-Chairs of the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking (Task Force), is seeking nominations for individuals to serve on the Advisory Council on Wildlife Trafficking (Council).
Nominations must be received by September 9, 2015.
Send nominations, preferably by email, to Mr. Cade London, Special Assistant, Assistant Director for International Affairs, at
Ms. Christina Meister, International Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by email at
The Council was formed and conducts its operations in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix). It reports to the Task Force through the Secretary of the Interior or her designee and functions solely as an advisory body. The Council advises and makes recommendations on issues related to combating wildlife trafficking, including, but not limited to:
(1) Effective support for anti-poaching activities,
(2) Coordinating regional law enforcement efforts,
(3) Developing and supporting effective legal enforcement mechanisms, and
(4) Developing strategies to reduce illicit trade and reduce consumer demand for illegally traded wildlife, including protected species.
The Council meets approximately 3–4 times annually, and at such time as designated by the Designated Federal Officer.
Members must include knowledgeable individuals from the private sector, former governmental officials, representatives of nongovernmental organizations, and others who are in a position to provide expertise and support to the Task Force. No member of the Council may be an employee of the Federal Government. Members' appointments will be for 3-year terms.
Individuals who are federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated Special Government Employees, rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.
The Department of the Interior is now seeking nominations for individuals to be considered as Council members. Nominations should include a resume providing contact information and an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the Department of the Interior to make an informed decision regarding whether individual nominees meet the membership requirements of the Council.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibit activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before September 9, 2015.
Brenda Tapia, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, MS: IA, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; fax (703) 358–2281; or email
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358–2104 (telephone); (703) 358–2281 (fax);
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import three captive-bred Bengal tigers (
The applicant requests a permit to import one female Sumatran orangutan (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from wild African wild dog (
The applicant requests a permit to import two captive-bred Bengal tigers (
The applicant requests a permit to import two captive-bred, Bengal tigers (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the species listed below to enhance species propagation or survival: Nile crocodile (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Radiated tortoise (
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
United States Geological Survey (USGS), Interior.
Notice of extension of a currently approved collection.
We (the U.S. Geological Survey) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2015.
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them on or before September 9, 2015.
Please submit written comments on this information collection directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, via email: (
Douglas A. Howard, Associate Program Coordinator NCGMP (STATEMAP and EDMAP), U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 908, 20192 (mail); at 703–648–6978 (telephone); or
EDMAP is the educational component of the NCGMP that is intended to train the next generation of geologic mappers. The primary objective of the STATEMAP component of the NCGMP is to establish the geologic framework of areas that are vital to the welfare of individual States.
The NCGMP EDMAP program allocates funds to colleges and universities in the United States and Puerto Rico through an annual competitive cooperative agreement process. Every federal dollar that is awarded is matched with university funds. Geology professors, who are skilled in geologic mapping, request EDMAP funding to support undergraduate and graduate students at their college or university in a one-year mentored geologic mapping project that focuses on a specific geographic area. Only State Geological Surveys are eligible to apply to the STATEMAP component of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program pursuant to the National Geologic Mapping Act (Pub. L. 106–148). Since many State Geological Surveys are organized under a State university system, such universities may submit a proposal on behalf of the State Geological Survey.
Each fall, the program announcements are posted to the Grants.gov Web site and respondents are required to submit applications (comprising of Standard Form 424, 424A, 424B, Proposal Summary Sheet, the Proposal, and Budget Sheets. Additionally, EDMAP proposal must include a Negotiated Rate Agreement, and a Support letter from a State Geologist or USGS Project Chief).
Since 1996, more than $5 million from the NCGMP has supported geologic mapping efforts of more than 1,000 students working with more than 244 professors at 148 universities in 44 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Funds for graduate projects are limited to $17,500 and undergraduate project funds limited to $10,000. These funds are used to cover field expenses and student salaries, but not faculty salaries or tuition. The authority for both programs is listed in the National Geologic Mapping Act (Pub. L. 106–148).
We will protect information from respondents considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), and under regulations at 30 CFR 250.197, “Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection.” Responses are voluntary. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked.
To comply with the public consultation process, on March 25, 2015, we published a
We again invite comments concerning this IC on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Please note that any comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 publically available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that will be done.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
On January 8, 2015, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Seminole Tribe of Florida leasing regulations under the HEARTH Act. With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into the following type of leases without BIA approval: Business and residential ordinances.
Cynthia Morales, Office of Trust Services—Division of Realty, Bureau of Indian Affairs; Telephone (202) 768–4166; Email
The HEARTH (Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership) Act of 2012 (the Act) makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The Act authorizes tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The Act also authorizes tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating tribes develop tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The Act requires the Secretary to approve tribal regulations if the tribal regulations are consistent with the Department's leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the tribal regulations for the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian tribe with jurisdiction.
Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land.
The strong Federal and tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.”
Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial tribal interests in effective tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy.
Just like BIA's surface leasing regulations, tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing.
Accordingly, the Federal and tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Utah Resource Advisory Council (RAC)/Recreation Resource Advisory Council (RecRAC) will meet as indicated below.
The BLM-Utah RAC will meet September 9, 2015, from 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., and the BLM-Utah RAC/RecRAC will meet September 10, 2015, from 8:00 a.m.–Noon.
The RAC/RecRAC will meet at the San Juan County Public Library, Monticello Branch, 80 North Main, Monticello, Utah.
Sherry Foot, Special Programs Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101; phone (801)539–4195; or,
On September 9, 2015, the RAC will take a field tour of Alkali Ridge, in Blanding, Utah. A 15-minute briefing will be held at the San Juan County Library, Monticello Branch, 80 North Main, Monticello, Utah, beginning at 8:00 a.m. Topics of discussion will be: Reviewing archaeological sites; discussions on the Tread Lightly! anti-looting campaign, the transportation system in relation to the Richfield decision on transportation management plans in Utah, and oil and gas leasing. After the field tour, the RAC will meet at the San Juan County Library for a business meeting. Further discussion on topics will include: Anti-looting, Richfield litigation, programmatic agreement for travel management planning, the Moab Master Leasing Plan, and updates on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan Amendment for Livestock Grazing. On September 10, the RAC/RecRAC will listen to fee presentations from the BLM and the Ashley National Forest. The BLM will present proposals to increase fees at Monticello Field Office Campgrounds and the Sand Flats Recreation Area. The Ashley National Forest will present a proposal to increase their Christmas tree permit fees.
A one-hour public comment period will take place September 10, from 9:30–10:30 a.m., where the public may address the RAC. Written comments may also be sent to the BLM at the address listed in the
The meeting is open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating individuals.
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to leave a message or question for the above individual. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Replies are provided during normal business hours.
43 CFR 1784.4–1.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.
Notice is hereby given that an appealable decision will be issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), approving conveyance of the surface estate in the lands described below to Napaskiak Incorporated, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4. Please see the
A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513–7504.
The BLM by phone at 907–271–5960 or by
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision will be issued by the BLM to Napaskiak Incorporated. The decision approves the surface estate in the lands described below for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601,
The lands are located in the vicinity of Napaskiak, Alaska, and are described as:
Notice of the decision will also be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in the
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until September 9, 2015 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by electronic means, such as facsimile or email, will not be accepted as timely filed.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Intent and Notice of Realty Action.
This notice provides for two related actions involving 1,142.10 acres of public land in Caribou County, Idaho, one a proposed land use plan amendment and the other a proposed direct land sale. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pocatello Field Office intends to prepare a resource management plan (RMP) amendment for the 2012 Pocatello RMP with an associated environmental impact statement (EIS) being prepared for a mine and reclamation plan for the proposed Dairy Syncline phosphate mine. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues specific to the plan amendment. As part of proposed phosphate mine development, two parcels of public land in Caribou County, Idaho, are being considered for a direct sale under the provisions of FLPMA Section 203 at no less than the appraised fair market value.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the RMP amendment, which will be evaluated in the EIS associated with the proposed mine plan. Comments on issues specific to the public land sale RMP amendment may be submitted in writing until September 9, 2015. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at:
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the RMP amendment and proposed sale by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Pocatello Field Office. Please reference “Pocatello RMP Amendment/Notice of Realty Action: Proposed Sale of Public Lands” on all correspondence.
Gloria Jakovac, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401; phone 208–524–7526; email:
This document provides notice that the BLM Pocatello Field Office, Pocatello, Idaho intends to prepare an RMP amendment in conjunction with the Dairy Syncline Mine Plan EIS and announces the beginning of the scoping process seeking input on issues and planning criteria specific to the RMP amendment. The purpose of the proposed RMP amendment is to evaluate whether the 1,142.10 acres of public lands proposed for sale as part of the Dairy Syncline Mine Plan, which are identified as eligible for disposal in the 2012 Pocatello RMP, meet one or more of FLPMA's Section 203 sales criteria. The
Amending the Pocatello RMP as proposed would not increase the number of acres previously identified in the RMP as eligible for disposal. It would merely clarify that the 1,142.10 acres of public lands described above meet Section 203 sale criteria, thereby allowing consideration of the proposed sale to continue. In addition, the RMP amendment would not change the BLM's ability to dispose of public lands in Land Tenure Adjustment Zone 3 (as defined in the 2012 Pocatello RMP) through exchange, Recreation & Public Purposes Act leases or other means of conveyance, or to retain them. A separate RMP amendment, detailed analysis and Notice of Realty Action would be required for any subsequent sales proposed for public lands within Zone 3. Sale of the parcel described above will not proceed before completion of the Dairy Syncline EIS.
The following described public lands in Caribou County, Idaho, would be affected by the RMP amendment and will be considered for sale under the authority of FLPMA if they meet one or more of the sales criteria in Section 203:
The area described contains 1,142.10 acres.
In addition to initiating scoping for this RMP amendment, this notice also segregates the parcels from appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, during the development of the EIS analyzing the Dairy Syncline Mine Plan and RMP amendment. Conveyance of the sale parcels would be subject to valid existing rights and encumbrances of records, including but not limited to, rights-of-way for roads and public utilities. Conveyance of any mineral interest pursuant to Section 209 of FLPMA will be analyzed during processing of the proposed sale. The patent would include an appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the patentee's use, occupancy or occupations of the patented lands.
On August 10, 2015, the above-described parcels for sale will be segregated from appropriation under the public land laws, including the United States mining laws, except the sale provisions of FLPMA. The segregation of the public lands being considered for sale will be for a period of two years. Until completion of the sale or termination of consideration of the sale, the BLM is no longer accepting land use applications affecting the identified public land, except applications for the amendment of previously-filed rights-of-way applications or existing authorizations to increase the term of the grants in accordance with 43 CFR 2807.15 and 2886.15. The segregative effect will terminate upon issuance of a patent, publication in the
The subject public lands are included in Land Tenure Adjustment Zone 3 of the approved 2012 Pocatello RMP. The RMP identified approximately 141,000 acres of public lands within Zone 3 as potentially suitable for disposal by exchange; however, disposal of land through sales and Recreation & Public Purposes Act (R&PP) patents would also be allowed. The RMP did not identify which of those lands in Zone 3 meet FLPMA Section 203 sale criteria.
The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the RMP amendment, including alternatives, and guide the RMP amendment process. A preliminary issue identified by BLM personnel; Federal, State, and local agencies; and other stakeholders is to identify whether the subject lands currently designated as eligible or potentially eligible for disposal also meet FLPMA Section 203 sale criteria (43 U.S.C. 1713(a)). The Pocatello RMP identifies approximately 141,000 acres of public land in Zone 3 as available for disposal. However, the RMP does not specify whether those lands have been evaluated under FLPMA Section 203. Issues communicated to the BLM in response to this notice that are related to the direct or indirect impacts of the proposed sale or related future land issues will be considered and appropriately addressed in the Dairy Syncline Mine EIS, the notice of intent for which was published in the
Comments may also be submitted regarding the planning criteria. Preliminary planning criteria include:
1. The RMP amendment will only address whether the identified public lands, already designated as eligible for disposal (1,142.10 acres in Caribou County, Idaho), meet FLPMA's Section 203 sale criteria. No other decisions associated with the Pocatello RMP will be amended.
2. The RMP amendment will comply with FLPMA, NEPA, and all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
3. For program-specific guidance for decisions at the land use planning level, the process will follow the BLM's policies in the Land Use Planning Handbook, H–1601–1.
4. Public participation and collaboration will be an integral part of the planning process.
5. The BLM will strive to make decisions in the RMP amendment compatible with existing plans and policies of adjacent local, State, and Federal agencies and affected Native American tribes, as long as the decisions are consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal law and regulations applicable to public lands.
6. The BLM will work collaboratively with cooperating agencies and all other interested groups, agencies, and individuals.
The public is invited to provide scoping comments on the above mentioned issue, as well as other issues that should be addressed in the preparation of the plan amendment or proposed sales.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the
The BLM will use and coordinate the NEPA scoping process to help fulfill the public involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed sale of the subject public lands being evaluated are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. The BLM will evaluate identified issues to be addressed in the plan, and will place them into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the Proposed RMP Amendment as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the RMP amendment. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the RMP amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Minerals and geology, forestry, outdoor recreation, archaeology, wildlife and fisheries, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, and socioeconomics.
43 CFR 2711.1–2, 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Decision Approving Lands for Conveyance.
Notice is hereby given that an appealable decision will be issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), approving conveyance of the surface estate in the lands described below to NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., Successor in Interest to Noatak Napaaktukmeut Corporation, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4. Please see the
A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513–7504.
The BLM by phone at 907–271–5960 or by email at
As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that an appealable decision will be issued by the BLM to NANA Regional Corporation, Inc., Successor in Interest to Noatak Napaaktukmeut Corporation. The decision approves the surface estate in the lands described below for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601,
Containing 1,726.39 acres.
Notice of the decision will also be published once a week for four consecutive weeks in the
Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by the decision may appeal the decision in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 within the following time limits:
1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall have until September 9, 2015 to file an appeal.
2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have waived their rights. Notices of appeal transmitted by electronic means, such as facsimile or email, will not be accepted as timely filed.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before August 25, 2015.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that TUVRNA is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. TUVRNA requests the addition of one recognized testing and certification site to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1910.7 (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. Recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
TUVRNA currently has two facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., 12 Commerce Rd., Newtown, CT 06470. A complete list of TUVRNA sites recognized by OSHA is available at
TUVRNA submitted an application, dated January 9, 2015 (OSHA–2007–0042; Exhibit 15–1—TUVRNA Request for Expansion—January 2015), to expand its recognition to include the addition of one recognized testing and certification site located at: TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., 1279 Quarry Lane, Pleasanton, CA 94566. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application and other pertinent information. OSHA staff also performed an on-site review of TUVRNA's testing facility in Pleasanton, CA on March 17, 2015, in which the assessors found some nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. TUVRNA addressed these issues sufficiently, and OSHA staff recommended that OSHA should grant the application.
TUVRNA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and its detailed on-site assessment indicate that TUVRNA can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of the one site detailed above for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of TUVRNA's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant TUVRNA's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for Curtis-Straus LLC, as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on August 10, 2015.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of Curtis-Straus LLC (CSL) as an NRTL. CSL's expansion covers the addition of nine test standards to its scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
CSL submitted two applications, one dated August 29, 2014, and one dated February 25, 2015 (OSHA–2009–0026–0057, CSL Exhibit 1—Expansion Application for Nine Standards and OSHA–2009–0026–0058, CSL Exhibit 2—Expansion Application for One Standard). These two applications were combined. OSHA staff performed a comparability analysis and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA performed an on-site review in relation to these applications on January 27, 2015 to January 28, 2015.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing CSL's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the CSL's application, go to
OSHA staff examined CSL's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that CSL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the specified limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant CSL's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of CSL's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1–0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, CSL must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. CSL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. CSL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. CSL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on CSL's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of CSL, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
The Legal Services Corporation's Board of Directors and Finance Committee will meet telephonically on August 13, 2015. The meetings will commence at 11:00 a.m., EDT, and will continue until the conclusion of the Board's agenda.
Government Relations & Public Affairs Conference Room, Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW., Washington DC 20007.
Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.
• Call toll-free number: 1–866–451–4981;
• When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348
• When connected to the call, please immediately
Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the Chair may solicit comments from the public.
Open.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295–1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
LSC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals needing other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295–1500 or
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory issue summary; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking public comment on a draft regulatory issue summary (RIS), RIS 2015–0188, “Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance for the use of Accreditation in lieu of Commercial Grade Surveys for Procurement of Laboratory Calibration and Test Services.” This RIS informs addressees of guidance prepared by the Nuclear Energy Institute for procurement of calibration and testing services performed by domestic and international laboratories, which the NRC staff has found acceptable for use.
Submit comments by October 9, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Matthew Humberstone, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1464; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–0188 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2015–0188 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submisssions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is requesting public comments on a draft RIS. The NRC issues RISs to communicate with stakeholders on a broad range of regulatory matters. This may include communicating and restating staff technical positions on regulatory matters. The NRC staff has developed draft RIS 2015–0188, to inform addressees of industry implementation guidance developed by the Nuclear Energy Institute, Revision 1 to NEI 14–05, “Guidelines for the Use of Accreditation in Lieu of Commercial Grade Surveys for Procurement of Laboratory Calibration and Test Services,” Revision 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14245A391), which the NRC staff has found acceptable for use with respect to procurement of calibration and testing services performed by domestic and international laboratories. The draft RIS 2015–0188, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15090A236.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
August 10, 17, 24, 31, September 7, 14, 2015.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and closed.
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 August 17, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 24, 2015.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 31, 2015.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 14, 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 at:
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
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standard review plan-draft section revision; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting public comment on draft NUREG–0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” Section 18.0, “Human Factors Engineering.”
Comments must be filed no later than October 9, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Mark D. Notich, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone at 301–415–3053 or email at
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–0187 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2015–0187 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC's Office of New Reactors and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation are revising SRP Section 18.0, “Human Factors Engineering” from the current Revision 2. Details of specific proposed changes are included at the end of the revised section. The changes to this SRP section reflect current staff reviews, methods and practices based on lessons learned from NRC reviews of design certification and combined license applications completed since the last revision of this section. The changes also reflect updated regulatory guidance contained in NUREG–0711, “Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML12324A013).
Changes to SRP Chapter 18 include: (1) Relocating to NUREG–0711 details regarding review of new applications and amendments to existing licenses,(2) providing additional discussion and detail regarding inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) and design acceptance criteria (DAC) for new reactor applications submitted in accordance with requirements in part 52 of Title 10 of the
Following the NRC staff's evaluation of public comments on the proposed Revision 3, the NRC intends to finalize SRP Section 18.0 Revision 3 in ADAMS, and post it on the NRC's public Web site at
The NRC is issuing a proposed revision to SRP Chapter 18.0. This document is used by the NRC staff as regulatory guidance while reviewing a control room design that reflects state-of-the-art human factor principles before a licensee commits to fabrication, or revision of fabricated control room panels and layouts. Issuance of this draft SRP, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) or otherwise be inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. The NRC's position is based upon the following considerations:
1. The draft SRP positions, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting, inasmuch as the SRP is internal guidance to NRC staff.
The SRP provides internal guidance to the NRC staff on how to review an application for NRC's regulatory approval in the form of licensing. Changes in internal staff guidance are not matters for which either nuclear power plant applicants or licensees are protected under either the Backfit Rule or the issue finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52.
2. The NRC staff has no intention to impose the SRP positions on existing nuclear power plant licensees or regulatory approvals either now or in the future (absent a voluntary request for change from the licensee, holder of a regulatory approval, or a design certification applicant).
The NRC staff does not intend to impose or apply the positions described in the draft SRP to existing licenses and regulatory approvals. Hence, the issuance of a final SRP—even if considered guidance within the purview of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52—would not need to be evaluated as if it were a backfit or as being inconsistent with issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the NRC staff seeks to impose a position in the draft SRP (if finalized) on holders of already issued licenses in a manner that does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the staff must make the showing as set forth in the Backfit Rule or address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision.
3. Backfitting and issue finality do not—with limited exceptions not applicable here—protect current or future applicants.
Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52. Neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52—with certain exclusions—were intended to apply to every NRC action that substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants. The exceptions to the general principle are applicable whenever an applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of exemptions in response to a request from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee) that would permit the licensee to reduce its emergency planning (EP) activities at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee or VY). The licensee is seeking exemptions that would eliminate the requirements for the licensee to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, and reduce some of the onsite EP activities, based on the reduced risks at VY, which is permanently shutdown and defueled. However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to communicate and coordinate with offsite response authorities, in the event of an emergency at VY, would be retained. In addition, offsite EP provisions would still exist through State and local government use of a comprehensive emergency management plan (CEMP) process in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, “Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans.” The NRC staff is issuing a final environmental assessment (EA) and final finding of no significant impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed exemptions.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on August 10, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015–0111 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
James Kim, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–4125; email:
Vermont Yankee is a permanently shutdown and defueled nuclear power plant that is in the process of decommissioning, and is located in Windham County, Vermont, 5 miles south of Brattleboro, Vermont. Entergy is the holder of the Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR–28 for VY. Vermont Yankee has been shut down since December 29, 2014, and the final removal of fuel from the VY reactor vessel was completed on January 12, 2015. By letter dated January 12, 2015, Entergy submitted to the NRC a certification of the permanent cessation of power operations at VY and the permanent removal of fuel from the VY reactor vessel. As a permanently shutdown and defueled facility, and pursuant to section 50.82(a)(2) of Title 10 of the
The licensee has requested exemptions for VY from certain EP requirements in 10 CFR part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” The NRC regulations concerning EP do not recognize the reduced risks after a reactor is permanently shut down and defueled. As such, a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, such as VY, must continue to maintain the same EP requirements as an operating power reactor under the existing regulatory requirements. To establish a level of EP commensurate with the reduced risks of a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, Entergy requires exemptions from certain EP regulatory requirements before it can change its emergency plans.
The NRC is considering issuing exemptions from portions of 10 CFR 50.47, “Emergency plans,” and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities,” to Entergy, which would eliminate the requirements for Entergy to maintain offsite radiological emergency plans and reduce some of the onsite EP activities, based on the reduced risks at VY, due to its permanently shutdown and defueled status. According to the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
The proposed action would exempt Entergy from meeting certain requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50.47 and appendix E to 10 CFR part 50. More specifically, Entergy requested exemptions from: (1) Certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors; (2) certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway EP zones for nuclear power reactors; and (3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, which establishes the elements that make up the content of emergency plans. The
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated March 14, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated August 29, 2014, and October 21, 2014. In its letters dated August 29, 2014, and October 21, 2014, Entergy provided responses to the NRC staff's requests for additional information concerning the proposed exemptions.
The proposed action is needed for Entergy to revise the VY emergency plan to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled status of the facility. The EP requirements currently applicable to VY are for an operating power reactor. There are no explicit regulatory provisions distinguishing EP requirements for a power reactor that has been permanently shut down, from those for an operating power reactor. Therefore, since the 10 CFR part 50 license for VY no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible.
In its exemption request, the licensee identified four possible radiological accidents at VY in its permanently shutdown and defueled condition. These are: (1) A fuel handling accident (FHA); (2) a radioactive waste handling accident; (3) a loss of SFP normal cooling (
Based on these analyses, the licensee states that complete application of the EP rule to VY, in its particular circumstances as a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor, would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. Entergy also states that it would incur undue costs in the application of operating plant EP requirements for the maintenance of an emergency response organization in excess of that actually needed to respond to the diminished scope of credible accidents for a permanently shutdown and defueled reactor.
The NRC staff concludes that the exemptions, if granted, would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents at VY in its permanently shutdown and defueled condition. There would be no significant change in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite. There would be no significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite. There would be no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have any foreseeable impacts to land, air, or water resources, including impacts to biota. In addition, there are no known socioeconomic or environmental justice impacts associated with the proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered the denial of the proposed action (
The proposed action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for VY, dated July 1972, as supplemented by NUREG–1437, Supplement 30, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station,” Volumes 1 and 2, published in August 2007.
Development of this EA and FONSI did not result in consultation.
At the conclusion of the draft EA and FONSI comment period on June 1, 2015, the NRC received four submissions containing comments from interested
Each comment was carefully reviewed by the NRC staff. Although most of the comments were outside the scope of the draft EA and FONSI, which deal strictly with the environmental impacts of granting the exemption request, the NRC has responded fully to the comments, as shown below.
The State of Vermont's comments consisted of two arguments: (1) That the NRC did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), by publishing the draft EA after the Commission had approved the staff's recommendation to grant the exemption request and (2) that the draft EA and FONSI are deficient and inadequate because they do not take a hard look at all the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, which Vermont asserts could be significant and, thus, require evaluation through an environmental impact statement. The NRC staff does not agree with these comments. As an initial matter, the comments are outside the scope of the comment opportunity because they do not have to do with the environmental impacts of granting Entergy's exemption request, but are instead procedural and substantive challenges under NEPA, to an NRC granting of the exemption request that has not yet occurred. Additionally, both arguments are without merit.
The Vermont argument that the NRC is not procedurally in compliance with NEPA is without merit because, consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC conducted the EA for the exemption request before making any final decision on the exemption request. The NRC received the exemption request on March 14, 2014. The exemption request seeks exemptions from 10 CFR 50.47(b), 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. The Commission has previously directed, in SRM to SECY–08–0024, “Delegation of Commission Authority to Staff to Approve or Deny Emergency Plan Changes that Represent a Decrease in Effectiveness,” dated May 19, 2008, that the NRC staff should request Commission approval for any reduction in the effectiveness of a licensee's emergency plan that requires an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. Therefore, on November 14, 2014, the NRC staff sought Commission approval with SECY–14–0125 “for the staff to process and grant, as appropriate” the exemption request. In SECY–14–0125, the NRC staff also explained that it had reviewed Entergy's site-specific analyses and calculations and stated that these analyses provide reasonable assurance that in granting the exemption request: 1) An offsite radiological release will not exceed the EPA PAGs at the site boundary for a DBA and 2) in the unlikely event of a beyond DBA resulting in a loss of all SFP cooling, there is sufficient time to initiate appropriate mitigating actions and, if a release is projected to occur, there is sufficient time for offsite agencies to take protective actions using a CEMP to protect the health and safety of the public. In response, on March 2, 2015, the Commission “approved the staff's recommendation to grant” the exemption request “to be implemented as stipulated in SECY–14–0125.” Thus, the NRC staff then proceeded to process the exemption request by, in part, conducting an EA of the exemption request, the draft of which was published for public comment on April 30, 2015. The NRC has now completed its final EA and FONSI, but has still yet to approve or deny the exemption request. The fact that the Commission had approved an NRC staff recommendation to grant the exemption request does not compel the NRC staff to grant the exemption request. Therefore, any future approval or denial of the exemption request will have necessarily come only after the NRC had considered the potential environmental impacts of the proposed exemption request, as well as, the public's and the State of Vermont's comments on these potential environmental impacts. Consequently, Vermont's argument that the NRC has approved the exemption request before taking a hard look at its potential environmental impacts in contravention of NEPA is without merit.
The Vermont argument that the NRC is not substantively in compliance with NEPA is without merit because, consistent with 10 CFR 51.30, the EA identifies the proposed action and includes a brief discussion of: The need for the proposed action; the alternatives to the proposed action; the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives; and a list of agencies and persons consulted and identification of sources used. With respect to environmental impacts, the NRC staff found that the exemption request, if granted, would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents at VY, would not significantly change the types or increase the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and would not significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that granting the exemption request would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The NRC staff based this finding on the permanently shutdown and defueled status of VY, combined with the long history of technical studies demonstrating that the risk for such facilities is very low, and the staff's verification that Entergy's site-specific analyses provided reasonable assurance that, even with the granting of the exemption request, a DBA will not exceed the EPA PAGs at the exclusion area boundary and a beyond-DBA will move slowly enough that appropriate onsite mitigating actions may be initiated and, if a release is projected to occur, offsite agencies would take protective actions using a CEMP to protect the public health and safety. Consequently, Vermont's argument that the EA is deficient and inadequate is without merit.
The NRC staff also disagrees with each of Vermont's specific arguments as to why it believes that the EA is inadequate. Vermont asserts that the granting of the exemption request would have “direct and significant implications for public health and safety,” but the EA explicitly found that granting the exemption request would not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Vermont asserts that the situation is unique because there is an elementary school directly across the street from VY, but this fact is immaterial because the NRC staff found that Entergy had provided reasonable assurance that a DBA would not result in radiation exposure greater than or equal to 1 rem at the VY boundary and that any beyond-DBA could be addressed in a timely manner. Vermont asserts that the EA fails to give any consideration to high-burnup fuel in the SFP, but the exemption request's DBA analysis, as demonstrated in its reference 6 at attachment 4, table 3–2, did indeed consider high-burnup fuel. Vermont asserts that the use of an EA is insufficient because Vermont opposes the exemption request as do a number of Vermont citizens, but this does not impact the staff's determination that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Vermont asserts that the risks resulting from any
In addition to the Vermont comments, the NRC received three sets of public comments on the draft EA. These public comments raised substantively similar issues as the Vermont comments and, thus, the NRC staff disagrees with them for the same reasons that it disagrees with the Vermont comments, as addressed above.
The licensee has proposed exemptions from: (1) Certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(b) regarding onsite and offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors; (2) Certain requirements in 10 CFR 50.47(c)(2) to establish plume exposure and ingestion pathway EP zones for nuclear power reactors; and (3) certain requirements in 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, section IV, which establishes the elements that make up the content of emergency plans. The proposed action of granting these exemptions would eliminate the requirements for the licensee to maintain formal offsite radiological emergency plans, as described in 44 CFR part 350, and reduce some of the onsite EP activities at VY, based on the reduced risks at the permanently shutdown and defueled reactor. However, requirements for certain onsite capabilities to communicate and coordinate with offsite response authorities following declaration of an emergency at VY will be retained and offsite “all hazards” EP provisions will still exist through State and local government use of a CEMP.
Consistent with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC conducted the EA for the proposed action, which is included in Section II of this document, and incorporated by reference in this finding. On the basis of this EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning an amendment to Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 12 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
On July 31, 2015, the Postal Service filed notice that it has agreed to an Amendment to the existing Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 12 negotiated service agreement approved in this docket.
The Postal Service also filed the unredacted Amendment 2 and supporting financial information under seal. The Postal Service seeks to incorporate by reference the Application for Non-Public Treatment originally filed in this docket for the protection of information that it has filed under seal.
Amendment 2 revises section I of the contract by inserting in section I, Terms, new sections I.F and I.G, and replacing section II, Annual Adjustment, in its entirety.
The Postal Service intends for Amendment 2 to become effective one business day after the date that the Commission issues all necessary regulatory approval.
The Commission invites comments on whether the changes presented in the Postal Service's Notice are consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR 3015.5, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than August 11, 2015. The public portions of these filings can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this docket.
1. The Commission reopens Docket No. CP2013–44 for consideration of matters raised by the Postal Service's Notice.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
3. Comments are due no later than August 11, 2015.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its schedule of fees and rebates 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 amend its Fee Schedule to remove fee code 5, which is appended to Internalized Trade that add or remove liquidity during the Pre-Opening and Post-Closing Sessions. Orders that yield fee code 5 are changed [sic] a fee of $0.00045 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.15% of the dollar value of the trade in securities priced below $1.00. During Regular Trading Hours,
As a result of the proposed removal of fee code 5, the Exchange also proposes to: (i) remove reference to fee code 5 from footnote 7 and; (ii) delete footnote 10. Under footnote 7, if a Member adds an ADV of at least 10,000,000 shares, then the Member's rate for fee codes 5, EA, or ER decreases to $0.0001 per share per side. Fee codes EA and ER would continue to remain eligible for the reduced fee under footnote 7. Footnote 10 states that a Member's monthly volume attributed to fee code 5 will be allocated accordingly between the added fee codes and removal fee codes when determining whether that Member satisfied a certain tier. The Exchange proposes to delete footnote 10 as it will no longer be necessary once fee code 5 is deleted.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee Schedule on August 3, 2015.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition. The proposed changes do not amend the amount or application of any fee or rebate. Members would continue to be charged identical fees for Internalized Trades occurring during the Pre-Opening and Post-Closing sessions as the fees charged for fee codes EA and ER are the same as those fees charged for orders that yielded fee code 5.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates 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: (i) To remove fee codes 5, EA, and ER which are appended to Internalized Trades; and (ii) amend the criteria for the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier.
The Exchange proposes to remove fee codes 5, EA, and ER which are appended to Internalized Trades as well as footnote 13. During Regular Trading Hours,
The Exchange also proposes to delete footnote 13, which states that a Member's monthly volume attributed to fee code 5 will be allocated accordingly between the added fee codes and removal fee codes when determining whether that Member satisfied a certain tier. The Exchange proposes to delete footnote 13 as it will no longer be necessary once fee code 5 is deleted.
The Exchange proposes to amend the criteria for the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier. Under the tier, a Member qualifies for a reduced fee of $0.0003 per share where that Member: (i) Adds an ADV of at least 0.20% of the TCV including non-displayed orders that add liquidity; and (ii) adds or removes an ADV of at least 500,000 shares yielding fee codes DM or DT. Fee code DM is applied to non-displayed orders that add liquidity using MidPoint Discretionary Orders
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its Fee Schedule on August 3, 2015.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to delete fee codes 5, EA, and ER, as well as footnote 13 represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange notes that other exchanges do not charge separate fees for their member's Internalized Trades, thereby subjecting such trades to their standard fees and rebates.
The Exchange believes amending the criteria for the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its facilities because it is designed to further incentivize Members to increase their use of MidPoint Discretionary Orders on EDGA. MidPoint Discretionary Orders increase displayed liquidity on the Exchange while also enhancing execution opportunities at the midpoint of the NBBO. Promotion of displayed liquidity at the NBBO enhances market quality for all Members. Members utilizing MidPoint Discretionary Orders provide liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO increasing the potential for an order to receive price improvement, and easing the tier's criteria so that Members may be eligible for a decreased fee is a reasonable means by which to encourage the use of such orders. In addition, the Exchange believes that by encouraging the use of MidPoint Discretionary Orders by easing the tier's criteria, Members seeking price improvement would be more motivated to direct their orders to EDGA because they would have a heightened expectation of the availability of liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO. The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment to the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier is non-discriminatory because it will be available to all Members.
The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule would not 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 the proposed change 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 believes that its proposal to delete fee codes 5, EA, and ER, as well as footnote 13 will not burden intermarket or intramarket competition as Internalized Trades would be subject to the Exchange's standard fee sand rebates resulting in rates for Internalized Trades that are equal to and no more favorable than Members achieving the maker/taker spreads between the Exchange's standard add and remove rates. The Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed rebate would apply uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to ease the criteria for the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier would increase intermarket competition because it would further incentivize Members to send an increased amount MidPoint Discretionary Orders to the Exchange in order to qualify for the tier's decreased fee. The Exchange believes that its proposal would neither increase nor decrease intramarket competition because the MidPoint Discretionary Order Add Volume Tier would apply uniformly to all Members and the ability of some Members to meet the tier would only benefit other Members by contributing to increased liquidity at the midpoint of the NBBO and better market quality at the Exchange.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7039 (NASDAQ Last Sale and NASDAQ Last Sale Plus Data Feeds) with language indicating the fees for NASDAQ Last Sale Plus (“NLS Plus”), a comprehensive data feed offered by NASDAQ OMX Information LLC.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposal is to amend Rule 7039 with language indicating the fees for NLS Plus. NLS Plus allows data distributors to access the three last sale products offered by each of NASDAQ OMX's three U.S. equity markets.
NLS Plus allows data distributors to access last sale products offered by each of NASDAQ OMX's three equity exchanges. NLS Plus includes all transactions from all of NASDAQ OMX's equity markets, as well as FINRA/NASDAQ TRF data that is included in the current NLS product. In addition, NLS Plus features total cross-market volume information at the issue level, thereby providing redistribution of consolidated volume information (“consolidated volume”) from the securities information processors (“SIPs”) for Tape A, B, and C securities.
NLS Plus is currently codified in Rule 7039(d)
The Exchange believes that market data distributors may use the NLS Plus data feed to feed stock tickers, portfolio trackers, trade alert programs, time and sale graphs, and other display systems. The contents of NLS Plus are set forth in NASDAQ Rule 7039(d).
Firms that receive an NLS Plus feed today are liable for annual administration fees for applicable NASDAQ equity exchanges: $1,000 for NASDAQ, $1,000 for BX, and $1,000 for PSX.
Accordingly, proposed Rule 7039 states the following at sections (d)(1) through (d)(3):
(1) Firms that receive NLS Plus shall pay the annual administration fees for NLS, BX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale, and a data consolidation fee of $350 per month.
(2) Firms that receive NLS Plus are in addition liable for NLS or NASDAQ Basic fees, as applicable.
(3) In the event that NASDAQ OMX BX and/or NASDAQ OMX PHLX adopt user fees for BX Last Sale and/or PSX Last Sale, firms that receive NLS Plus would also be liable for such fees.
The Exchange notes that the proposed fee structure is designed to ensure that vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating a product similar to NLS Plus.
The proposed fee structure is reasonable and proper. First, the proposed administration fee is essentially a codification of the current administration fee vis a vis NASDAQ, BX and PSX. Second, NLS Plus recipients would also be liable for fees if the Exchange adopts user fees for BX Last Sale and/or PSX Last Sale. To that end, the Exchange notes that it will file separate proposals to adopt NLS Plus in the BX Last Sale and PSX Last Sale provisions,
The Exchange believes that the proposed NLS Plus fee is a simple codification of the existing NLS PLS [
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
NASDAQ believes that the proposed fees offered to firms that elect to receive NLS Plus are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. These fees are reasonable because they are, as discussed, simply a codification of the existing fee structure, with an addition of the above-discussed consolidation fee, into existing Rule 7039. The proposed fee structure would apply equally to all firms that choose to avail themselves of the NLS Plus data feed, and no firm is required to use NLS Plus. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the consolidation fee, while in addition to the current NLS Plus fee, would not be material to firms. The consolidation fee would, however, enable the Exchange to recoup the monthly consolidation cost emanating from the aggregation and consolidation of the data and data streams that make up the NLS Plus data feed. Such consolidated costs include, for example, the monthly the costs of combining the feeds, adding the Bloomberg ID, and creating the consolidated sale info. The proposed fee structure would not be unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all firms that choose to use NLS Plus.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed fees are also consistent with the investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
NASDAQ notes that the Commission has recently approved data products on several exchanges that are similar to NLS Plus, and specifically determined that the fee-liable approved data products were consistent with the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and broker-dealers (“BDs”) increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. NASDAQ believes that its NLS Plus market data product is
[E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
The Court in
Moreover, fee liable data products such as NLS Plus are a means by which exchanges compete to attract order flow, and this proposal simply codifies the relevant fee structure into an Exchange rule. To the extent that exchanges are successful in such competition, they earn trading revenues and also enhance the value of their data products by increasing the amount of data they are able to provide. Conversely, to the extent that exchanges are unsuccessful, the inputs needed to add value to data products are diminished. Accordingly, the need to compete for order flow places substantial pressure upon exchanges to keep their fees for both executions and data reasonable.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee structure is designed to ensure a fair and reasonable use of Exchange resources by allowing the Exchange to recoup costs while continuing to offer its data products at competitive rates to firms.
The market for data products is extremely competitive and firms may freely choose alternative venues and data vendors based on the aggregate fees assessed, the data offered, and the value provided. This rule proposal does not burden competition, which continues to offer alternative data products and, like the Exchange, set fees,
NLS Plus joins the existing market for proprietary last sale data products that is currently competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously competitive market. Similarly, with respect to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF data that is a component of NLS and NLS Plus, allowing exchanges to operate TRFs has permitted them to earn revenues by providing technology and data in support of the non-exchange segment of the market. This revenue opportunity has also resulted in fierce competition between the two current TRF operators, with both TRFs charging extremely low trade reporting fees and rebating the majority of the revenues they receive from core market data to the parties reporting trades.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether and on which platform to post
The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing, maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, the operation of the exchange is characterized by high fixed costs and low marginal costs. This cost structure is common in content and content distribution industries such as software, where developing new software typically requires a large initial investment (and continuing large investments to upgrade the software), but once the software is developed, the incremental cost of providing that software to an additional user is typically small, or even zero (
An exchange's BD customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A BD will direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution costs and the cost of data that the BD chooses to buy to support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the BD will choose not to buy it. Moreover, as a BD chooses to direct fewer orders to a particular exchange, the value of the product to that BD decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less information, because executions of the BD's trading activity will not be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product will be less valuable to that BD because it does not provide information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data from the competing venue to which the BD is directing orders will become correspondingly more valuable.
Similarly, in the case of products such as NLS Plus that are distributed through market data vendors, the vendors provide price discipline for proprietary data products because they control the primary means of access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by providing only data that will enable them to attract “eyeballs” that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail BDs, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although the business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is the same: they can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient value. Exchanges, TRFs, and other producers of proprietary data products must understand and respond to these varying business models and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data products successfully. Moreover, NASDAQ believes that products such as NLS Plus can enhance order flow to NASDAQ by providing more widespread distribution of information about transactions in real time, thereby encouraging wider participation in the market by investors with access to the internet or television. Conversely, the value of such products to distributors and investors decreases if order flow falls, because the products contain less content.
Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs. NASDAQ pays rebates to attract orders, charges relatively low prices for market information and charges relatively high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy of paying lower liquidity rebates to attract orders, setting relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity, and setting relatively high prices for market information. Still others may provide most data free of charge and rely exclusively on transaction fees to recover their costs. Finally, some platforms may incentivize use by providing opportunities for equity ownership, which may allow them to charge lower direct fees for executions and data.
In this environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering. Such regulation is unnecessary because an “excessive” price for one of the joint products will ultimately have to be reflected in lower prices for other products sold by the firm, or otherwise the firm will experience a loss in the volume of its sales that will be adverse to its overall profitability. In other words, an increase in the price of data will ultimately have to be accompanied by a decrease in the cost of executions, or the volume of both data and executions will fall.
The level of competition and contestability in the market is evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow, including eleven SRO markets, as well as internalizing BDs and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions,
The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE MKT, NYSE Arca, and BATS/Direct Edge.
Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple BDs' production of proprietary data products. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless. Notably, the potential sources of data include the BDs that submit trade reports to TRFs and that have the ability to consolidate and distribute their data without the involvement of FINRA or an exchange-operated TRF.
The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products, as BATS and NYSE Arca did before registering as exchanges by publishing proprietary book data on the internet. Second, because a single order or transaction report can appear in a core data product, an SRO proprietary product, and/or a non-SRO proprietary product, the data available in proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. Indeed, in the case of NLS Plus, the data provided through that product appears both in (i) real-time core data products offered by the SIPs for a fee, (ii) free SIP data products with a 15-minute time delay, and (iii) individual exchange data products, and finds a close substitute in last-sale products of competing venues.
In addition to the competition and price discipline described above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable. The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. A proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data, has increased the contestability of that market. While BDs have previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters. In Europe, Cinnober aggregates and disseminates data from over 40 brokers and multilateral trading facilities.
In the case of TRFs, the rapid entry of several exchanges into this space in 2006–2007 following the development and Commission approval of the TRF structure demonstrates the contestability of this aspect of the market.
Moreover, consolidated data provides two additional measures of pricing discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of the consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is widely available in real-time at $1 per month for non-professional users. Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a 15- or 20-minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset of the consolidated data, by highlighting the optional nature of proprietary products.
In this environment, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. “No one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce'.”
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
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.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR–NASDAQ–2015–088 and should be submitted on or before August 31, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
August 4, 2015.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Nasdaq proposes to allow listed companies not currently subject to Nasdaq's all-inclusive annual listing fee to opt in to that fee program for 2016. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Effective January 1, 2015, Nasdaq adopted an all-inclusive annual listing fee, which simplifies billing and provides transparency and certainty to companies as to the annual cost of listing.
While this new fee structure will become operative for all listed companies in 2018, listed companies were allowed to elect to be subject to the all-inclusive annual listing fee effective January 1, 2015, and were provided certain incentives to do so.
Nasdaq now proposes to allow currently listed companies that did not previously opt in to the all-inclusive annual fee program to do so effective January 1, 2016. In addition, Nasdaq proposes to offer companies an incentive to opt in, similar to the incentive offered companies that opted in to the all-inclusive annual fee program for 2015. Specifically, from July 22, 2015 until December 31, 2015, Nasdaq will allow companies to opt in to the all-inclusive annual fee program starting in 2016. Any company that does so will not be billed for the listing of additional shares after it submits the opt-in form to Nasdaq, regardless of when the shares were issued.
The proposed rule change also conforms certain language in IM–5920–1 with the comparable provision of IM–5910–1 and [sic] clarifies that total shares outstanding includes the aggregate number of all securities outstanding for each class of listed equity securities.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
Nasdaq believes that the proposed incentives offered to companies that elect the all-inclusive annual listing fee starting in 2016 are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. These incentives are available equally to all companies and would provide the same benefit to all companies that make the election. Moreover, no company is required to opt in to the all-inclusive annual fee program under this change. In addition, as noted above, Nasdaq will accrue benefits from companies electing the all-inclusive annual listing fee structure, including by eliminating the multiple invoices that are sent to a company each year and providing more certainty as to revenue, and the incentives are designed to help Nasdaq capture these benefits sooner, which is a reasonable and non-discriminatory reason to provide the incentives to companies. Companies that elected to be subject to the all-inclusive fee during the initial opt-in period, effective for 2015, would not be disadvantaged in that they receive the benefit of having their fees calculated based on the maximum total shares outstanding as of the earlier December 31, 2014, date applicable to companies that opted in during 2014, and they received the benefits of the all-inclusive annual fee program for 2015.
The proposed changes to conform certain language in IM–5920–1 with the comparable provision of IM–5910–1, clarify that for both domestic and foreign issuers, total shares outstanding includes the aggregate number of all securities outstanding for each class of listed equity securities, and clarify that the fee charged a foreign private issuer is based not just on “shares” but, like a domestic company, is based on the total of all equity securities outstanding, are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that they clarify Nasdaq's calculation of fees and conform the treatment for foreign private issuers with that of domestic companies, allowing the aggregation of all equity securities issued by the company.
Finally, Nasdaq believes that the proposed incentives are consistent with the investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The market for listing services is extremely competitive and listed companies may freely choose alternative venues based on the aggregate fees assessed, and the value provided by each listing. This rule proposal does not burden competition with other listing venues, which are similarly free to set their fees, but rather reflects the competition between listing venues and will further enhance such competition. For these reasons, Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition for listings.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest; for the protection of investors; or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change relating to the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) system, Real-time Transaction Reporting System (“RTRS”), and Short-Term Obligation Rate Transparency (“SHORT”) system. The proposed rule change consists of revisions to the facilities for the EMMA system, RTRS, and SHORT system to better align the language of the information facilities to the MSRB's administration of these systems. The proposed rule change adds references to the MSRB's core operational hours, clarifies the twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week (“24/7”) availability of many aspects of the MSRB's systems, and makes minor changes of a technical nature. The MSRB has filed the proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The EMMA system is an information facility for the collection and dissemination of municipal securities disclosure documents and related information. The EMMA system includes a public Web site, the EMMA portal, which provides for free public access to disclosures and transparency information for municipal securities. RTRS is an information facility for the collection and dissemination of information about transactions occurring in the municipal securities market. The SHORT system is an information facility for the collection and dissemination of information and disclosure documents about securities bearing interest at short-term rates (auction rate securities and variable-rate demand obligations). The information facilities for the EMMA system, RTRS, and SHORT system serve to outline the high level parameters by which the MSRB operates these systems.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to better align the language of the information facilities for the EMMA system, RTRS, and SHORT system to the MSRB's administration of these systems. The proposed rule change would add references to the MSRB's core operational hours, clarify the 24/7 availability of many aspects of the MSRB's systems and make minor changes of a technical nature to these information facilities. These changes are more fully described below.
The MSRB maintains core operational hours for its transparency systems of
The MSRB's core operational hours reflect the time period when nearly all information and disclosure documents are submitted to the EMMA system, RTRS, or SHORT system. Over the MSRB's two prior fiscal years ended September 30, 2014, the EMMA system received 97.4% of all submissions of disclosure documents, the RTRS received 99.3% of all submissions of information, and the SHORT system received 99.6% of all submissions of information and 99.8% of all submissions of disclosure documents during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time on business days.
The information facilities for the EMMA and SHORT systems currently note that the systems are expected to operate at the highest performance during the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The RTRS information facility does not specifically reference the timeframe in which the system experiences the highest performance. The proposed rule change would provide that the core operational hours for each system, the EMMA system, RTRS, and SHORT system, are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Many aspects of the EMMA system, RTRS, and SHORT system have 24/7 availability. Since implementation of the EMMA and SHORT systems, the MSRB has maintained, as 24/7 services, the EMMA portal and the submission processes for submitting disclosure documents to the EMMA and SHORT systems. The RTRS web interface also has been maintained for brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”) to view their submitted trade data on a 24/7 basis since 2007.
Technological advancements to MSRB transparency systems enable the MSRB to conduct routine maintenance and system upgrades in a manner that is seamless to users. Nonetheless, on rare occasions system maintenance or upgrades may require the MSRB to schedule a system outage, which, to the extent feasible, would be scheduled outside of core operational hours. In addition, in the event of a cyber attack or security issue, the MSRB may need to make components of MSRB transparency systems unavailable to ensure the integrity of the systems. Accordingly, the amendments further clarify the MSRB's ability to make services unavailable outside of core operational hours for required maintenance, upgrades or other purposes, or at other times as needed to ensure the integrity of MSRB systems.
The proposed rule change includes three minor changes of a technical nature. First, the EMMA system enables users to request periodic email alerts based on the reporting of trade data or availability of disclosure documents for a specific security. The EMMA system's information facility language currently does not reflect all of the information and disclosures for which a user can request an email alert; the proposed rule change clarifies the availability of this service. Second, the information facilities for the EMMA system, RTRS, and SHORT system currently use inconsistent abbreviations for ante meridiem and post meridiem as well as inconsistent references that the time noted shall reflect Eastern Time; the proposed rule change would state all time conventions in a consistent manner. Third, the proposed rule change would correct a reference in the SHORT system information facility regarding future subscription products as the MSRB has since made such subscription products available.
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act,
The proposed rule change would contribute to the MSRB's continuing efforts to improve market transparency and to protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons and the public interest. The MSRB believes that users of MSRB transparency systems will benefit from a clearer understanding of the MSRB's administration of these systems.
The proposed rule change consists of revisions to the information facilities for the EMMA system, RTRS, and SHORT system to better align the language of the information facilities to the MSRB's administration of these systems. The proposed rule change seeks to clarify existing services and make minor changes of a technical nature to the information facilities. The proposed rule change will not modify the manner in which the MSRB administers these systems. Accordingly, the MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 16, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 312.03(b) and 312.04 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (“Manual”) to provide an exemption to an “early stage company” listed on the Exchange from having to obtain shareholder approval, under certain circumstances, before issuing shares of common stock, or securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock, to a (1) director, officer
The Exchange also proposes to amend Section 312.04 to include a definition of the term “early stage company.”
The Exchange also states that any issuance of shares that is not a sale for cash, including any issuance in connection with the acquisition of stock or assets of another company, would remain subject to the shareholder approval provisions of Section 312.03(b) of the Manual.
Lastly, the Exchange also proposes to delete obsolete text from Section 312.03 of the Manual related to a limited transition period that is no longer relevant.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange proposes to amend Sections 312.03(b) and 312.04 of the Manual, in order to exempt early stage companies from having to obtain shareholder approval before issuing a substantial amount of shares for cash, even at a discount from book and market value, to Related Parties, namely officers, directors and substantial security holders, as well as the other Proposed Exempted Parties.
The Commission therefore believes that questions are raised as to whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, including whether it would be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and protect investors and the public interest.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved by August 31, 2015. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by September 14, 2015. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposed rule change, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the statements of the Exchange contained in the Notice,
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to adopt transaction fees for Qualified Contingent Cross (“QCC”) transactions. A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts (or 10,000 mini-option contracts) that is identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade, coupled with a contra side order to buy or sell an equal number of contracts. The Exchange is proposing to establish fees for QCC Orders to coincide with the acceptance of QCC Orders on the Exchange beginning August 1, 2015.
The proposed fees are based on the substantially similar fees of another competing options exchange.
The Exchange proposes to establish a transaction fee for all non-Priority Customer
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to state explicitly in the Fee Schedule that a QCC transaction is comprised of an `initiating order' to buy (sell) at least 1,000 contracts or 10,000 mini-option contracts, coupled with a contra-side order to sell (buy) an equal number of contracts.
The purpose of these changes is to incentivize the sending of QCC Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that other competing exchanges similarly provide rebates on QCC initiating orders.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to provide that QCC Orders are excluded from: (i) The volume threshold calculations for the Market Maker Sliding Scale; (ii) and the rebates and volume calculations as part of the Priority Customer Rebate Program. The Exchange believes that excluding QCC Orders from these fees and rebates is appropriate, because QCC Orders from Market Makers and Priority Customers will be subject to the specific transaction fees as described above that are tailored specifically for encouraging market participants to transact QCC Orders on the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe that it is necessary at this time to extend the favorable volume fee rates nor the rebate program to QCC Orders.
The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed changes beginning August 1, 2015.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes the proposed transaction fee for QCC Orders is reasonable because the proposed amount is in line with the amount assessed at other Exchanges for similar transactions.
The Exchange believes the proposed rebate for the initiating order side of a QCC transaction is reasonable because other competing exchanges also provide a rebate on the initiating order side. Additionally, the proposed credit amount is within the range of the rebate amounts at the other competing exchanges.
The Exchange further believes that not assessing a Marketing Fee for contracts executed as a QCC, and not assessing the additional Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee to Market Makers for contracts executed as a QCC Order is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because such order types are originated from the same Member organization, thus obviating the purpose of the Marketing Fees. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Fee Schedule specifying that QCC orders comprised of mini-contracts will be assessed QCC fees and afforded rebates equal to 10% of the fees and rebates applicable to QCC Orders comprised of standard option contracts is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it clearly and transparently describes the fees applicable to QCC Orders involving mini-contracts for all MIAX participants.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the proposed rule change applies to all Members. The Exchange believes this proposal will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because the proposed changes will actually enhance the competiveness of the Exchange relative to other exchanges which offer comparable fees and rebates for QCC transactions. To the extent that the proposed changes make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become market participants on the Exchange.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of Revision of Privacy Act System of Records.
SBA is amending its Privacy Act system of records notice titled, Business and Community Initiatives Resource Files, SBA–5 to clarify the categories of individuals and categories of records that are covered by that systems of records and also to change the title of the system of records. Publication of this notice complies with the Privacy Act and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A–130 requirement for agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit written comments to Linda Di Giandomenico, Acting Chief Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Office, U. S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
Linda Di Giandomenico, Acting Chief Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Office, (202) 401–8203.
A system of records (SOR) is a group of any records under the control of a federal agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by a number, symbol or other identifier assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, requires each federal agency to publish in the
The PII information maintained in SBA's Business and Community Initiatives Resource Files system of records SBA–5, is collected in connection with various business and entrepreneurial education initiatives carried out by SBA to further its mission of helping small businesses or potential small business owners. SBA uses the information to, among other things, register eligible participants, report overall participation, and gain insight into participants' entrepreneurial goals, knowledge and experience. The information is also used to maintain a list of registrants, instructors, and other participants in the SBA entrepreneurial initiatives to facilitate the agency's Customer Relationship Management (CRM) capability to follow-up on additional initiatives, course feedback or other types of information. This system of records is separate from the SBA SBA–11, Entrepreneurial Development Management Information System, which covers information collected from those using SBA's business counseling and assistance services, provided by SBA's resource partners, including Small Business Development Centers, SCORE, and Women Business Centers.
SBA is changing the title of the system of records, SBA–5 to “Business and Entrepreneurial Initiatives for Small Businesses.” The agency believes this title more accurately conveys the scope of the source of the information maintained in the system. This revised name should also help affected persons identify which system if any governs their PII information. SBA is also amending the categories of individuals and categories of records covered by SBA–5 to more explicitly identify the persons and records maintained in the system of records. The current description of individuals and records covered by SBA–5 does not provide sufficient details to enable individuals whose information is maintained in the system of records to make a clear assessment about their Privacy Act protected information. The changes to the Categories of Individuals and Categories of Records provide a level of detail that is intended to close this gap.
Business and Entrepreneurial Initiatives for Small Businesses
Headquarters (HQ) and All SBA Field Offices
Individuals who participate in programs and activities (
Biographical and other identifying information, including: name, physical and/or email address, telephone number (and other contact information), age range, race, ethnicity, military pay grade, veteran and discharge status, previous and current business ownership data (name of business, Web site, industry) and future self-employment aspirations.
5 U.S.C. 634(b)(6), 44 U.S.C. 3101.
These records and information in the records may be used, disclosed, or referred:
a. To coordinators of the various SBA business development and entrepreneurial events, such as training, outreach, marketing, and matchmaking activities.
b. To a Congressional office from an individual's record, when that office is inquiring on the individual's behalf; the Member's access rights are no greater than the individual's.
c. To SBA volunteers, contractors, interns, grantees, or co-sponsors who are assisting SBA in the performance of a service related to this system of records and who need access to the records in order to perform such service. Recipients of these records shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
d. To the Department of Justice (DOJ) when any of the following is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by DOJ is deemed by SBA to be relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, SBA determines the disclosure of the records to DOJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected: SBA, or any component thereof; any SBA employee in their official capacity; any SBA employee in their individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or the United States Government, where SBA determines that litigation is likely to affect SBA or any of its components.
e. In a proceeding before a court, or adjudicative body, or a dispute resolution body before which SBA is authorized to appear or before which any of the following is a party to litigation or has an interest in litigation, provided, however, that SBA determines that the use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation, and that, in each case, SBA determines that disclosure of the records to a court or other adjudicative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is a compatible purpose for which the records were collected: SBA, or any SBA component; any SBA employee in their official capacity; any SBA employee in their individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or The United States Government, where SBA determines that litigation is likely to affect SBA or any of its components.
f. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: SBA suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system records has been compromised; SBA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identify theft or fraud, or harm to the security of integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and the disclosure made to such agencies, entities and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with SBA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
Paper and electronic files.
By the name of the individual covered by the system of record.
Access and use is limited to persons with official need to know; computers are protected by password and user identification codes.
In accordance with Standard Operating Procedures 00 41 2, 65:01, 65:02, 65:03, 65:04, 65:05, 65:07 and 65:09.
Field Office Directors, Associate Administrators for program offices carrying out Entrepreneurial Programs and Initiatives, and Privacy Act Officer, 409 Third Street SW., Washington DC 20416.
Individuals may make record inquiries in person or in writing to the Systems Manager or SBA Privacy Act Officer.
Systems Manager or Privacy Act Officer will determine procedures.
Notify officials listed above and state reason(s) for contesting any information and provide proposed amendment(s) sought.
Individuals covered by the system of record; contractors, event coordinators, universities, professional or civic organizations.
Closed meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 10(a)(2), the Department of State announces a meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) to take place on September 15, 2015, at the Department of State, Washington, DC.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that this Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, political-military affairs, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include classified discussions related to the Board's studies on current U.S. policy and issues regarding arms control, international security, nuclear proliferation, and diplomacy.
For more information, contact Christopher Herrick, Acting Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 647–9683.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to September 9, 2015.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to George Weber, who may be reached on 202–485–7637 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The DS–261 allows the beneficiary of an approved immigrant visa petition to provide the Department with his or her current address, which will be used for communications with the beneficiary. The DS–261 also allows the beneficiary
Applicants will submit the DS–261 electronically to the Department via the Internet.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email:
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a description of the object, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6471; email:
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing concerning China's compliance with its WTO commitments.
The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) will convene a public hearing and seek public comment to assist the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in the preparation of its annual report to the Congress on China's compliance with the commitments made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Persons wishing to testify at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention, as well as a summary of their testimony, by Wednesday, September 23, 2015. Written comments are also due by Wednesday, September 23, 2015. A hearing will be held in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, October 7, 2015.
Notifications of intent to testify and written comments should be submitted electronically via the Internet at
For procedural questions concerning written comments or participation in the public hearing, contact Yvonne Jamison at (202) 395–3475. All other questions should be directed to Terrence J. McCartin, Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative for China Enforcement, at (202) 395–3900, or Philip D. Chen, Chief Counsel for China Enforcement, at (202) 395–3150.
China became a Member of the WTO on December 11, 2001. In accordance with section 421 of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–286), USTR is required to submit, by December 11 of each year, a report to Congress on China's compliance with commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including both multilateral commitments and any bilateral commitments made to the United States. In accordance with section 421, and to assist it in preparing this year's report, the TPSC is hereby soliciting public comment. Last year's report is available on USTR's Internet Web site (
The terms of China's accession to the WTO are contained in the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (including its annexes) (Protocol), the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China (Working Party Report), and the WTO agreements. The Protocol and Working Party Report can be found on the Department of Commerce Web page, http://www.mac.doc.gov/china/WTOAccessionPackageNEW.html, or on the WTO Web site,
USTR invites written comments and/or oral testimony of interested persons on China's compliance with commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including, but not limited to, commitments in the following areas: (a) Trading rights; (b) import regulation (
Written comments must be received no later than Wednesday, September 23, 2015.
A hearing will be held on Wednesday, October 7, 2015, in Room 1, 1724 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20508. If necessary, the hearing will continue on the next business day. Persons wishing to testify orally at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention by Wednesday, September 23, 2015. The intent to testify notification must be made in the “Type Comment” field under docket number USTR–2015–0010 on the regulations.gov Web site and should include the name, address and telephone number of the person presenting the testimony. A summary of the testimony should be attached by using the “Upload File” field. The name of the file should also include who will be presenting the testimony. Remarks at the hearing should be limited to no more than five minutes to allow for possible questions from the TPSC.
All documents should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in section 3 below.
Persons submitting a notification of intent to testify and/or written comments must do so in English and must identify (on the first page of the submission) “China's WTO Compliance.”
In order to ensure the timely receipt and consideration of comments, USTR strongly encourages commenters to make on-line submissions, using the
The
For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC.” Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information must also submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P.” The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files.
As noted above, USTR strongly urges submitters to file comments through
Comments will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection, except business confidential information. Comments may be viewed on the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice advises the public that PHMSA is currently reviewing administrative appeals on a recently issued final rule titled, “Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains” (80 FR 26643). In accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, this notice provides notification to parties having brought certain administrative appeals of the anticipated delay in processing these administrative appeals.
Charles E. Betts, Director, Standards and Rulemaking Division, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366–4512, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Office of Hazardous Materials Standards received a number of administrative appeals in relation to the PHMSA final rule, titled, “Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains” (80 FR 26643). Key information on the administrative appeals is provided below.
49 CFR 106.130(a)(4) provides that if PHMSA does not issue a decision on whether to grant or deny an administrative appeal within 90 days after the date that the final rule is published in the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Under the PRA, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Market Risk.”
You should submit written comments by: October 9, 2015.
Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557–0247, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E–218, Mail Stop 9W–11, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465–4326 or by
All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649–5490, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649–5597, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.
The OCC is requesting extension of OMB approval for this collection. There have been no changes to the requirements of the regulations.
The information collection requirements are located at 12 CFR 3.203 through 3.212. The rules enhance risk sensitivity and include requirements for the public disclosure of certain qualitative and quantitative information about the market risk of national banks and federal savings associations. The collection of information is necessary to ensure capital adequacy appropriate for the level of market risk.
Section 3.203 sets forth the requirements for applying the market risk framework. Section 3.203(a)(1) requires national banks and federal savings associations to have clearly defined policies and procedures for determining which trading assets and trading liabilities are trading positions and specifies the factors a national bank or federal savings association must take into account in drafting those policies and procedures. Section 3.203(a)(2) requires national banks and federal savings associations to have clearly defined trading and hedging strategies for trading positions that are approved by senior management and specifies what the strategies must articulate. Section 3.203(b)(1) requires national banks and federal savings associations to have clearly defined policies and procedures for actively managing all covered positions and specifies the minimum requirements for those policies and procedures. Sections 3.203(c)(4) through 3.203(c)(10) require the annual review of internal models and specify certain requirements for those models. Section 3.203(d) requires the internal audit group of a national bank or federal savings association to prepare an annual report to the board of directors on the effectiveness of controls supporting the market risk measurement systems.
Section 3.204(b) requires national banks and federal savings associations to conduct quarterly backtesting. Section 3.205(a)(5) requires institutions to demonstrate to the OCC the appropriateness of proxies used to capture risks within value-at-risk models. Section 3.205(c) requires institutions to develop, retain, and make available to the OCC value-at-risk and profit and loss information on sub-portfolios for two years. Section 3.206(b)(3) requires national banks and federal savings associations to have policies and procedures that describe how they determine the period of significant financial stress used to calculate the institution's stressed value-at-risk models and to obtain prior OCC approval for any material changes to these policies and procedures.
Section 3.207(b)(1) details requirements applicable to a national bank or federal savings association when the national bank or federal savings association uses internal models to measure the specific risk of certain covered positions. Section 3.208 requires national banks and federal savings associations to obtain prior written OCC approval for incremental risk modeling. Section 3.209(a) requires prior OCC approval for the use of a comprehensive risk measure. Section 3.209(c)(2) requires national banks and federal savings associations to retain and report the results of supervisory stress testing. Section 3.210(f)(2)(i) requires national banks and federal savings associations to document an internal analysis of the risk characteristics of each securitization position in order to demonstrate an understanding of the position. Section 3.212 requires quarterly quantitative disclosures, annual qualitative disclosures, and a formal disclosure policy approved by the board of directors that addresses the approach for determining the market risk disclosures it makes.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized, included in the request for OMB approval, and become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is removing the names of two individuals whose property and interests in property have been blocked
OFAC's actions described in this notice are effective as of July 30, 2015.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622–2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622–2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622–2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622–2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On July 30, 2015, OFAC determined that circumstances no longer warrant the inclusion of the following two individuals on OFAC's SDN list, and that these individuals are no longer subject to the blocking provisions of Section 1(a) of E.O. 13396:
1. DJEDJE, Alcide Ilahiri (a.k.a. DJEDJE, Ilahiri Alcide; a.k.a. ILAHIRI, Alcide Djedje); DOB 1956 (individual) [COTED]
2. N'GUESSAN, Pascal Affi (a.k.a. NGUESSAN, Affi); DOB 1953; POB Bongouanou, Côte d'Ivoire (individual) [COTED]
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of eleven persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13582, six persons identified as the Government of Syria pursuant to E.O. 13582, and ten vessels in which certain of these entities have an interest.
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on August 3, 2015, as further specified below.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622–2420, Associate Director for Sanctions Policy & Implementation, tel.: 202/622–2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622–2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site (
On August 3, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following eleven persons pursuant to E.O. 13582, “Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria”:
1. AYDIN, Mustafa, Turkey; DOB 26 May 1988; Passport U04663595 (Turkey) (individual) [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.; Linked To: BLUE ENERGY TRADE LTD. CO.; Linked To: ABDULKARIM GROUP).
2. DUZGOREN, Serkan, Turkey; DOB 28 Jan 1979 (individual) [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.).
3. DUZGOREN, Erkan, Turkey; DOB 17 Jun 1980 (individual) [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.).
4. KENAR, Ufuk, Turkey; DOB 24 Apr 1980 (individual) [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.).
1. AQUA SHIPPING LTD. (a.k.a. AQUA SHIPPING LTD.-MAI), c/o Milenyum Denizcilik Gemi Hizmetleri Acentelik ve Ozel Ogretim Hizmetleri Ltd. Sti, Nazli Sokak 9, Halilrifatpasa Mah, Sisli, Istanbul 34384, Turkey; Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, Marshall Islands; Identification Number IMO 5849194 [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.).
2. BLUE ENERGY TRADE LTD. CO., P.O. Box 556, Charlestown, Saint Kitts and Nevis [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.).
3. EBLA TRADE SERVICES S.A.L./OFF–SHORE, Beirut, Lebanon; Nakhle Center, Property Number: 295/24, Baabda, Furn, Chebbak, Lebanon [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.; Linked To: BLUE ENERGY TRADE LTD. CO.).
4. GREEN SHIPPING LTD., c/o Milenyum Denizcilik Gemi Hizmetleri Acentelik ve Ozel Ogretim Hizmetleri Ltd. Sti, Nazli Sokak 9, Halilrifatpasa Mah, Sisli, Istanbul 34384, Turkey; Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, Marshall Islands; Identification Number IMO 5848165 [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.).
5. MILENYUM ENERGY S.A. (a.k.a. MILENYUM DENIZCILIK GEMI; a.k.a. MILENYUM DENIZCILIK GEMI HIZMETLERI ACENTELIK VE OZEL OGRETIM HIZMETLERI LIMITED SIRKETI; a.k.a. MILENYUM SHIPPING), c/o Milenyum Denizcilik Gemi H., Hizmetleri Ltd. Sti, Nazli Sokak 9, Halilrifatpasa Mah, Sisli, Istanbul 34384, Turkey; Ataturk Mahallesi Gulay Sokak, No. 12/3, Atasehir, Istanbul, Turkey; No. 18 D. 1 Kemankes Mah. Necatibey Cad., Akce Sok., Karakoy, Istanbul, Turkey; Sierra Leone; Avenida Norte Enrique Geenzeier El Cangrejo, Panama 0834–1082, Panama; Web site
6. THE EAGLES L.L.C. (a.k.a. THE EAGLES INTERNATIONAL LLC), Plot No. 41, Airport Free Trade Zone, Damascus, Syria [SYRIA] (Linked To: ABDULKARIM, Wael; Linked To: ABDULKARIM GROUP).
7. MORGAN ADDITIVES MANUFACTURING CO. (a.k.a. MORGAN MIDDLE EAST LLC), Office No. 2206, 22nd Floor, Jafza View 19, Sheikh Zayed Road Besides Jafza View 18, Jebel Ali Free Zone Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Suite 13, First Floor, Oliaji Trade Centre, Francis Rachel Street, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles; Web site
In addition, on August 3, 2015, OFAC identified the following six persons as falling within the definition of the Government of Syria as set forth in section 8(d) of E.O. 13582 and section 542.305 of the Syrian Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 542:
1. GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF SYRIAN PORTS (a.k.a. “GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF PORTS”), Algazaer Street, Lattakia, Syria [SYRIA].
2. LATTAKIA PORT GENERAL COMPANY (a.k.a. LATAKIA PORT GENERAL COMPANY), BP 220, Latakia, Syria; Postal Box 220, Lattakia, Syria; Baghdad Street, Lattakia, Syria [SYRIA].
3. SYRIAN CHAMBER OF SHIPPING (a.k.a. “SCOS”), Al Jazaeer Street, Farid Hanna Bldg, 8th Fl., P.O. Box 1731, Lattakia, Syria; Al Mina Street, Tartous, Syria [SYRIA].
4. SYRIAN GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR MARITIME TRANSPORT (a.k.a. SYRIAMAR; a.k.a. SYRIAN GENERAL ESTABLISHMENT FOR MARINE TRANSPORT; a.k.a. SYRIAN GENERAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARITIME TRANSPORT), BP 28, Bur Sa'id Street, Latakia, Syria; BP 225, Yarmouk Street, Latakia, Syria; BP 915, al-Mina Street, Tartous, Syria; BP 730, Argentine Street, Damascus, Syria; Port Road, Lattakia, Syria [SYRIA].
5. SYRIAN SHIPPING AGENCIES COMPANY (a.k.a. “SHIPCO”; a.k.a. “SHIPPING AGENCIES CO.”), Port Said Street, P.O. Box 28, Lattakia, Syria; Port Street, P.O. Box 3, Tartous, Syria; Joul Jammal Street, P.O. Box 28, Banias, Syria; Brazil Street, P.O. Box 12477, Damascus, Syria [SYRIA].
6. TARTOUS PORT GENERAL COMPANY, Al Mina Street, Tartous, Syria; Postal Box 86, Tartous, Syria [SYRIA].
In addition, on August 3, 2015, OFAC identified the following seven vessels as property in which Milenyum Energy S.A., an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13582, has an interest:
1. AQUA Sierra Leone flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7529641 (vessel) [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.; Linked To: AQUA SHIPPING LTD.).
2. BLUE DREAM Saint Kitts and Nevis flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8002664 (vessel) [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.).
3. BLUE WAY Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8800298 (vessel) [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.).
4. BLUEGAS Sierra Leone flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 7909839 (vessel) [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.).
5. GREEN LIGHT Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8810700 (vessel) [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.; Linked To: GREEN SHIPPING LTD.).
6. MARIANA Sierra Leone flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8016835 (vessel) [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.).
7. TALA Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8012114 (vessel) [SYRIA] (Linked To: MILENYUM ENERGY S.A.).
Finally, on August 3, 2015, OFAC identified the following three vessels as property in which the Syrian General Authority for Maritime Transport, an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13582, has an interest:
1. FINIKIA; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9385233 (vessel) [SYRIA] (Linked To: SYRIAN GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR MARITIME TRANSPORT).
2. LAODICEA; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9274343 (vessel) [SYRIA] (Linked To: SYRIAN GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR MARITIME TRANSPORT).
3. SOURIA; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9274331 (vessel) [SYRIA] (Linked To: SYRIAN GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR MARITIME TRANSPORT).
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of sixty-one persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to one or more of the following authorities: Executive Order (E.O.) 13660, E.O. 13661, and E.O. 13685, or who are subject to the prohibitions of one or more directives under E.O. 13662.
OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on July 30, 2015, as further specified below.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622–2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622–2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622–2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622–2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's Web site (
On July 30, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following five persons pursuant to E.O. 13660, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine”:
On July 30, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following fifteen persons pursuant to E.O. 13661, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine”:
The basis for designation for the fifteen persons designated pursuant to E.O. 13661 is as follows:
On July 30, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following six persons pursuant to E.O. 13685, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine”:
On July 30, 2015, OFAC identified as subject to the prohibitions of Directive 1 (as amended) of September 12, 2014, the following eighteen persons, pursuant to E.O. 13662, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” and 31 CFR 589.406, 589.802, and following the Secretary of the Treasury's determination pursuant to section l(a)(i) of E.O. 13662 with respect to the financial services sector of the Russian Federation economy:
On July 30, 2015, OFAC identified as subject to the prohibitions of Directive 2 (as amended) and Directive 4 of September 12, 2014 the following seventeen persons, pursuant to E.O. 13662, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” and 31 CFR 589.406, 589.802, and following the Secretary of the Treasury's determination pursuant to section l(a)(i) of E.O. 13662 with respect to the energy sector of the Russian Federation economy:
As entities owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by Open Joint-Stock Company Rosneft Oil Company, these entities are subject to the same prohibitions as Open Joint-Stock Company Rosneft Oil Company.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, September 3, 2015.
Susan Jimerson at 1–888–912–1227 or (206) 946–3009.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Thursday, September 3, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Susan Jimerson. For more information please contact: Susan Jimerson at 1–888–912–1227 or 206 946–3009, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W–406, Seattle, WA 98174, or post comments to the Web site:
The committee will be discussing various issues related to Taxpayer Communications and public input is welcome.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held September 1, 2015.
Donna Powers at 1–888–912–1227 or (954) 423–7977.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Tuesday September 1, 2015 at 1:00
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, September 16, 2015.
Linda Rivera at 1–888–912–1227 or (202) 317–3337.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee will be held Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Linda Rivera. For more information please contact: Ms. Rivera at 1–888–912–1227 or (202) 317–3337, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509—National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the Web site:
The committee will be discussing Toll-free issues and public input is welcomed.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, Treasury.
Notice and request for applicants or nominations.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeks applicants for vacancies on the Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (ACT). Applications will be accepted for the following vacancies that will occur in June 2016: Two (2) Employee Plans; two (2) Exempt Organizations; one (1) Federal, State and Local Governments; and one (1) Indian Tribal Governments. To ensure appropriate balance of membership, final selection of qualified candidates will be determined based on experience, qualifications and other expertise.
Applications or nominations must be received on or before Friday, September 4, 2015.
Send applications and nominations using FAX: (888) 269–7419 (secure) or email to:
Requests for additional information should be sent to
The Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (ACT), governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, is an organized public forum for discussion of various employee plans, exempt organizations, tax-exempt bonds, and federal, state, local and Indian tribal government issues between officials of the IRS and representatives of the above communities. The ACT enables the IRS to receive regular input with respect to the development and implementation of IRS policy concerning these communities. ACT members present the interested public's observations about current or proposed IRS policies, programs and procedures, as well as suggest improvements. The Secretary of the Treasury appoints ACT members, who serve three-year terms. ACT members will not be paid for their time or services. ACT members will be reimbursed for travel-related expenses to attend working sessions and public meetings, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5703. The Secretary of the Treasury invites those individuals, organizations and groups affiliated with employee plans, exempt organizations, tax-exempt bonds, and federal, state, local and Indian tribal governments to nominate individuals for membership on the ACT. Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualifications for ACT membership, including the nominee's past or current affiliations and dealings with the particular community or segment of the community that he or she would represent (such as employee plans). Nominations also should specify the vacancy for which the individual wishes to be considered. The Department of the Treasury seeks a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons experienced in employee plans, exempt organizations, tax-exempt bonds, and federal, state, local and Indian tribal governments. Nominees must go through a clearance process before selection by the Department of the Treasury. In accordance with Treasury Directive 21–03, the clearance process includes pre-appointment and annual tax checks, and an FBI criminal and subversive name check, fingerprint check and security clearance.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, September 3, 2015.
Kim Vinci at 1–888–912–1227 or 916–974–5086.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee will be held Thursday, September 3, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Kim Vinci. For more information please contact: Kim Vinci at 1–888–912–1227 or 916–974–5086, TAP Office, 4330 Watt Ave., Sacramento, CA 95821, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include a discussion on various special topics with IRS processes.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP).
Written comments should be received on or before October 9, 2015 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Christie Preston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
Requests for additional information or copies of the collection tools should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at (202)317–5746, or through the internet at
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
Forms 14653, 14654, and the new Form 14708 have replaced the need for Form 14438. The net result is a burden increase of 15,500 estimated responses and 30,500 estimated annual hours per year.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Thursday, September 10, 2015.
Theresa Singleton at 1–888–912–1227 or 202–317–3329.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee will be held Thursday, September 10, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Theresa Singleton. For more information please contact: Theresa Singleton at 1–888–912–1227 or 202–317–3329, TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509- National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include a discussion on various letters, and other issues related to written communications from the IRS.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held Wednesday, September 30, 2015.
Lisa Billups at 1–888–912–1227 or (214) 413–6523.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Wednesday, September 30, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact Lisa Billups at 1–888–912–1227 or 214–413–6523, or write TAP Office 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242–1021, or post comments to the Web site:
The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.