Commodity Credit Corporation
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Science and Technology Policy Office
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Maritime Administration
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations pertaining to the field organization of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) by closing the Jamieson Line, New York border crossing. The change is part of CBP's continuing program to utilize its personnel, facilities, and resources more efficiently, and to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public.
This final rule is effective on August 21, 2014.
Mr. Roger Kaplan, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (202) 325-4543, or by email at
On September 24, 2012, CBP published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
CBP received nine public comments in response to the NPRM. Three commenters supported the closure of the Jamieson Line border crossing and six commenters opposed it. The following section summarizes the comments and CBP responses, grouped into three general categories: impact on travelers, impact on surrounding area, and costs.
A commenter supporting the proposed closure of the border crossing wrote that traveling the six to nine extra miles to the next closest border crossing is not a substantial burden given that the Jamieson Line border crossing is infrequently used. Another commenter wrote that the border crossings at Chateaugay and Trout River are on state highways (as opposed to the Jamieson Line border crossing which is on a country road) and stated that re-routing the traffic to state highways would provide a more direct route for most travelers. One of the commenters queried whether the Jamieson Line border crossing has historically had significantly higher traffic numbers than in more recent years.
A commenter supporting the proposed border crossing closure noted that the citizens in the surrounding areas will be minimally impacted by the closure of the Jamieson Line border crossing; according to multiple maps of the area, there are no local businesses in the vicinity of the Jamieson Line border crossing and the travel time would not increase given the re-routing of the traffic to faster, more efficient state highways.
Another commenter asked whether the necessary renovation to the border crossing were it to remain open would stimulate the economy of the town of Burke, New York, which might attract more Canadians into the United States, especially given the favorable exchange rates. This commenter also inquired if
We do not believe that the vehicle traffic at the border crossing would increase or that other benefits would accrue from renovating the border crossing. CBP notes that such renovation would be performed only to allow the border crossing to meet current DHS building safety and security standards and that the border crossing would operate in the same manner as before, with one primary lane, no secondary lane, and no formal commercial vehicle inspection area. As such, CBP would not expect an increase in jobs or business activity in the local community. CBP does not believe that a renovation would increase the number of tourists arriving from Canada, especially given the fact that the border crossing on the Canadian side is closed. CBP also notes that the Beyond the Border Declaration between the United States and Canada (which the commenter refers to as the Perimeter Security agreement) is not relevant to the closure of the Jamieson Line border crossing as it primarily addresses security concerns, the further development of the trusted traveler programs, and the coordination between Canada and the United States at large border crossings.
CBP believes that the closure of the border crossing would not impair security at the border. First, CBP notes that the Area Port of Trout River and its border crossings (including Jamieson Line) have a low-risk, low-threat security and law-enforcement environment. Second, CBP will be taking several steps to address security concerns, including building a barrier to physically block the road to vehicular traffic, electronically monitoring the border crossing at all times, and conducting periodic sweeps. The suggestion that CBP should consider converting the Jamieson Line border crossing into an unmanned crossing is not a viable option because the technology and equipment that would allow a border to be unstaffed is prohibitively expensive. In addition, the servicing port of any unmanned crossing at the Jamieson Line border crossing would still have to redirect manpower to respond to entry requests at a substantial cost.
Several commenters questioned the economic analysis included in the NPRM. One of the commenters wrote that renovating the structure was not the only viable option for keeping the Jamieson Line border crossing open and that CBP should have considered the alternative of continuing to operate the border crossing in its current state. Another commenter wrote that the border crossing has functioned for over fifty years and that only a modest replacement of the building for a fraction of the $6,500,000 cost reflected in the NPRM would be necessary. A commenter challenged the estimated costs and economic analysis in the NPRM and asserted that numerous costs were incorrect. Among other assertions, this commenter stated that the border crossing would only require three full-time CBP officers for full coverage and not the five full-time CBP officers currently assigned to the Jamieson Line border crossing. Finally, one commenter wrote that the annual cost to travelers to close the border crossing represents slightly less than 10% of what it would cost CBP to keep the facility operating in its current state.
With regard to the level of staffing required at the Jamieson Line border crossing, CBP requires five full-time CBP officers at the crossing. This takes into account a five-day work week, vacation and sick leave, and time for mandatory and mission-enhancing training. When the NPRM was issued, the CBP Office of Field Operations estimated that a CBP officer spends 1,194 hours performing border crossing duties while at a border crossing (this estimate has since been revised to 1,182 hours). The Jamieson Line border crossing is open eight hours a day, 365 days a year and is staffed by two CBP officers each day. Therefore, this border crossing requires 5,840 hours of CBP officer time specifically dedicated to border crossing duties each year. As a result, five CBP officers are required to staff the Jamieson Line crossing.
After carefully considering the comments, CBP has decided to close the Jamieson Line, New York border crossing. We also considered (1) the very limited usage of the border crossing; (2) the locations of the alternative ports of entry; (3) the lack of infrastructure at the border crossing to meet modern operational, safety, and technological demands of ports of entry; and (4) the analysis of the net benefit of the border crossing closure including the cost of necessary renovations were
CBP is working with the New York State Department of Transportation and CBSA to identify the permanent barrier and signage necessary to prevent entry and re-route traffic to nearby ports of entry. CBP expects that any impact on the environment and any costs incurred to mitigate impact on the environment will be minimal. If necessary, CBP will conduct minor environmental studies in the course of facility demolition and decommissioning.
On May 31, 2011, the Commissioner of CBP notified Congress of CBP's intention to close the border crossing at Jamieson Line, fulfilling the congressional notification requirements of 19 U.S.C. 2075(g)(2) and section 417 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 217).
The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a). Accordingly, this final rule is signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this regulation. Nevertheless, CBP provided its assessment of the benefits and costs of this regulatory action in an NPRM (see 77 FR 58782). CBP adopts the NPRM's economic analysis for this final rule without any changes, as summarized below.
DHS has determined that the Jamieson Line crossing requires significant renovation and expansion, requiring an estimated $6.5 million to build facilities that meet all current CBP safety and security standards. Since this construction is the only alternative to closing the crossing, CBP would need to spend $7,087,000 the first year (construction plus staffing and operating costs) and $587,000 in staffing and operating expenses each subsequent year if the crossing were to remain open.
The costs of closing the Jamieson Line crossing fall into three categories—the cost to CBP to physically close the crossing, the cost to travelers to drive to the next nearest crossing, and the cost to the economy of lost revenue resulting from potential decreased Canadian travel. CBP estimates that it will cost approximately $205,000 to physically close the crossing, which involves building road barricades, stabilizing the building, and fencing. With the closure of Jamieson Line crossing, travelers will incur an estimated $46,670 in time costs and $50,000 in vehicle costs annually to travel to an alternative crossing. We believe that the total impacts on the economy due to decreased travel to the United States are negligible. Thus, total quantifiable costs to close the crossing are $301,670 in the first year and $96,670 each following year.
Accounting for the overall costs and benefits of closing the Jamieson Line crossing, the net benefit of closing the crossing is $6,785,330 the first year and $490,330 each year thereafter, for an annualized net benefit of approximately $1.3 million over the next ten years using a seven percent discount rate.
This section examines the impact of the rule on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people). Individuals are not defined as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Because CBP does not collect data on the number of small businesses that use the border crossing of Jamieson Line, we cannot estimate how many will be affected by this rule. However, an average of fewer than six vehicles cross into the United States at the Jamieson Line border crossing each day and DHS does not believe that this impact rises to the level of a significant economic impact. In addition, such impacts to small businesses are an indirect effect of this rule, but are discussed previously in this preamble. DHS thus certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Customs duties and inspection, Customs ports of entry, Exports, Imports, Organization and functions (Government agencies).
For the reasons set forth above, DHS amends part 100 of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations and part 101 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458; 8 CFR part 2.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624, 1646a.
Sections 101.3 and 101.4 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1 and 58b.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
This correction is effective on August 29, 2014.
Arlette Howard, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-1481, email:
In FR Doc. 2014-15193 appearing on page 37123 in the
1. On page 37128, in the first column, in the second paragraph under the heading “Revised Annual Fees,” the number “ML14064A394” is corrected to read “ML14148A062.”
2. On page 37144, in the third column, in the table under the heading “XV. Availability of Documents,” the number “ML14064A394” is corrected to read “ML14148A062.”
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding eleven persons under twelve entries to the Entity List. The persons who are added to the Entity List have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. These persons will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of Crimea (Occupied), Russia, and Ukraine. There are twelve entries for the eleven persons on the Entity List because one person is being listed in multiple locations, resulting in an additional entry. Specifically, the additional entry covers one person that will be listed on the Entity List under the destination of Crimea (Occupied) and Ukraine.
Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Fax: (202) 482-3911, Email:
The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744) notifies the public about entities that have engaged in activities that could result in an increased risk of the diversion of exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) items to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Since its initial publication, grounds for inclusion on the Entity List have expanded to include activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, including terrorism and export control violations involving abuse of human rights. Certain exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to entities identified on the Entity List require licenses from BIS and are usually subject to a policy of denial. The availability of license exceptions in such transactions is very limited. The license review policy for each entity is identified in the license review policy column on the Entity List and the availability of license exceptions is noted in the
The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote. The Departments represented on the ERC approved these changes to the Entity List.
This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add eleven persons under twelve entries to the Entity List on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the
The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these eleven persons to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List. The eleven persons being added to the Entity List have been determined by the ERC to be involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United State. Those activities are related to Russia's continued policy of destabilization in eastern Ukraine and ongoing occupation of Crimea and Sevastopol.
Over the past few days, Russian support to the separatists has fueled increased fighting and casualties in eastern Ukraine. Russia continues to provide the separatists with heavy weapons, equipment, and other financing, and continues to allow militants to enter Ukraine freely. In addition, Russia has returned many of its troops to border areas, and has been massing additional equipment near the border for potential transfer into Ukraine.
On March 6, 2014, the President of the United States issued Executive Order 13660 (79 FR 13493),
Specifically, Executive Order 13660 blocks all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine; actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine. Under Section 8 of Executive Order 13660, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order. The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, pursuant to Executive Order 13660, has designated the following three persons: Donetsk People's Republic, Feodosiya Enterprise, and Luhansk People's Republic. In conjunction with that designation, the Department of Commerce adds to the Entity List under this rule Donetsk People's Republic, Feodosiya Enterprise, and Luhansk People's Republic and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to these blocked persons. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of the EAR to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13660.
The three persons added to the Entity List in this rule under Executive Order 13660 have engaged in actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine and threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine. Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic are both separatist organizations that operate in eastern Ukraine. Feodosiya Enterprise, an oil storage terminal located in Crimea (Occupied), which was previously an asset of Ukraine's state-controlled Naftogaz, has engaged in the misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine. Therefore, pursuant to § 744.11 of the EAR, the conduct of these three persons raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR involving these persons, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to these persons, will enhance BIS's ability to protect the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States.
On March 16, 2014, the President of the United States issued Executive Order 13661 (79 FR 15533),
Specifically, Executive Order 13661 includes a directive that all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or thereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: Persons operating in the arms or related materiel sector in the Russian Federation. Under Section 8 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order. The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, pursuant to Executive Order 13661, has designated the following eight persons: Federal State Unitary Enterprise State Research and Production Enterprise Bazalt, Joint Stock Company Concern Almaz-Antey, Joint Stock Company Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies, Joint Stock Company Concern Sozvezdie, Joint Stock Company Military-Industrial Corporation NPO Mashinostroyenia, Kalashnikov Concern, Konstruktorskoe Byuro Priborostroeniya Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo, and Uralvagonzavod. In conjunction with that designation, the Department of Commerce adds to the Entity List under this rule Federal State Unitary Enterprise State Research and Production Enterprise Bazalt, Joint Stock Company Concern Almaz-Antey, Joint Stock Company Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies, Joint Stock Company Concern Sozvezdie, Joint Stock Company Military-Industrial Corporation NPO Mashinostroyenia, Kalashnikov Concern, Konstruktorskoe Byuro Priborostroeniya Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo, and Uralvagonzavod and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or
The eight persons added to the Entity List in this rule under Executive Order 13661 operate in the Russian Federation's arms or related materiel sector. Federal State Unitary Enterprise State Research and Production Enterprise Bazalt produces aircraft, ground and marine munitions; Joint Stock Company Concern Almaz-Antey produces air defense missile systems; Joint Stock Company Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies and Joint Stock Company Concern Sozvezdie focus on electronic warfare; Joint Stock Company Military-Industrial Corporation NPO Mashinostroyenia produces advanced space and rocketry equipment; Kalashnikov Concern produces firearms, including Kalashnikov assault rifles; Konstruktorskoe Byuro Priborostroeniya Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo produces high precision weapons, including guided weapon systems such as anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft systems; Uralvagonzavod produces combat vehicles, including tanks and ordnance. Therefore, pursuant to § 744.11 of the EAR, the conduct of these eight persons raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR involving these persons, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to these persons, will enhance BIS's ability to protect the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States.
For all eleven persons added to the Entity List, there is a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the persons or in which such persons act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule.
This final rule adds the following eleven persons under twelve entries to the Entity List:
(1)
Feodosiya, Geologicheskaya str. 2, Crimea 98107, Ukraine; and Feodosia, Str. Geological 2, Crimea 98107, Ukraine (See alternate addresses under Ukraine).
(1)
32 Velyaminovskaya, Moscow 105318, Russia;
(2)
41 ul. Vereiskaya, Moscow, 121471, Russia;
(3)
20/1 Korp. 1 ul. Goncharnaya, Moscow 109240, Russia;
(4)
14 Plekhanovskaya Street, Voronezh, Russia; and
14 ul. Plekhanovskaya, Voronezh, Voronezhskaya obl. 394018, Russia;
(5)
33, Gagarina St., Reutov-town, Moscow Region 143966, Russia; and
33 Gagarin Street, Reutov, Moscow Region, 143966, Russia; and
33 Gagarina ul., Reutov, Moskovskaya obl 143966;
(6)
3, Derjabin Pr., Izhevsk, Udmurt Republic, 426006, Russia;
(7)
59 Shcheglovskaya Zaseka ul., Tula 300001, Russia;
(8)
28, Vostochnoye shosse, Nizhni Tagil, Sverdlovsk region 622007, Russia; and
28 Vostochnoe shosse, Nizhni Tagil, Sverdlovskaya oblast 622007, Russia; and
40, Bolshaya Yakimanka Street, Moscow 119049, Russia.
(1)
Donetsk Region, Ukraine;
(2)
Feodosiya, Geologicheskaya str. 2, Crimea 98107, Ukraine; and
Feodosia, Str. Geological 2, Crimea 98107, Ukraine (See alternate addresses under Crimea (Occupied)).
(3)
Luhansk Region, Ukraine.
Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on July 22, 2014, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR).
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 8, 2013, 78, 2013, 78 FR 49107 (August 12, 2013), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.
1. 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, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
The additions read as follows:
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service is revising
Paula Rabkin at 202-268-2537.
New classification changes are available under Docket Number MC2014-30 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's Web site at
This final rule describes the international classification changes and the corresponding mailing standards changes for the following Competitive Services:
Priority Mail Express International service provides fast international delivery service to more than 180 countries. The price for Priority Mail Express International service is unchanged. The following classification change is made:
We are adding Lebanon as the most recent country to establish an Express Mail Service (EMS) operational exchange agreement with the Postal Service. As a result, Priority Mail Express International service will become available to this destination effective September 7, 2014, as described in the mailing standards below.
Foreign relations, International postal services.
The Postal Service hereby adopts the following changes to
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 407, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
1. Commercial invoice required in addition to customs forms listed in 123.
2. Coins; banknotes; currency notes, including paper money; securities of any kind payable to bearer; traveler's checks; platinum, gold, and silver; precious stones; jewelry; watches; and other valuable articles are prohibited in Priority Mail Express International shipments to Lebanon.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 20 to reflect these changes.
Postal Service
Final rule.
The Postal Service will revise
Margaret Choiniere (202) 268-7231 or Garry Rodriguez (202) 268-7281.
This final rule describes the new prices for Priority Mail established by the Governors of the United States Postal Service® and the enhancement to Premium Forwarding Service Commercial enrollment. New prices are available under Docket Number CP2014-55 on the Web site of the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) at
Overall, Priority Mail prices will average a zero percent price increase. The price increase varies by price cell and price tier.
Retail prices will average a 1.7 percent price increase. The Flat Rate Envelope will be priced at $5.75, the Legal Flat Rate Envelope will be priced at $5.90 and the Padded Flat Rate Envelope will be priced at $6.10. The Flat Rate Box prices will be: Small, $5.95, and Medium boxes, $12.65. The Large Flat Rate Box will be priced at $17.90 and Large APO/FPO/DPO Box will be priced at $15.90.
Commercial Base prices offer lower prices to customers who use online and other authorized postage payment methods. Commercial Base prices will average a 0.9 percent price decrease. Commercial Base pricing offers an average 13.8 percent discount off retail prices.
Commercial Plus prices offer attractive price incentives to large volume customers. Commercial Plus prices will average a 2.3 percent price decrease. Commercial Plus pricing offers an average 15.7 percent discount off retail prices.
The Postal Service provided advance notice of the redesign of commercial reshipment services and an introduction to Premium Forwarding Service Commercial (PFS Commercial
Effective September 7, 2014, a subsequent phase of system implementation activates the enrollment and postage and fee payments for PFS Commercial (for customers desiring shipments sent by Priority Mail Express
The Postal Service provides additional resources to assist customers with this price change for competitive products. These tools include price lists, downloadable price files, and
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 3633, and 5001.
Premium Forwarding Service Commercial (PFS Commercial) provides business commercial customers the option to have USPS gather their mail addressed to PO Boxes (including Caller Service) or business street addresses within the same servicing postal facility, and dispatch the mail as Priority Mail Express or Priority Mail shipments to a new address. Customers must establish a service agreement with the USPS, pay an annual enrollment fee and the applicable postage for the class of mail desired for the shipments. See Notice 123—Price List.
Commercial customers may establish PFS Commercial service by making a request in writing to the origin Post Office if shipments sent by Priority Mail are desired, or through the Business Customer Gateway at
Only the authorized recipient (or legal agent) of the business's (or organization's) mail may activate the request for PFS Commercial service. PFS Commercial service agreements are subject to these additional standards:
a. Customers must pay an annual enrollment fee to establish service, regardless of the number of individual P.O. Boxes, Caller Service numbers, or street delivery addresses included for each servicing post office. The enrollment fee is refundable only if the request is denied.
b. For requests made in writing to the origin Post Office, the annual enrollment fee may be paid at a retail Post Office location, station or branch; the applicable Priority Mail postage for each shipment container is paid using the customer's
g. Priority Mail Express, or mailpieces with USPS Tracking, Certified Mail, COD, Insured Mail, Signature Confirmation, or Adult Signature are shipped to the destination delivery office Postmaster separately, for proper handling. Registered Mail is not eligible for PFS Commercial service.
i. Business customers may terminate their PFS Commercial service agreement, effective 24 hours after the USPS receives customer's written notice of termination at the serving Post Office or through the Business Customer Gateway. The customer must pay all postage and fees as applicable for any shipments already scheduled before termination of service is made effective.
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 announces the deletion of the O'Connor Superfund Site (Site) located in Augusta, Maine, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Maine, through the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This action is effective July 22, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Terrence Connelly, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Mailcode OSRR07-1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3919, (617) 918-1373, email:
The site to be deleted from the NPL is the O'Connor Superfund Site, Augusta, Maine. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was April 11, 2014. Two public comments were received. One comment was critical of the remedy selected in 1989 as modified in 1994 and 2002 and stated that the Site should not be removed from the NPL until it was completely clean. The other comment raised an issue not related to the proposed action of deleting the Site from the NPL.
In questioning the effectiveness of institutional controls to maintain protectiveness and seeking a remedy that concludes with a “completely clean” site, the comment questions the adequacy of the selected remedy. The remedy was selected following public comment periods in 1989, 1994, and 2002 for the Record of Decision, the Explanation of Significant Differences, and the Record of Decision Amendment, respectively. EPA believes that the remedy selected is protective of human health and the environment. The selected remedy has been implemented, and all activities required under the remedy have been completed. Additionally, the activities completed at the O'Connor Superfund Site have satisfied those criteria that EPA has established for deletion of a site from the NPL.
The comment also voiced the desire that the Site be completely clean before being deleted from the NPL. While this is an aspirational goal of the Superfund program, it is not technically feasible to return every site to unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. For example, there are municipal landfills where communities disposed of their waste for decades and many of these landfills are also Superfund sites. The costs for requiring local communities to pay for completely cleaning up these landfills so that they are available for any future use would be in the millions for each landfill. The technology and resources to achieve this goal of returning every site to pristine conditions are simply not available.
The second comment voiced concerns about health issues for herself and others who lived or who continue to live near the O'Connor Site and stating a view that the number of cancers and other health issues suffered by residents nearby the Site concerned her. The comment also expressed dismay that she had not been contacted about the Site when she had lived nearby.
This comment did not address the substance of the proposed deletion nor question whether the remedial goals have been accomplished but speaks of health concerns. EPA completed a Five-Year Review of the Site in 2012 and determined that the remedy as implemented remains protective of human health and the environment. All potential exposure pathways have been controlled through the completed activities and institutional controls. The ongoing monitoring and five-year reviews ensure that EPA is able to confirm the protectiveness of the remedy.
A responsiveness summary was prepared and placed in both the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, on
A Notice of Deletion for this Site was published in the
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for commercial snowy grouper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. Commercial landings for snowy grouper, as estimated by the Science and Research Director (SRD), are projected to reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) (commercial quota) on July 25, 2014. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic EEZ on July 25, 2014, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing season, January 1, 2015. This closure is necessary to protect the snowy grouper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, July 25, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015.
Catherine Hayslip, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes snowy grouper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial ACL (equivalent to the commercial quota) for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic is 82,900 lb (37,603 kg), gutted weight, for the current fishing year, January 1 through December 31, 2014, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(1).
Under 50 CFR 622.193(b)(1), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for snowy grouper when the commercial ACL (commercial quota) is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL for South Atlantic snowy grouper will have been reached by July 25, 2014. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic snowy grouper is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, July 25, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2015.
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having snowy grouper onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such snowy grouper prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, July 25, 2014. NMFS implemented a closure of the recreational sector for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic on June 7, 2014 (79 FR 32497, June 5, 2014). During the recreational closure, and thus, during this commercial closure, the bag and possession limit for snowy grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is zero. Also during the commercial closure, the sale or purchase of snowy grouper taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of snowy grouper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, July 25, 2014, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.
For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limit and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for snowy grouper would apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of snowy grouper and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(b)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best available scientific information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for snowy grouper constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure.
Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect snowy grouper since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial ACL (commercial quota). Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL (commercial quota).
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend its recordkeeping regulations to specify that all official establishments and retail stores that grind raw beef products for sale in commerce must keep records that disclose the identity and contact information of the supplier of all source materials that they use in the preparation of each lot of raw ground beef. They must also record the names of those supplied source materials, including any beef components and any carryover from one production lot to the next. The records would also be required to document lot numbers, the amount of the beef component used in each lot (in pounds), the date and time each lot of raw ground beef product was produced, and the date and time when grinding equipment and other related food-contact surfaces were cleaned and sanitized. Official establishments and retail stores would also have to comply with the proposed recordkeeping requirements with respect to raw beef products that are ground at an individual customer's request.
Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2014.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Contact Victoria Levine, Program Analyst, Issuances Staff, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-5627; Fax (202) 690-0486.
Under the authority of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601
FSIS investigators and other public health officials typically use records kept at all levels of the food distribution chain, including the retail level, to identify and trace back product that may be the source of the illness to the suppliers that produced the source material for the product. The Agency, however, has often been impeded in its efforts to trace back ground beef products to the suppliers' products due to the lack of documentation identifying all source materials used in its preparation.
In some situations, official establishments and retail stores have not kept adequate records that would allow effective traceback
The President's Food Safety Working Group (FSWG), which was formed on March 14, 2009, recommended a new public health-focused approach to food safety based on three core principles: (1) Prioritizing prevention; (2) strengthening surveillance and enforcement; and (3) improving response and recovery.
One of the objectives of the third principle is to quickly identify and stop outbreaks of foodborne illness. When people become ill because of consuming product from the same source material, it is important to identify all remaining source material and remove it as quickly
Official establishments and retail stores that grind raw beef products for sale in commerce must keep records that will fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in their businesses subject to the Act (
Under 9 CFR 320.1(a), every person, firm, or corporation required by section 642 of the FMIA to keep records must keep records that will fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in businesses subject to the Act. Records specifically required to be kept under § 320.1(b) include, but are not limited to: bills of sale, invoices, bills of lading, and receiving and shipping papers. With respect to each transaction, the records must provide, but are not limited to: the name or description of the livestock or article, the net weight of the livestock or article, the number of outside containers, the name and address of the buyer or seller of the livestock or animal, and the date and method of shipment.
Under 9 CFR 320.2, every person engaged in any business described in § 320.1 and required by part 320 to keep records must maintain them at the place where the business is conducted. However, a person who conducts business at multiple locations may maintain those records at his or her headquarters' office. 9 CFR 300.6(b)(2) requires any person (including any firm or corporation or other business unit) subject to the recordkeeping requirements in section 642 of the FMIA to allow representatives of the Secretary of Agriculture to enter his or her place of business to examine and copy the records specified in § 320.1. Therefore, if records relevant to an outbreak or recall investigation are being maintained at a headquarters' office rather than at the place where the business is conducted, i.e., the location where raw beef is being ground, those records must be made available to FSIS personnel conducting traceback and traceforward activities. Records required to be maintained under part 320 must be retained for a period of two years after December 31 of the year in which the transaction to which the record relates has occurred (9 CFR 320.3)).
The recordkeeping requirements contained in the FMIA and 9 CFR 320 are intended to permit FSIS to trace product, including raw ground beef product associated with consumer foodborne illness, from the consumer, or the place where the product was purchased, back through its distribution chain to the establishment that was the source of the product. This will make it easier to determine, if possible, where the contamination originally occurred. Investigators should also be able to conduct effective traceforward investigations so as to identify other potentially contaminated product that has been shipped from the point of origin of its contamination to other official establishments, retail stores, warehouses, distributors, restaurants, or other firms. FSIS must be able to carry out these investigations using records that should be kept routinely by official establishments and retail stores.
In 2002, FSIS published a
1. The name, point of contact, and phone number for the official establishments supplying the source materials for the lot of ground beef sampled;
2. The supplier lot numbers and production dates; and any other information that would be useful to suppliers that may have supplied
FSIS also stated that it intended to gather the following information from retail stores at the time it collected a sample of raw ground beef for
1. The names and establishment numbers of the establishments supplying the source materials for the lot of ground beef sampled;
2. The supplier lot numbers and production dates; and
3. Any other information that would be useful to suppliers if they are later notified of an
Shortly after issuing the 2002
Retail stores, however, often do not document and maintain supplier information at times other than when FSIS collects samples of ground raw beef product from the stores for
In 2009, FSIS provided guidance to a retail industry association requesting appropriate records that retail stores should keep to aid in identifying traceback and traceforward on FSIS-regulated products associated with foodborne illnesses and other food safety incidents. The Agency
To further address the issue, on December 9 and 10, 2009, FDA and FSIS held a joint public meeting to discuss the essential elements of product tracing systems, gaps in then-current product tracing systems, and mechanisms to enhance product tracing systems for food.
Despite these FSIS actions, the Agency has continued to experience significant impediments in connection with tracebacks of FSIS-regulated products, associated with consumer foodborne illness, to the suppliers that produced the source materials. Some official establishments and retail stores still do not keep and maintain the records necessary to allow effective traceback activities. FSIS has found that the records kept by these businesses vary in type and quality, and are often incomplete or inaccurate.
Overall, FSIS has concluded that voluntary recordkeeping by retail facilities that grind raw beef has not been sufficiently effective, as evidenced by continuing outbreaks linked to pathogens in raw ground beef that FSIS cannot trace back to the source.
FSIS conducted a retrospective review of 28 foodborne disease investigations from October 2007 through 2012 in which beef products were ground or re-ground at retail stores to describe their beef grinding and recordkeeping practices.
Among the 22 investigations that took place in 2009 or earlier, seven had complete records, four had incomplete records, and 11 had no records. Among the six investigations that took place after 2009, four had complete records and two had incomplete records. Additionally, in 2013, FSIS participated in three outbreaks. In two investigations, no records had been kept, while in the third complete records were available. Therefore, while the evidence suggests improvement, there remain retail stores or establishments that do not maintain complete records.
Complete records are important for successfully identifying adulterated product and initiating a recall. FSIS was assisted in its traceback and traceforward activities by records in each of the 11 investigations identified in the study where complete records were available. In situations where complete records were not available, the inability to identify product suppliers in a timely fashion, or at all, hindered FSIS in identifying the source of adulteration.
When records were available and complete, such that FSIS could identify specific production in an establishment, the Agency was able to institute a recall of product from the supplying establishment in six of 11 investigations. In contrast, when records were not available or incomplete, FSIS was able to do so only two of 17 times.
For example, in July 2007, an epidemiologic investigation conducted by the Suffolk County Health Department, Suffolk County, New York, identified two ill persons who reported consuming pre-formed, 80/85-percent lean ground beef patties purchased from a retail store in New York. Leftover products collected from the homes of the case-patients and tested by the Outbreaks Section of FSIS's Eastern Laboratory were found to have
In November 2007, a similar situation occurred when FSIS was unable to identify a source of
More recently, in December 2011, a Maine-based grocery chain recalled an undetermined amount of fresh ground beef products that may have been contaminated with a multiple drug-resistant strain of
Correspondingly, complete records are more likely to result in efficient recalls. In May 2007, officials from the Minnesota and Virginia state departments of health and FSIS investigated an outbreak involving nine ill persons. These nine individuals had an indistinguishable strain of
In May and June 2009, officials from FSIS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and health departments in several states investigated an outbreak that involved 20 persons with an indistinguishable strain of
In June 2012, FSIS learned of an outbreak that ultimately involved 46 persons, 12 of whom were hospitalized. The patients resided in nine states, primarily in the northeastern U.S. The CDC determined that all were ill with an indistinguishable strain of
To better ensure that FSIS will be able to conduct effective traceback and traceforward investigations, or foodborne illness investigations, or to monitor product recalls, the records kept and maintained by official establishments and retail stores that grind raw beef products must disclose the identity of the supplier, the source of all materials that they use in the preparation of each lot of raw ground beef product, including any carryover from one production lot to the next, the amount of the beef component used in each lot (in pounds), and the date and time each lot of raw ground beef product is produced. The records also must document the date and time when cleaning and sanitizing occurs because cleaning and sanitizing of food-contact equipment after grinding beef may help define the lot and limit the scope of a recall.
FSIS is proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations to require that official establishments and retail stores that grind raw beef products keep records that fully disclose the names, points of contact, phone numbers, and establishment numbers of the establishments supplying the materials used to prepare each lot of raw ground beef product; all supplier lot numbers and production dates; the names of the supplied materials, including beef components and any materials carried over from one production lot to the next; the amount of the beef component used in each lot (in pounds); the date and time each lot of raw ground beef product is produced; and the date and time when grinding equipment and related food-contact surfaces are cleaned and sanitized.
Official establishments and retail stores that prepare raw beef products that are ground at an individual customer's request would also be required to comply with the proposed recordkeeping requirements with respect to such product. Keeping complete records for all grinding activity will enable FSIS to conduct
Grinding logs at retail stores are a good example of a type of record that can easily be used to identify the source, supplier, and names of all materials used in the preparation of raw ground beef products. Below is the grinding log record that FSIS posted with this 2009 guidance. As shown in the sample grinding log (Table 1) below, the date and time of grind, the amount of carryover, the name of the source material, supplier establishment information from the label of the source material, and the date and time of cleaning and sanitizing would be the information required to be kept, if this rule is finalized. Information under the other column headings would not be required, but some official establishments and retail stores may choose to keep and maintain such information.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess 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 and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
FSIS is proposing a rule that would require official establishments and retail stores that grind raw beef products for sale in commerce to keep records that will fully and correctly disclose details of all transactions involved in their businesses subject to the FMIA, including the identity and supplier of all materials used in the preparation of each lot of raw ground product. The required records are essential to conduct efficient foodborne illness investigations. The proposal would affect retail stores and official establishments.
If adopted, the proposed rule will require records to include lot-specific information (i.e., a lot number, a code number, or other identifier). Lot-specific
Recordkeeping systems are designed to track the flow of product or product attributes through production processes or the supply chain. Traceability is the ability to follow the movement of a food product through the stages of production, processing, and distribution.
Public and private sector officials often lack information about the sources of foods or ingredients, making traceback processes inefficient, which results in missed opportunities to identify contaminated product. This proposed rule, if adopted, will strengthen traceback systems, leading to quicker identification of adulterated product and quicker, more targeted recalls, an outcome in keeping with the objectives of the FSWG.
Voluntary recordkeeping at retail stores and official establishments has not been sufficiently effective. Incomplete and nonexistent grinding records have impeded traceback and traceforward activities by FSIS investigators during food safety events, limiting their ability to identify implicated product and sources of contamination. This rule is needed to enhance FSIS' ability to protect public health by conducting recalls quickly and efficiently, thereby reducing illnesses associated with contaminated ground beef product.
FSIS provided industry voluntary guidelines (see Table 1) in 2009. As stated above, the Agency has concluded that a policy of voluntary guidelines for recordkeeping has not ensured that all establishments and retail outlets maintain complete records that will ensure quick identification of contaminated product.
FSIS considered requiring that retail stores and official establishments maintain grinding records such that each producer recorded grinding activities once per week. This would be an improvement over the current voluntary recordkeeping program in that those establishments and retail stores which are not recording grinding activities would now be required to do so, and a weekly recordkeeping task would be less burdensome than the recordkeeping being proposed, which requires firms to record activities approximately two to five times per week. However, a weekly record would make it difficult to differentiate between lots of product ground from different suppliers throughout the week, and would therefore result in many of the same traceback obstacles currently experienced under voluntary recordkeeping. Therefore, FSIS rejected this alternative.
FSIS also considered expanding the recordkeeping requirements to include all fields suggested in the 2011 FSIS guidance (all fields in the Table 1 proposed log). This would provide FSIS with more detailed records to use during an investigation, which may be particularly useful in instances where product is ground multiple times per day from multiple sources. However, this level of detail would place an unnecessary burden on those establishments that do not grind product multiple times per day. For this reason, FSIS decided to require that only the most critical information be recorded while leaving the remaining possible fields as a voluntary component.
FSIS expects that this proposed rule could affect a total of 76,093 retail stores and official establishments. These include 64,380 supermarkets, 5,924 meat markets, 4,544 warehouse clubs and supercenters, and 1,245 official establishments that engage in grinding raw beef products. The number of retail stores is based on 2010 Census data
Table 2 distinguishes between large establishments, defined as those with 500 or more employees, and small establishments, defined as those with fewer than 500 employees. FSIS assumes that retail establishments with 500 or more employees will grind beef and create a record approximately five times per week, thus assuming 260 records per year for these large entities. For small retail entities, with fewer than 500 employees, FSIS assumes that these establishments on average would grind beef and create a record approximately twice a week for 50 weeks for the year, for 100 records per year. For official FSIS processing establishments, FSIS examined data from a 2008 FSIS survey,
The kinds of businesses identified as potentially subject to the final regulation are:
• Supermarkets and other grocery (except convenience) stores. This industry comprises establishments generally known as supermarkets and grocery stores primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food, such as canned and frozen foods; fresh fruits and vegetables; and fresh and prepared meats, fish and poultry. Included in this industry are delicatessen-type establishments primarily engaged in retailing a general line of food.
• Meat Markets. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in retailing fresh, frozen, or cured meats. Meat markets may butcher animals for their own account, or they may buy bulk from others. Delicatessen-type establishments primarily engaged in retailing fresh meat are included in this industry.
• Warehouse clubs and supercenters. This industry comprises establishments known as warehouse clubs, superstores or supercenters primarily engaged in retailing a general line of groceries in combination with general lines of new merchandise, such as apparel, furniture, and appliances. Official federal—inspected establishments that grind raw beef products are included in this group.
There are three major kinds of businesses FSIS does not consider to be retail establishments, and thus are not affected by the proposed rule: convenience stores, meat and meat product merchant wholesalers, and full-service and limited-service restaurants. The convenience store or food mart (except those with fuel pumps) industry comprises establishments that primarily engage in retailing a limited line of goods that generally includes milk, bread, soda, and snacks, but do not engage in the business of grinding raw beef. The meat and meat product merchant wholesalers industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in the merchant wholesale distribution of meats and meat products (except canned and packaged frozen) or lard, but do not engage in the business of grinding raw beef. Most, if not all supermarkets, meat markets, and warehouse clubs sell product from federally inspected establishments and derive a significant share of revenue from those products. The full-service restaurant industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing food services to patrons who order and are served while seated (i.e., waiter/waitress service) and pay after eating. Limited service refers to fast food restaurants, delis, pizza shops, carry out restaurants, and other similar establishments.
FSIS estimated the costs to industry and the Agency for ensuring compliance with the regulation.
Under the current regulations (9 CFR 320.1(a)(2) and (b)), official establishments are required to keep records that fully and correctly disclose all transactions involved in their business. These records must show the name or description of the articles handled (section 320.1(b)(1)(i)) and the name and address of the sellers and buyers of the articles (section 320.1(b)(1)(iv)). Official establishments must provide FSIS access to these records (section 320.4, 21 U.S.C. 642). FSIS believes that supplier lot numbers and production dates are normally made available to official establishments. FSIS also expects that these businesses normally obtain buyer and seller contact information during the course of business. In determining cost to industry for this rule, though, FSIS did not assume that all these establishments had complete records that would satisfy the provisions of this rule. FSIS requests comments on the extent to which this is already being done.
Costs would occur because many of the estimated 76,093 retail stores and official establishments would need to implement new recordkeeping activity and make those records available for the Agency's review. To estimate costs to industry, the Agency used information based on existing literature and discussions with FSIS experts. The annual recurring cost is due to the time requirement for recording information for each daily set of entries. FSIS assumed that, for establishments that currently maintain a complete grinding log, there would be no additional time requirement. For establishments that presently keep a log, but do not include all of the information required under the proposed regulation, FSIS assumed that it would take an additional 30 to 60 seconds per daily recordkeeping to comply with the rule, and, for establishments that presently do not maintain a grinding log, it would take 60 to 90 seconds to record each daily record. FSIS seeks comments on these recordkeeping time assumptions.
To estimate the numbers of logs that are presently incomplete and the number of logs that presently do not exist but would under the provisions of this proposed rule, FSIS used a published 2008 study
FSIS multiplied the percentages by the number of grinding logs that will exist under this rule to determine the present numbers of incomplete and non-existing grinding logs. FSIS multiplied these numbers 30 to 60 seconds and 60 to 90 seconds respectively, to estimate the total number of additional hours, and then multiplied this estimated range by the average hourly compensation rate, derived below, of $19.18.
To estimate the hourly cost of recordkeeping, FSIS assumed that, primarily, employees that are in the Bureau of Labor Statistics labor category of “Butchers and Meat Cutters” would perform the recordkeeping. FSIS assumed a wage per hour from the most recent mean wage rate for this labor category, $14.42.
FSIS estimates the total cost for the rule to be about $2.69 million to $4.39 million.
Expected benefits would likely result from this proposed rule, for consumer health, the ground beef processing industry, and for the Agency.
Under this rule, FSIS expects the industry to benefit from lower direct costs for recalls because compliance with this proposed rule will lead to more efficient, accurate, and quicker identification of potentially adulterated product. Given everything else being equal, FSIS, therefore, expects a decrease in the average volume of product recalled,
The ground beef industry will also benefit from reduced damage to reputation during food safety events. The ability of FSIS to trace adulterated product back to its source ensures that in events such as recalls, the number of firms implicated is kept to a minimum. By limiting the scope of recalls, traceability through better recordkeeping will reduce negative spillover effects which could unnecessarily burden a large group of otherwise uninvolved ground beef producers.
In addition, FSIS expects to benefit from lower Agency costs for recalls and recovery of adulterated product because the expected increased efficiency of identifying potentially adulterated product will lead to: (1) reduced inspection program personnel activities at Federal meat establishments and (2) reduced overtime hours for FSIS personnel not employed in official establishments, including enforcement, district office, and recall staff. As recalls become more effective because of better recordkeeping, FSIS could reduce staff travel for conducting recall effectiveness checks.
FSIS will conduct an ongoing retrospective analysis to confirm that the rule positively affects Agency resources and to quantify those benefits. To do so, FSIS will examine the following:
• Overtime hours for enforcement, district office, and recall staff, on a per-outbreak basis.
• Number, length, and outcome of recall effectiveness checks.
• Regulatory noncompliance citations at official establishments for the proposed revisions to 9 CFR 320.1(b)(4).
This review will enable FSIS to better quantify the benefits of the proposed recordkeeping requirements and identify areas where the regulation could be further improved.
FSIS expects public health benefits in the form of averted illnesses due to better recordkeeping practices at official and retail establishments. Epidemiologic, environmental, and microbiologic findings and assessments link illnesses to contaminated food. Typically, distributions of outbreak illnesses caused by contaminated raw beef produced in FSIS-regulated establishments are geographically and temporally dispersed. Working together, epidemiologists and microbiologists may determine that ill persons share a common bacterial strain (outbreak strain) and common food exposure. When these researchers find a common exposure, environmental specialists identify food and practices associated with production, transportation, and preparation of the food to determine the possibility of contamination of the common-source food. In some investigations, microbiologists test samples of implicated foods and find the outbreak strain. Investigators use such findings to support the causal association of ill people with the food they consumed. If epidemiologic and environmental information is sufficiently convincing to link consumption of a specific food to a cluster of illnesses, investigators can identify the contaminated product without finding the bacterial strain in the consumed food. In any circumstance, without adequate records, rapid identification of the contaminated product is not likely to occur. When FSIS identifies a food product causing illness in commerce, FSIS takes action to remove it through a voluntary product recall.
It is FSIS' experience that, before a recall takes place, many ill people have already been confirmed ill from the specific pathogen (STECs or
In addition to identifying implicated product, complete records will also allow investigators to identify product source establishments, resulting in a better chance of determining the cause of adulteration. The ability of FSIS to determine process failures will help establishments take corrective actions to prevent future contamination, resulting in a reduction in future illnesses. Both the costs and benefits of corrective actions would be attributable to this rule if the actions would not have occurred without being facilitated by the proposed new recordkeeping requirements.
Beyond establishment-level improvements, a better understanding of product adulteration through investigations can serve as education for the entire industry as well as regulatory organizations. The identification of potentially hazardous practices can lead to improved guidance, and the linking of such practices to outbreaks and recalls motivates establishments to refrain from risky behavior. Lessons learned from successful investigations can also lead to improvements in the decision making process for recalls and regulatory actions.
For example, in August 1997, a Federal establishment recalled 25 million pounds of frozen ground beef patties due to
Better recordkeeping will facilitate outbreak investigations and enable FSIS to identify deficiencies in industry practices and government policy. This type of evidence results in improvements at the establishment level by helping to identify source establishments and affording these establishments the opportunity to diagnose and correct process failures. FSIS expects improvements due to lessons learned from outbreak investigations to prevent future outbreaks. Consumers would also benefit from the prevention of future foodborne illnesses which are not a part of outbreaks, since lessons learned from outbreak investigations will likely lead to improvements which may reduce isolated foodborne illnesses as well.
FSIS requests information that could help quantify the above or any other benefits or costs from this rule.
FSIS estimates annual costs of approximately $2.69 million to $4.39. Costs associated with newly-occurring public health interventions that would be facilitated by the proposed recordkeeping requirements have not been quantified. Benefits would accrue to industry due to an expected smaller volume of recall, given everything else being equal, and due to reduced industry vulnerability to reputation
FSIS estimates that the average cost per
The FSIS Administrator made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601).
The Agency analyzed the potential impact of this proposed rule on affected small entity retail stores and official establishments that grind raw beef products. The number and type of small entity retail stores and official establishments potentially affected by the final rule is shown in Table 2 to be 50,225, based on number of employees. Costs would accrue for maintaining the required records based on the volume of ground raw beef products produced by the business. The average annual cost to small establishments for this rule depends on whether the establishment is already maintaining complete records and the number of days of production. For official establishments presently with no records, FSIS estimates an annual cost of $52.42 to $78.63; with incomplete records, FSIS estimates an annual cost of $26.21 to $52.42. For retail establishments, FSIS estimated annual costs are $31.96 to $47.95 for establishments presently with no records and $15.98 to $31.96 for those with incomplete records. Establishments that are already keeping records as required by the proposal would incur no costs because of this rule.
Based on the above analysis, the Agency has concluded that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. When this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All state and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this proposed regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.
In accordance with section 3507(j) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The required records would have to include the following information:
(A) The names, points of contact, phone numbers, and establishment numbers of the establishments supplying the materials used to prepare each lot of raw ground beef product.
(B) All supplier lot numbers and production dates,
(C) The names of the supplied materials, including beef components and any materials carried over from one production lot to the next,
(D) The amount of the beef component used in each lot (in pounds),
(E) The date and time each lot of raw ground beef product is produced, and
(F) The date and time when grinding equipment and related food-contact surfaces cleaned and sanitized.
Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6077, South Building, Washington, DC 20250.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to both Gina Kouba, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at the address provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253. To be most effective, comments should be sent to OMB
The Food Safety and Inspection Service is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
FSIS will announce this proposed rule online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS will also make copies of this
Meat inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR part 320, as follows:
21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, 2.53.
(b) * * *
(4)(i) In the case of raw ground beef products, official establishments and retail stores are required to keep records that fully disclose:
(A) The names, points of contact, phone numbers, and establishment numbers of the establishments supplying the materials used to prepare each lot of raw ground beef product;
(B) All supplier lot numbers and production dates;
(C) The names of the supplied materials, including beef components and any materials carried over from one production lot to the next;
(D) The amount of the beef component used in each lot (in pounds);
(E) The date and time each lot of raw ground beef product is produced; and
(F) The date and time when grinding equipment and other related food-contact surfaces are cleaned and sanitized.
(ii) Official establishments and retail stores covered by this regulation that prepare raw beef products that are ground at an individual customer's request must keep records that comply with paragraph (4)(i) of this section.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory basis; extension of comment period.
On June 18, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a request for public comment on a draft regulatory basis to support the potential amendments to revise a number of existing security related regulations relating to physical protection of special nuclear material (SNM) at NRC-licensed facilities and in transit, as well as the fitness-for-duty programs for security officers at certain fuel cycle facilities. The public comment period originally was scheduled to close on August 4, 2014. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period on this document to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
The due date for comments requested in the document published on June 18, 2014 (79 FR 34641) is extended. Comments must be filed no later than October 17, 2014. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received 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):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Email comments to:
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.
• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
• Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
• Comments that contain proprietary or sensitive information: Please contact the individual listed in the
Alex Sapountzis, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-3660, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0118 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0118 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 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.
On June 18, 2014 (79 FR 34641), the NRC published a request for public comment on a draft regulatory basis to support the potential amendments to revise a number of existing security related regulations relating to physical protection of SNM at NRC-licensed facilities and in transit, as well as the fitness for duty programs for security officers at certain fuel cycle facilities. The request for public comment asked commenters to consider and address certain questions as they develop and provide their remarks. The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on August 4, 2014. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period on this document to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments. The deadline for submitting comments will be extended to October 17, 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
On August 23, 2012, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to exclude certain tethered launches from the FAA's licensing and permitting requirements. The FAA is issuing this SNPRM because a commenter raised an issue regarding toxic propellants that was not discussed in the NPRM, but should be addressed. Therefore, the FAA is issuing this action, which proposes to amend the NPRM so that tethered launches using propellants that cause serious injury to the public would not be eligible for exclusion. This SNPRM also includes clarifications based on recommendations commenters made to the NPRM. These proposed changes are intended to enhance the safety of tethered launches and improve regulatory effectiveness.
Send comments on or before September 22, 2014.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-0045
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this proposed rule, contact Stewart Jackson, AST-300, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-7903; email
The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and re-codified at 51 U.S.C. 50901-50923 (the Act), authorizes the Department of Transportation and thus the FAA, through delegations, to oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities, and the operation of launch and reentry sites as carried out by U.S. citizens or within the United States. 51 U.S.C. 50904, 50905. The Act directs the FAA to exercise this responsibility consistent with public health and safety, safety of property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. 51 U.S.C. 50905. Section 50901(a)(7) directs the FAA to regulate only to the extent necessary, in relevant part, to protect the public health and safety and safety of property. The FAA is also responsible for encouraging, facilitating, and promoting commercial space launches by the private sector. 51 U.S.C. 50903.
In its August 23, 2012 NPRM (77 FR 50956), the FAA proposed to exclude certain tethered launches from chapter III requirements if the tethered launches met specified safety criteria. The proposed criteria did not address the use of toxic propellants onboard a launch vehicle. During the NPRM comment period, the FAA received a comment stating the agency should revise the proposed rule to protect the public from the potential harm exposure to a toxic propellant could cause. The FAA agrees that it should address toxic propellants. Therefore, this SNPRM proposes that if an operator chooses to use any of the toxic propellants identified in Tables I417-2 and I417-3 in Appendix I of part 417, that launch must meet chapter III requirements.
Also, this SNPRM includes two clarifications to the NPRM. First, the agency would remove the term “established strength properties” from proposed § 400.2(c)(2)(i) to better clarify the proposed requirement and preserve the original intent, which is to ensure that the tether system can withstand the maximum dynamic load placed on it. Second, the FAA would revise proposed § 400.2(c)(2)(iii) to clarify that the maximum flight limit of 75 feet for a tethered launch vehicle would be measured from the ground to a fully-extended tether's attachment point to a vertically-oriented vehicle.
In August 2012, the FAA issued an NPRM proposing to exclude tethered launches that met specified requirements for a safe launch from chapter III licensing, permitting, and waiver requirements. The NPRM proposed defining a tether system as a device that contains launch vehicle hazards by physically constraining a launch vehicle in flight to a specified range from its launch point. It would include all components, from the point where the tether attaches to the vehicle to a solid base, that experience load during a tethered launch. The NPRM proposed that the tether system had to:
• Have established strength properties that would not yield or fail under the maximum dynamic load on the system or two times the maximum potential engine thrust;
• have a minimum safety factor of 3.0 for yield stress and 5.0 for ultimate stress;
• constrain the launch vehicle within 75 feet above ground level;
• display no damage prior to the launch; and
• be insulated or located such that it would not experience thermal damage from the launch vehicle exhaust.
The NPRM additionally proposed separation distances for the tethered operation based on the amount of propellant onboard a launch vehicle. Those distances are listed in proposed Table A of the NPRM. Lastly, the NPRM proposed requiring that the launch vehicle be unmanned, have a liquid or hybrid motor, and carry no more than 5,000 pounds of propellant.
The comment period for the NPRM closed on October 22, 2012. The FAA received comments from three commercial space companies: Masten Space Systems, Inc. (Masten); Unreasonable Rocket; and, SpeedUp, LLC. In addition, the agency received comments from four individuals, making a total of seven commenters. Two of the seven commenters, SpeedUp, LLC and Mr. W. Andrew Shrader, supported the proposal. The other commenters raised issues that are summarized and discussed below.
The FAA did not address toxic propellants in the NPRM. One commenter, Mr. Chad W. Thrasher, suggested that the FAA consider the harmful characteristics of some liquid propellants. He pointed out that many liquid rocket propulsion systems use liquids that are animal carcinogens, corrosive, and potentially explosive when mixed in specific ratios. He also pointed out that exposure to certain propellants may result in damage to the lungs, liver, kidneys, the central nervous system, and may also result in coma or death by asphyxiation. Mr. Thrasher suggested that the FAA revise proposed § 400.2(c)(3) to ensure that operators and the public are upwind of the test location or at least twice the distance defined in proposed Table A if downwind.
Mr. Thrasher proposed protecting the operators themselves. The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and re-codified at 51 U.S.C. 50901-50923, authorizes the agency through delegation to regulate launch and reentry activities to ensure the public
As this proposal pertains to the public, the FAA agrees with Mr. Thrasher that the NPRM should have addressed the harmful characteristics of certain propellants. However, the agency believes the best solution to keeping the public safe and retaining the burden-relieving components of the proposal would be to exclude from chapter III requirements only those eligible tethered launches that do not use propellants that cause serious injury. Mr. Thrasher suggested changing the proposed rule by stating that Table A would apply only if one is upwind of the test location. He suggested that if one is downwind of the test location, one should be at least one and a half times the separation distances stated in Table A. Basing the separation distances on wind direction, and increasing the separation distances for anyone standing downwind of the test location would add a level of complexity to the proposal that the FAA does not intend. Thus, the agency would amend proposed § 400.2(c)(1)(iii)
The FAA would withdraw the proposed requirement that a tether system eligible for exclusion from chapter III requirements possess “established strength properties.” Section 400.2(c)(2)(i) of the NPRM proposed that an eligible tether system have established strength properties that would not yield or fail under the conditions listed in §§ 400.2(c)(2)(i)(A) and 400.2 (c)(2)(i)(B). One commenter, Mr. Alexander Salvato, suggested that the phrase “established strength properties” was too vague, and it was not clear how the strength properties of the tether system would be established, or by whom. He suggested clarifying the phrase with substitute language or integrating the alternate test for tether strength provided in the NPRM.
The FAA agrees that the phrase “established strength properties” is too vague for the reasons Mr. Salvato provided, and no longer proposes it because the remainder of the provision would address the FAA's concerns with sufficient specificity. New proposed § 400.2 (c)(2)(i) would require that an eligible tether system not yield or fail under (1) the maximum dynamic load exerted on the system, or (2) a load equivalent to two times the maximum potential engine thrust.
For the tether system, the FAA proposes a minimum factor of safety of 3.0 for yield stress and 5.0 for ultimate stress. Three commenters, Masten, Mr. Thrasher, and Mr. Salvato, expressed concern about the FAA's proposed factors of safety.
Masten commented that while the proposed factors of safety may be appropriate for military development applications, they place unnecessary financial and schedule burdens on commercial reusable launch vehicle (RLV) developers without materially increasing public safety. Masten also stated the performance characteristics of commercial RLVs are driven by market rather than military requirements. As a result, the robust attachment hardware that may be required for a tether system with a yield stress safety factor of 3.0 and an ultimate stress safety factor of 5.0 may prove heavier than can reasonably be flown by a commercial RLV under tether test conditions. Masten suggested the proposed factors of safety may be appropriate for military development purposes, where ordnance or weapons systems requirements may drive a need for reliance on high yield and ultimate stress safety factors; however, commercially competitive RLV developers do not face the same military-based performance, maintainability, and interoperability requirements that U.S. Air Force developers address. Commercial RLV developers do face financing and price competition challenges that are not present in military system development. Masten suggested that based on its extensive experience designing and operating RLVs and tether systems, a safety factor of 2.0 for yield stress and 4.0 for ultimate stress would be consistent with commercial RLV operator practices and would ensure the tether system design was sufficiently safe but not so robust as to inhibit meaningful tether test activity.
The FAA acknowledges that its proposed factors of safety are also used for military applications. However, the FAA does not agree that the proposed factors of safety should be revised because they are too stringent for commercial operations. In addition to the U.S. Air Force, academia, and NASA have also recommended or used the proposed factors of safety. In 1948, Joseph P. Vidosic established guidelines that recommended when to apply a factor of safety ranging from 1.25 to 4.0 based on yield strength.
As noted previously, the goal of this rulemaking is to maintain public safety while relieving the industry and the FAA from chapter III licensing, permitting, and waiver requirements for tethered launches. Because the FAA would not be overseeing the tethered launches covered under the proposed rule, and because of the inherent uncertainties of the test environment, the agency believes it is reasonable to impose conservative design requirements to ensure the public is protected from a potential accident or incident. The factors of safety the FAA proposed (3.0 for yield stress, which is the elastic limit; and, 5.0 for ultimate stress, which is where breakage occurs) are based on guidance from academia, from successful usage by NASA, and proven results as documented by the U.S. Air Force's application to its operations at the Eastern and Western Ranges involving tethered and ground-
The FAA does not agree with Masten that it will be too costly for commercial companies to comply with these factors of safety. To the contrary, selecting conservative factors allows an operator to avoid the cost of analysis associated with FAA oversight. The selection of an appropriate factor of safety is based on the level of uncertainties regarding loading conditions, material properties, and environmental factors. The criteria used to select the factor of safety is based on accumulated knowledge associated with the design of the system, historical empirical knowledge, engineering judgment, judgment based on experience, and best practices that ensure safety. The factors of safety applied in industries such as aviation and aerospace reflect years of experience and the accumulation of empirical test data that provide an in-depth understanding of how loading conditions affect the system. Since 1948, engineers in various industries, including the aircraft and spacecraft industries, have achieved a better understanding of how to obtain factors of safety values for various loading conditions by implementing expensive, high fidelity validation and verification testing.
Typically, aircraft and spacecraft industries perform high fidelity verification and validation testing of vehicle structures to ascertain how these structures will perform under actual load conditions and to address how to reduce uncertainties. These test results provide an understanding of the actual loading characteristics associated with the system. With a significant reduction in uncertainties, an operator could reduce the factors of safety values. To achieve these lower factors of safety values, an operator would have to conduct a thorough structure analysis and high cost test programs. For example, if a vehicle attached to a tether started flying erratically and became uncontrollable, an operator would need to conduct costly testing to determine the worst loading condition. However, an operator could use closed-loop analyses and the proposed factors of safety to address uncertainties at lower cost without compromising public safety. With higher factors of safety, it is possible to reduce the need for high fidelity testing and analysis with a resulting reduction in costs. The FAA is not proposing a high fidelity analysis, and is instead focused on factors that protect public safety while making FAA oversight unnecessary.
Mr. Thrasher commented that the NPRM incorrectly interprets the intended minimum safety factor of the tether system by selecting the case requiring the highest, most conservative safety factors. He pointed out that the Martino report
(2) Tether system. The tether system must—
(i) Have established strength properties that will not yield or fail under—
(A) The maximum dynamic load of the system; and
(B) The nominal maximum dynamic load on the system with a safety factor of 3.0 for yield stress and 5.0 for ultimate stress; and
(C) The off-nominal dynamic load cases, calculated as the equivalent to two times the maximum potential engine thrust, shall have a minimum safety factor of 2.0 for yield stress and 3.0 for ultimate stress.
In the NPRM, the FAA used the Martino Report to show that a factor of safety of 3 for yield stress and 5 for ultimate stress are accepted industry standards for the design of ground-based systems, including a tether and its attachments to launch facilities or ground equipment. The FAA did not intend to adopt all the load cases discussed in the Martino Report. Instead, the FAA strives to achieve simplicity and clarity in its proposed rule without compromising safety. Because the FAA would not provide oversight for eligible tethered launches, the FAA selected robust and industry-acceptable factors of safety that would not necessitate FAA scrutiny.
Mr. Salvato stated the term “safety factor” is too vague. He said although the FAA discusses in the NPRM what the terms “yield stress” and “ultimate stress” mean, the agency only references factor of safety in its supplementary materials. He recommended including an abbreviated definition in the regulation of safety factor based on the more lengthy definition contained in the supplemental material, or referencing the attached supplemental material in the preamble to the rule.
The FAA does not believe it is necessary to define the term “safety factor” in the rule because it is a widely recognized industry term. However, the agency offers the following brief explanation to clarify the term as it is used in the preamble discussion: The factor of safety (FoS), also called safety factor (SF), is the ratio of the maximum load that a system is expected to withstand against the allowable design load applied or the ratio of absolute strength (structural capacity) to actual applied design load.
In the preamble to the NPRM, the FAA stated that yield stress is the point of the elastic limit. Unreasonable Rocket generally supported the rule, but was unclear as to why the FAA described the tether yield point as the point of elastic limit instead of the point of plastic limit for a system that is meant to be stretchy. It stated that all of Unreasonable Rocket's testing used climbing rope designed to yield (i.e., to arrest a climber's fall without snapping
The FAA does not agree. Elastic limit is the maximum stress that may be developed such that there is no permanent or residual deformation (the elements subjected to the loading; for example, the tether dynamic rope) when the load is entirely removed. The FAA proposed yield stress for the tether system as the elastic limit rather than the plastic limit because once the plastic limit is reached, the elastic capability of the material ends and permanent deformation occurs. If the applied load continues to increase, the element will weaken and ultimately breakage will occur.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to confine an eligible launch to one constrained within 75 feet above ground level (AGL). Two commenters asked the FAA to increase the proposed flight limit, but the FAA does not agree. As the agency discussed in the NPRM, to determine a safe flight limit, the FAA calculated the average length of a tether (32 feet) and the average height of a crane/forklift (43 feet) and added the two figures together. These averages are based on historical data from past tethered launches. The FAA also used a random sampling of the height of cranes/forklifts from various manufacturers to help determine the average crane/forklift height.
Two commenters, Masten and Mr. Thrasher, stated that the proposed flight limit is too restrictive and should be increased. Masten recommended increasing the flight limit by 275 feet to 350 feet AGL to accommodate existing and contemplated commercial tether launch activities, which would include larger, higher-performance RLVs. Mr. Thrasher suggested increasing the maximum allowable tether length to 40 feet to avoid ground effects from the propulsion system, and increasing the flight limit by 15 feet to 90 feet AGL to account for longer tether lengths and slightly larger than average cranes.
Masten pointed out that to comply with the proposed flight limit, the combined length of the launch vehicle, the vehicle connection, the tether and the fixed connection could not exceed a 37.5-foot radius from the fixed connection to the end of the launch vehicle, and that this threshold would severely limit the availability of the proposed exclusion to larger and higher-performance RLVs.
The FAA does not agree with this reasoning. First, the length of the launch vehicle would not be included in the flight limit calculation, as described in greater detail below. Second, regarding Masten's concern that the proposed flight limit would not account for larger, higher-performance RLVs, the FAA's intent is to provide design and operational criteria for the safe tethered launch of small, liquid or hybrid propulsion launch vehicles similar to those for which the agency has issued past waivers. It is not the agency's intent to exclude from FAA oversight the larger, higher-performance launch vehicles Masten describes in its comment, specifically Morpheus, Minuteman, and XEUS.
In response to Mr. Thrasher's comment suggesting the FAA increase the maximum allowable tether length, the FAA notes that the NPRM explicitly states that launch operators are not required to use the same measurements for tether length and crane/forklift height in their tether system design that the agency used to calculate the proposed flight limit. Even so, they would still be required to comply with the maximum flight limit threshold in order to be excluded from chapter III requirements. For example, an operator could use a 10-foot crane and a 30-foot tether, or a 50-foot crane and a 25-foot tether. In both scenarios, the maximum flight limit would not exceed 75 feet AGL. If an operator needed to adjust its tether length to avoid ground effects from the propulsion system, as Mr. Thrasher suggested, it would be free to do so as long as the vehicle did not exceed the flight limit for exclusion from chapter III.
Mr. Thrasher also suggested increasing the maximum flight limit 15 feet to account for longer tether lengths and slightly larger than average cranes. The FAA does not agree that increasing the flight limit 15 feet is a necessary or beneficial change from the proposed rule. The proposed 75-foot flight limit is adequate for vehicles that are equivalent in height to the average size of those vehicles for which the FAA granted a launch waiver to conduct tethered launches in the past. Also, Mr. Thrasher did not provide any rationale that addresses the FAA's safety concerns in support of his proposal. The FAA also reiterates that its intention is not to exclude larger than the average size of those vehicles that the FAA granted a launch waiver from chapter III requirements.
Additionally, the agency wishes to clarify the proposed threshold for flight limit. In the NPRM, proposed § 400.2(c)(2)(iii) stated the tether system would “constrain the launch vehicle within 75 feet above ground level.” The FAA now proposes to clarify that the restriction would measure from the ground to the point where the tether attaches to the vehicle. To calculate whether a launch vehicle exceeded the proposed threshold, the operator would measure from the ground to the tether's attachment point to a vertically oriented vehicle. In other words, if the attachment point was to the launch vehicle's base, the nose of the launch vehicle could be at an altitude greater than 75 feet. The maximum flight limit would not include the height of the vehicle itself.
The FAA proposed that a tether system be able to withstand the maximum dynamic load on the system or a load equivalent to two times the maximum potential engine thrust. One commenter, Mr. Andrew Swallow, suggested that “rules are needed to permit slack tethers, such as defining their breaking strength, as well as tethers under static load.” He also stated that a tethered vehicle starts and stops on the ground so will need a few inches of slack. The FAA would permit a tethered launch vehicle to be eligible to be excluded from chapter III. A slack tether may, in some circumstances, allow loading in excess of the proposed criteria. A slack tether, particularly a static rope, could increase the magnitude of the applied load placed on the tether system because the velocity of the vehicle would quickly eliminate the slack, and the tether could rapidly decelerate the vehicle. This rapid deceleration would cause the vehicle and the tether system to be subjected to high dynamic loading called shock loading. Shock is produced when an object (e.g., a launch vehicle) in motion suddenly halts.
If the tether system could not withstand the dynamic load exerted on it and was damaged, and if tether separation occurred and the launch
Proposed § 400.2(c)(2)(B)(iv)
One commenter, Mr. Thrasher, suggested that the FAA require a launch operator to inspect tether hardware because the FAA is relying on visual inspections to ensure there is no component damage. Mr. Thrasher also recommended that effective inspections of metal components for pre-existing damage, fracture, corrosion, and wear require all surfaces to be bare metal or have clear protective coatings. Further, he noted that any paint or improperly bonded covering used to prevent thermal damage could prevent detection of damage. He proposed that any thermal protective coverings be installed after inspection and any components that require thermal protection be bonded, be visually inspected, and used only one time. He recommended revising proposed § 400.2(c)(2)(B)(iv) to add the following: “Metal components must be inspected unpainted and free of any coverings or coatings that would interfere with visual inspection. Any metal using bonded protective thermal coatings shall be visually inspected and used only one time.”
Mr. Thrasher's comment implies the FAA intended the visual inspection to be a primary means of ensuring the structural integrity of the tether system. The FAA's intent for the visual inspection is to provide an added measure of safety to reinforce the safety criteria the agency is proposing. Primary among these safety requirements are the proposed conservative factors of safety. The FAA does not intend for the visual inspection to be a primary means of determining if the tether system is safe. The expectation is the operator will conduct a visual inspection on the eve of the launch, after full compliance with all other required design and operational criteria. However, this does not preclude launch operators from conducting a more substantive inspection if they believe it is necessary to ensure compliance and a safe tethered launch.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for this determination is discussed below.
The FAA has licensing authority over tethered launches, which are considered launches under chapter III unless they meet the definition of an amateur rocket launch.
The proposed rule would establish clear and simple criteria for an effective tether system. In addition, it proposes vehicle and operational criteria as added measures to protect the public in the event of a tether system failure. Operators would not have to apply for a launch license, permit, or waiver from chapter III to conduct tethered launches of non-amateur rockets
For the reasons discussed, the rule would be cost relieving to both operators and the FAA. The FAA requested but received no comments on its conclusion in the NPRM that the rule would be cost relieving to operators and the FAA.
This SNPRM revises the FAA's original proposal by not excluding from
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
This proposed rule is expected to provide an alternative to conducting tethered launches under chapter III and therefore could alleviate the financial burden of applying for a launch license, permit, or waiver to chapter III if an operator met the proposed criteria. The expected outcome would therefore have either a cost saving impact or no impact on small entities affected by the proposed rule. Under this SNPRM, launches that use toxic propellants would have to comply with chapter III, which they have to do currently. Although the changes introduced with the SNPRM might reduce the number of launch vehicles that would be exempt from chapter III, the rule would still have either a cost saving impact or no impact on small entities. The FAA did not receive comments when it reached the same conclusion in the NPRM.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, establishing standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. If a foreign launch operator were to conduct a tethered launch in the United States that meets the requirements of this proposed rule, it would be eligible for the proposed exclusion from chapter III. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it would have the same impact on domestic and international entities and thus have a neutral trade impact.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there would be no new requirement for information collection associated with this proposed rule.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. No ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices correspond to these proposed regulations.
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. This rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
See the “Regulatory Evaluation” discussion in the “Regulatory Notices and Analyses” section elsewhere in this preamble.
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Do not file proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified in the
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the docket. Proprietary information is held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.
Space transportation and exploration, Licensing, Safety.
Space transportation and exploration.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter III of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
51 U.S.C. 50901-50923.
These regulations set forth the procedures and requirements applicable to the authorization and supervision under 51 U.S.C. subtitle V, chapter 509, of commercial space transportation activities conducted in the United States or by a U.S. citizen. The regulations in this chapter do not apply to—
(a) Space activities carried out by the United States Government on behalf of the United States government;
(b) The launch of an amateur rocket as defined in § 1.1 of this title; or
(c) A launch of a tethered launch vehicle that meets the following criteria:
(1)
(i) Be unmanned;
(ii) Be powered by a liquid or hybrid rocket motor;
(iii) Not use any of the toxic propellants of Table I417-2 and Table I417-3 in Appendix I of part 417 of this chapter; and
(iv) Carry no more than 5,000 pounds of propellant.
(2)
(i) Not yield or fail under—
(A) The maximum dynamic load on the system; or
(B) A load equivalent to two times the maximum potential engine thrust.
(ii) Have a minimum safety factor of 3.0 for yield stress and 5.0 for ultimate stress.
(iii) Constrain the launch vehicle within 75 feet above ground level as measured from the ground to the attachment point of the vehicle to the tether.
(iv) Display no damage prior to the launch.
(v) Be insulated or located such that it will not experience thermal damage due to the launch vehicle's exhaust.
(3)
51 U.S.C. 50101-50923.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Notice of Proposed Policy; Request for Comments
Under Federal law, airport operators that have accepted federal grants and/or those that have obligations contained in property deeds for property transferred under various Federal laws such as the Surplus Property Act generally may use airport property only for aviation-related purposes unless otherwise approved by the FAA. Compliance inspections by FAA staff, as well as audits by the Government Accountability Office, have found that some hangars intended for aircraft storage are routinely used to store non-aeronautical items such as vehicles and large household items. In some cases, this storage interferes with—or entirely displaces—aeronautical use of the hangar. Moreover, many airports have a waiting list for hangar space, and a tenant's use of a hangar for non-aeronautical purposes prevents aircraft owners from obtaining access to hangar storage on the airport. At the same time, the FAA realizes that storage of some small incidental items in a hangar that is otherwise used for aircraft storage will have no effect on the aeronautical utility of the hangar. The FAA is proposing a statement of policy on use of airport hangars to clarify compliance requirements for airport sponsors, airport manager, airport tenants, state aviation officials, and FAA compliance staff. This notice solicits public comment on the proposed policy statement.
Send your comments on or before September 5, 2014. The FAA will consider comments on the proposed policy statement. Any necessary or appropriate revisions resulting from the comments received will be adopted as of the date of a subsequent publication in the
You may send comments [identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-0463] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For more information on the notice and comment process, see the
Kevin C. Willis, Manager, Airport Compliance Division, ACO-100, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3085; facsimile: (202) 267-4629.
You can get an electronic copy of this Policy and all other documents in this docket using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking portal (
(2) Visiting FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at (
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at (
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3085. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this proceeding.
This notice is published under the authority described in Title 49 of the United States Code, Subtitle VII, part B, chapter 471, section 47122(a).
Airport sponsors that have accepted grants under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) have agreed to comply with certain Federal policies included in each AIP grant agreement as sponsor assurances. The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA), as amended and recodified at 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(1), and the contractual sponsor assurances require that the airport sponsor make the airport available for aviation use. Grant assurance 22,
The sponsor may designate some areas of the airport for non-aviation
It is the longstanding policy of the FAA that airport property be available for aeronautical use and not be available for non-aeronautical purposes unless that non-aeronautical use is approved by the FAA. Use of a designated aeronautical facility for a non-aviation purpose, even on a temporary basis, requires FAA approval. See FAA Order 5190.6B,
Areas of the airport designated for non-aeronautical use must be shown on an airport's Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The AAIA, at 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(16), requires that AIP grant agreements include an assurance by the sponsor to maintain an ALP in a manner prescribed by the FAA. Sponsor assurance 29,
Clearly identifying non-aeronautical facilities not only keeps aeronautical facilities available for aviation use, but also assures that the airport sponsor receives at least Fair Market Value (FMV) revenue from non-aviation uses of the airport. The AAIA requires that airport revenues be used for airport purposes, and that the airport maintain a fee structure that makes the airport as self-sustaining as possible. 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(13)(A) and (b)(1). The FAA and the Department of Transportation Office of the Inspector General have interpreted these statutory provisions to require that non-aviation activities on an airport be charged a fair market rate for use of airport facilities rather than the aeronautical rate. See
The FAA's enforcement of appropriate use of airport property has been the subject of two audits by the General Accounting Office (now called Government Accountability Office, or GAO). In August 1980, the GAO released a report to the Secretary of Transportation entitled “Misuse of Airport Land Acquired through Federal Assistance.” This report highlighted several cases of federally funded land being used for various non-aeronautical purposes. The report cited a lack of oversight by FAA and recommended more active involvement in oversight. In May 1999, the GAO released the report, “General Aviation Airports: Unauthorized Land Use Highlights Need for Improved Oversight and Enforcement”. This report highlighted the need for the FAA to increase its efforts to monitor airports for unauthorized use of land.
In response to this second report, the FAA began conducting land use inspections at 18 selected airports each year, at least two in each of the nine FAA regions. A frequent finding from these inspections has been the prevalence of non-aeronautical items stored in aircraft hangars designated for aeronautical use. In some cases, the aircraft hangars contained only non-aeronautical items, such as automobiles (including sponsor-owned police cruisers), boats, large recreational vehicles, etc. In other cases, non-aeronautical items shared space with legitimate aeronautical use of hangars. Inspections have frequently uncovered motorcycles, furniture, tools, and other non-aeronautical items stored in hangars along with aircraft. Some hangar tenants were found to be operating non-aviation commercial businesses out of an airfield hangar.
In May 2011, The Director of the Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis issued a Director's Determination under 14 CFR Part 16,
A sponsor's grant assurance obligations require that its aeronautical facilities be used or be available for use for aeronautical activities. If the presence of non-aeronautical items in a hangar does not interfere with these obligations, then the FAA will generally not consider their presence to constitute a violation of the sponsor's obligation to provide reasonable access to aeronautical users and tenants. In cases where excess hangar capacity is unused because of low aviation demand, a sponsor can request FAA approval for interim non-aeronautical use of a hangar until that hangar is needed again for an aeronautical purpose. However, aeronautical use must take priority and be accommodated over non-aeronautical use even if the rental rate would be higher for the non-aeronautical use (See FAA Order 5190.6B, ¶ 22.6). The sponsor is required to charge a fair market commercial rental rate for any hangar rental or use for non-aeronautical purposes.
While building an aircraft results in an aeronautical product, the FAA has not found all stages of the building process to be aeronautical for purposes of hangar use. A large part of the
In
There have been industry objections to the FAA's designation of any aircraft construction stages as non-aeronautical. While the same principles apply generally to large aircraft manufacturing, compliance issues involving aircraft construction have typically been limited to homebuilt aircraft construction at general aviation airports. Commercial aircraft manufacturers use dedicated, purpose-built manufacturing facilities, and questions of aeronautical use for these facilities are generally resolved at the time of the initial lease. In contrast, persons constructing homebuilt aircraft sometimes seek to rent airport hangars designed for storage of operating aircraft and easy access to a taxiway, even though it may be years before a homebuilt aircraft kit will be able to take advantage of the convenient access to the airfield.
The FAA is not proposing any change to existing policy other than to clarify that final assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point where it can be taxied, will be considered an aeronautical use.
The FAA intends to produce an agency policy on use of hangars and related facilities at federally obligated airports in sufficient detail to provide a clear and standardized guide for airport sponsors and FAA compliance staff. The FAA is proposing a policy statement for public comment based on the following general principles:
1. The primary goal of this policy is to protect federal investment in federally obligated airports by ensuring aeronautical facilities are available to aeronautical users. Aeronautical users requesting the use of a hangar for aircraft storage should not be denied access because the airport sponsor is permitting tenants to use hangars to store vehicles or household items, or to operate non-aviation businesses.
2. A secondary goal of the policy is to ensure that airport sponsors receive fair market rental for any approved use of airport property for non-aviation purposes.
3. The primary purpose of a hangar in an aeronautical area of the airport is aircraft storage or operation of an aeronautical service business that requires maintenance or repair work on aircraft. If a hangar is serving one of these purposes, then incidental storage of non-aviation items that does not interfere with the primary purpose of the hangar and occupies an insignificant amount of physical hangar space will not be considered to constitute a violation of the grant assurances. In such cases, incidental storage of non-aviation items will be treated as having
4. If an airport's hangar capacity substantially exceeds aviation demand (e.g., there are multiple vacant hangars and no requests to rent them for aeronautical purposes), the sponsor may request and FAA may approve interim non-aeronautical use of vacant hangars under the provisions found in FAA Order 5190.6B, Chapter 22.6. FMV non-aeronautical rental rates would apply to any non-aviation use.
5. Final, active assembly of an aircraft in the manufacturing or homebuilt construction process, resulting in a completed, operational aircraft requiring access to the airfield, is considered an aeronautical activity for the purposes of this policy.
6. Using hangar space as a residence on a full-time or even temporary basis is not a compatible land use, no matter where it is located on the airport, and is not permitted.
7. Airport sponsors are expected to take measures to ensure that aeronautical facilities on the airport are reserved for aeronautical use. These measures should include a periodic inspection program to ensure that the waiting time for those persons who are legitimately in need of a hangar for aircraft storage is minimized.
8. Airport sponsors may adopt more stringent rules for use of hangars than required by the grant assurances, based on proprietary concerns for the safe and efficient use of airport property. However, such rules must be reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory against any aeronautical user. For example, an airport sponsor may limit storage of vehicles in hangars if there is concern that vehicular traffic on taxilanes or taxiways may create a safety hazard.
9. The sponsor's federal obligations do not protect non-aeronautical users and/or storage of non-aeronautical items. Non-aeronautical use is not a protected activity.
In accordance with the above, the FAA proposes to adopt the following policy statement on use of hangars at federally obligated airports. The agency requests public comments on the proposed policy statement, as described in the “Address” and “Dates” information in this notice. Comments received by the due date will be considered in the development of a final agency policy statement.
This policy applies to all aircraft storage areas or facilities on a federally obligated airport unless designated for non-aviation use on an approved Airport Layout Plan or otherwise approved for non-aviation use by the FAA. The policy statement generally refers to the use of hangars since they are the type of aeronautical facility most often involved in issues of non-aviation use. The policy applies to all users of aircraft hangars, regardless of whether a user is an owner or lessee of the hangar, including airport sponsors, municipalities, and other public entities.
The intent of this policy is to ensure that the Federal investment in federally obligated airports is protected by making aeronautical facilities available to aeronautical users, and to ensure that airport sponsors receive fair market value for rental of approved non-aviation use of airport property. Sponsors who fail to comply with grant assurances and this policy may be subject to administrative sanctions such as the denial of funding from current and future AIP grants.
• Hangars located on airport property must be used for an aeronautical purpose, or be available for use for one, unless otherwise approved by the FAA.
• Aeronautical uses for hangars include:
• Provided the hangar is used primarily for aeronautical purposes, an airport sponsor may permit limited, non-aeronautical items to be stored in hangars provided the items are incidental to aeronautical use of the hangar and occupy an insignificant amount of hangar space (e.g., a small refrigerator). The incidental storage of non-aeronautical items will be considered to be of
• Generally, items are considered incidental if they:
• Hangars should be leased with consideration of the size and quantity of aircraft to be stored therein. To maximize the availability of hangars for all aeronautical users, sponsors should avoid leasing a hangar that is disproportionately large for the aircraft to be stored in the hangar (i.e., hangars built to store multiple aircraft should be used for multiple aircraft storage).
• Hangars must not be used as a residence. The FAA differentiates between a typical pilot resting facility or aircrew quarters versus a hangar residence or hangar home. The former are designed to be used for overnight and/or resting periods for aircrew, and not as a permanent or even temporary residence. See FAA Order 5190.6B, Paragraph 20.5.b.
• This policy on hangar use applies regardless of whether the hangar occupant leases the hangar from the airport sponsor or developer, or the hangar occupant constructed the hangar at their own expense and holds a ground lease only. When designated aeronautical land is made available for construction of hangars, the hangars built on the land will be fully subject to the sponsor's obligations to use aeronautical facilities for aeronautical use.
Where hangars are unoccupied and there is no current aviation demand for hangar space, the airport sponsor may request that FAA approve an interim use of a hangar for non-aeronautical purposes for a period no more than five years. Interim leases of unused hangars can generate revenue for the airport and prevent deterioration of facilities. FAA will review the request in accordance with Order 5190.6B, ¶ 22.6. Approved interim or concurrent revenue-production uses must not interfere with safe and efficient airport operations and sponsors should only agree to lease terms that allow the hangars to be recovered on short notice for aeronautical purposes.
The airport sponsor is required to charge non-aeronautical fair market rental fees for the non-aeronautical use of airport property, even on an interim basis. (See
In the context of enforcement of the grant assurances, this policy allows some incidental storage of non-aeronautical items in hangars. However, the policy neither creates nor constitutes a right to store non-aeronautical items in hangars. Airport sponsors may restrict or prohibit storage of non-aeronautical items. Sponsors should consider factors such as emergency access, fire codes, security, insurance, and the impact of vehicular traffic on their surface areas when enacting rules regarding hangar storage. In some cases, permitting certain incidental non-aeronautical items in hangars could inhibit the sponsor's ability to meet obligations associated with grant assurance 19,
It is expected that aeronautical facilities on an airport will be available and used for aeronautical purposes in the normal course of airport business, and that non-aeronautical uses will be the exception. Sponsors should have a program to routinely monitor use of hangars and take measures to eliminate and prevent unapproved non-aeronautical use of hangars. Sponsors should ensure that length of time on a waiting list of those legitimately in need of a hangar for aircraft storage is minimized. Sponsors should also consider incorporating provisions in airport leases, including aeronautical leases, to adjust rental rates to FMV for any non-incidental non-aeronautical use of the leased facilities. FAA personnel conducting a land use or compliance inspection of an airport may request a copy of the sponsor's hangar use program and evidence that the sponsor has limited hangars to aviation use.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
In a finding, notice of which is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Written comments on this NPRM must be submitted on or before September 22, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by 1506-AB27, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Comments submitted in response to this NPRM will become a matter of public record. Therefore, you should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available.
The FinCEN Resource Center at (800) 767-2825.
On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”), Public Law 107-56. Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act amends the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332, to promote the prevention, detection, and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Regulations implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter X. The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (the “Secretary”) to administer the BSA and its implementing regulations has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Section 311”), codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A, grants the Director of FinCEN the authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a foreign jurisdiction, institution, class of transaction, or type of account is of “primary money laundering concern,” to require domestic financial institutions and financial agencies to take certain “special measures” to address the primary money laundering concern.
As noticed elsewhere in this issue of the
In determining which special measures to implement to address the primary money laundering concern, FinCEN considered the following factors.
Other countries or multilateral groups have not yet taken action similar to those proposed in this rulemaking that would: (1) prohibit domestic financial institutions and agencies from opening or maintaining a correspondent account for or on behalf of FBME; and (2) require certain covered financial institutions to screen their correspondent accounts in a manner that is reasonably designed to guard against processing transactions involving FBME. FinCEN encourages other countries to take similar action based on the information contained in this NPRM and the Notice of Finding.
The fifth special measure proposed by this rulemaking would prohibit covered financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent accounts for or on behalf of FBME after the effective date of the final rule implementing the fifth special measure. Currently, only one U.S. covered financial institution maintains an account for FBME; therefore FinCEN believes this action will not present an undue regulatory burden. As a corollary to this measure, covered financial institutions also would be required to take reasonable steps to apply special due diligence, as set forth below, to all of their correspondent accounts to help ensure that no such account is being used to provide services to FBME. For direct correspondent relationships, this would involve a minimal burden in transmitting a one-time notice to certain foreign correspondent account holders concerning the prohibition on processing transactions involving FBME through the U.S. correspondent account. U.S. financial institutions generally apply some level of screening and, when required, conduct some level of reporting of their transactions and accounts, often through the use of commercially-available software such as that used for compliance with the economic sanctions programs administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the Department of the Treasury and to detect potential suspicious activity. To ensure that U.S. financial institutions are not being used unwittingly to process payments for or on behalf of FBME, directly or indirectly, some additional burden will be incurred by U.S. financial institutions to be vigilant in their suspicious activity monitoring procedures. As explained in more detail in the section-by-section analysis below, financial institutions should be able to leverage these current screening and reporting procedures to detect transactions involving FBME.
The requirements proposed in this NPRM would target FBME specifically; they would not target a class of financial transactions (such as wire transfers) or a particular jurisdiction. FBME has approximately $2 billion in assets. While FBME is presently headquartered in Tanzania, FBME transacts over 90% of its global banking business and holds over 90% of its assets in its Cyprus branch. FBME is not a major participant in the international payment system and is not relied upon by the international banking community for clearance or settlement services. Thus, the imposition of the fifth special measure against FBME would not have a significant adverse systemic impact on
The exclusion of FBME from the U.S. financial system as proposed in this NPRM would enhance national security by making it more difficult for money launderers, transnational organized crime, other criminals, sanctions evaders, and terrorists to access the U.S. financial system. More generally, the imposition of the fifth special measure would complement the U.S. Government's worldwide efforts to expose and disrupt international money laundering and terrorist financing.
Therefore, pursuant to the Finding that FBME is a financial institution operating outside of the United States of primary money laundering concern, and after conducting the required consultations and weighing the relevant factors, the Director of FinCEN proposes to impose the fifth special measure.
Section 1010.661(a)(1) of the proposed rule would define FBME to include all domestic and international branches, offices, and subsidiaries of FBME operating in Tanzania, Cyprus, or in any other jurisdiction.
Covered financial institutions should take commercially reasonable measures to determine whether a customer is a branch, office, or subsidiary of FBME.
Section 1010.661(a)(2) of the proposed rule would define the term “correspondent account” by reference to the definition contained in 31 CFR 1010.605(c)(1)(ii). Section 1010.605(c)(1)(ii) defines a correspondent account to mean an account established to receive deposits from, or make payments or other disbursements on behalf of, a foreign bank, or to handle other financial transactions related to the foreign bank. Under this definition, “payable through accounts” are a type of correspondent account.
In the case of a U.S. depository institution, this broad definition includes most types of banking relationships between a U.S. depository institution and a foreign bank that are established to provide regular services, dealings, and other financial transactions, including a demand deposit, savings deposit, or other transaction or asset account, and a credit account or other extension of credit. FinCEN is using the same definition of “account” for purposes of this rule as was established for depository institutions in the final rule implementing the provisions of section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act requiring enhanced due diligence for correspondent accounts maintained for certain foreign banks.
In the case of securities broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, introducing brokers-commodities, and investment companies that are open-end companies (“mutual funds”), FinCEN is also using the same definition of “account” for purposes of this rule as was established for these entities in the final rule implementing the provisions of section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act requiring enhanced due diligence for correspondent accounts maintained for certain foreign banks.
Section 1010.661(a)(3) of the proposed rule would define “covered financial institution” with the same definition used in the final rule implementing the provisions of section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act,
• An insured bank (as defined in section 3(h) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(h));
• a commercial bank;
• an agency or branch of a foreign bank in the United States;
• a Federally insured credit union;
• a savings association;
• a corporation acting under section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 611);
• a trust bank or trust company;
• a broker or dealer in securities;
• a futures commission merchant or an introducing broker—commodities; and
• a mutual fund.
Section 1010.661(a)(4) of the proposed rule would define “subsidiary” as a company of which more than 50 percent of the voting stock or analogous equity interest is owned by FBME.
Section 1010.661(b)(1) of the proposed rule imposing the fifth special measure would prohibit covered financial institutions from establishing, maintaining, administering, or managing in the United States any correspondent account for or on behalf of FBME.
As a corollary to the prohibition on maintaining correspondent accounts for or on behalf of FBME, section 1010.661(b)(2) of the proposed rule would require a covered financial institution to apply special due diligence to all of its foreign correspondent accounts that is reasonably designed to guard against processing transactions involving FBME. As part of that special due diligence, covered financial institutions must notify those foreign correspondent account holders that the covered financial institutions know or has reason to know provide services to FBME that such correspondents may not provide FBME with access to the correspondent account maintained at the covered financial institution. Covered financial institutions should implement appropriate risk-based procedures to identify transactions involving FBME.
A covered financial institution may satisfy the notification requirement by transmitting the following notice to its foreign correspondent account holders that it knows or has reason to know provide services to FBME:
Notice: Pursuant to U.S. regulations issued under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act,
A covered financial institution may, for example, have knowledge through transaction screening software that a correspondent processes transactions for
The special due diligence would also include implementing risk-based procedures designed to identify any use of correspondent accounts to process transactions involving FBME. A covered financial institution would be expected to apply an appropriate screening mechanism to identify a funds transfer order that on its face listed FBME as the financial institution of the originator or beneficiary, or otherwise referenced FBME in a manner detectable under the financial institution's normal screening mechanisms. An appropriate screening mechanism could be the mechanism used by a covered financial institution to comply with various legal requirements, such as the commercially available software programs used to comply with the economic sanctions programs administered by OFAC.
A covered financial institution would also be required to implement risk-based procedures to identify indirect use of its correspondent accounts, including through methods used to hide the beneficial owner of a transaction. Specifically, FinCEN is concerned that FBME may attempt to disguise its transactions by relying on types of payments and accounts that would not explicitly identify FBME as an involved party. A financial institution may develop a suspicion of such misuse based on other information in its possession, patterns of transactions, or any other method available to it based on its existing systems. Under the proposed rule, a covered financial institution that suspects or has reason to suspect use of a correspondent account to process transactions involving FBME must take all appropriate steps to attempt to verify and prevent such use, including a notification to its correspondent account holder per section 1010.661(b)(2)(i)(A) requesting further information regarding a transaction, requesting corrective action to address the perceived risk and, where necessary, terminating the correspondent account. A covered financial institution may re-establish an account closed under the rule if it determines that the account will not be used to process transactions involving FBME. FinCEN specifically solicits comments on the requirement under the proposed rule that covered financial institutions take reasonable steps to prevent any processing of transactions involving FBME.
Section 1010.661(b)(3) of the proposed rule would clarify that subsection (b) of the rule does not impose any reporting requirement upon any covered financial institution that is not otherwise required by applicable law or regulation. A covered financial institution must, however, document its compliance with the requirement that it notify those correspondent account holders that the covered financial institution knows or has reason to know provide services to FBME that such correspondents may not process any transaction involving FBME through the correspondent account maintained at the covered financial institution.
FinCEN invites comments on all aspects of the proposal to impose the fifth special measure against FBME and specifically invites comments on the following matters:
1. The impact of the proposed special measure upon legitimate transactions utilizing FBME involving, in particular, U.S. persons and entities; foreign persons, entities, and governments; and multilateral organizations doing legitimate business.
2. The form and scope of the notice to certain correspondent account holders that would be required under the rule;
3. The appropriate scope of the proposed requirement for a covered financial institution to take reasonable steps to identify any use of its correspondent accounts to process transactions involving FBME; and
4. The appropriate steps a covered financial institution should take once it identifies use of one of its correspondent accounts to process transactions involving FBME.
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” that will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of the RFA, both banks and credit unions are considered small entities if they have less than $500,000,000 in assets.
Broker-dealers are defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(h) as those broker-dealers required to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Because FinCEN and the SEC regulate substantially the same population, for the purposes of the RFA, FinCEN relies on the SEC's definition of small business as previously submitted to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). The SEC has defined the term “small entity” to mean a broker or dealer that: “(1) had total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited financial statements, were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) or, if not required to file such statements, a broker or dealer that had total capital (net worth plus subordinated debt) of less than $500,000 on the last business day of the preceding fiscal year (or in the time that it has been in business if shorter); and (2) is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) that is not a small business or small organization as defined in this release.”
Futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) are defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(x) as those FCMs that are registered or required to be registered as a FCM with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) under the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), except persons who register pursuant to section 4f(a)(2) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 6f(a)(2). Because FinCEN and the CFTC regulate substantially the same population, for the purposes of the RFA, FinCEN relies on the CFTC's definition of small business as previously submitted to the SBA. In the CFTC's “Policy Statement and Establishment of Definitions of `Small Entities' for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,” the CFTC concluded that registered FCMs should not be considered to be small entities for purposes of the RFA.
For purposes of the RFA, an introducing broker-commodities dealer is considered small if it has less than $35,500,000 in gross receipts annually.
Mutual funds are defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(gg) as those investment companies that are open-end investment companies that are registered or are required to register with the SEC. Because FinCEN and the SEC regulate substantially the same population, for the purposes of the RFA, FinCEN relies on the SEC's definition of small business as previously submitted to the SBA. The SEC has defined the term “small entity” under the Investment Company Act to mean “an investment company that, together with other investment companies in the same group of related investment companies, has net assets of $50 million or less as of the end of its most recent fiscal year.”
As noted above, 80 percent of banks, 94 percent of credit unions, 17 percent of broker-dealers, 95 percent of introducing brokers-commodities, zero FCMs, and 7 percent of mutual funds are small entities. The limited number of foreign banking institutions with which FBME maintains or will maintain accounts will likely limit the number of affected covered financial institutions to the largest U.S. banks, which actively engage in international transactions. Thus, the prohibition on maintaining correspondent accounts for foreign banking institutions that engage in transactions involving FBME under the fifth special measure would not impact a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed fifth special measure would require covered financial institutions to provide a notification intended to aid cooperation from foreign correspondent account holders in preventing transactions involving FBME from accessing the U.S. financial system. FinCEN estimates that the burden on institutions providing this notice is one hour. Covered financial institutions would also be required to take reasonable measures to detect use of their correspondent accounts to process transactions involving FBME. All U.S. persons, including U.S. financial institutions, currently must exercise some degree of due diligence to comply with OFAC sanctions and suspicious activity reporting requirements. The tools used for such purposes, including commercially available software used to comply with the economic sanctions programs administered by OFAC, can easily be modified to identify correspondent accounts with foreign banks that involve FBME. Thus, the special due diligence that would be required by the imposition of the fifth special measure—
For these reasons, FinCEN certifies that the proposals contained in this rulemaking would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
FinCEN invites comments from members of the public who believe there would be a significant economic impact on small entities from the imposition of the fifth special measure regarding FBME.
The collection of information contained in this proposed rule is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Desk Officer for the Department of Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1506), Washington, DC 20503 (or by email to
The notification requirement in section 1010.661(b)(2)(i) is intended to aid cooperation from correspondent account holders in denying FBME access to the U.S. financial system. The information required to be maintained by section 1010.661(b)(3)(i) would be used by federal agencies and certain self-regulatory organizations to verify compliance by covered financial institutions with the provisions of 31 CFR 1010.661. The collection of information would be mandatory.
FinCEN specifically invites comments on: (a) whether the proposed collection
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 OMB control number.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined that the proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, banks and banking, brokers, counter-money laundering, counter-terrorism, foreign banking.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1010, chapter X of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1010 is revised to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332 Title III, secs. 311, 312, 313, 314, 319, 326, 352, Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(2)
(A) Notifying those foreign correspondent account holders that the covered financial institution knows or has reason to know provide services to FBME Bank Ltd. that such correspondents may not provide FBME Bank Ltd. with access to the correspondent account maintained at the covered financial institution; and
(B) Taking reasonable steps to identify any use of its foreign correspondent accounts by FBME Bank Ltd., to the extent that such use can be determined from transactional records maintained in the covered financial institution's normal course of business.
(ii) A covered financial institution shall take a risk-based approach when deciding what, if any, other due diligence measures it reasonably must adopt to guard against the use of its foreign correspondent accounts to process transactions involving FBME Bank Ltd.
(iii) A covered financial institution that obtains knowledge that a foreign correspondent account may be being used to process transactions involving FBME Bank Ltd. shall take all appropriate steps to further investigate and prevent such access, including the notification of its correspondent account holder under paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) and, where necessary, termination of the correspondent account.
(3)
(ii) Nothing in this paragraph (b) shall require a covered financial institution to report any information not otherwise required to be reported by law or regulation.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published in the
Mr. Mark Gomersall, telephone 571-372-6099.
In the proposed rule published at 79 FR 41172, dated July 15, 2014, make the following correction to the
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 21, 2014 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by August 21, 2014 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice.
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) are announcing the availability of Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) payments under the 2012 NAP Frost Freeze (NAPFF) Program, which will provide payments for losses to 2012 annual fruit crops grown on bushes or trees in counties that received Secretarial disaster designations due to frost or freeze for the 2012 crop year. This retroactive assistance for 2012 losses is authorized by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill). Eligible causes of loss for NAPFF are not limited to frost or freeze, although to be eligible for payment, losses must have occurred in a county that had a Secretarial disaster designation due to frost or freeze for the 2012 crop year. Other qualifying causes of loss, as specified in the current NAP regulations, include damaging weather or adverse natural occurrences such as flooding. The funding available for this program is such sums as may be necessary to cover eligible 2012 fruit losses.
Steve Peterson, telephone (202) 720-7641.
NAP is operated by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) for CCC as authorized by
NAP coverage is limited to crops other than livestock that are commercially produced for food and fiber, and to other specific crops (christmas trees, turfgrass sod, aquaculture including ornamental fish, ornamental nursery, etc.) for which catastrophic risk protection plan of insurance under 7 U.S.C. 1508(b) is not available through the Risk Management Agency (RMA). Qualifying losses to eligible NAP crops must be due to an eligible cause of loss as specified in 7 CFR part 1437, which includes damaging weather (drought, hurricane, freeze, etc.) or adverse natural occurrence (volcanic eruption, flood, etc.).
NAP coverage is not automatic; producers must apply for NAP and pay a service fee at their FSA county office to obtain coverage, as well as meet certain other eligibility criteria. Information about the service fee is discussed below in the Service Fee section. Catastrophic level NAP covers the amount of losses due to low yield greater than 50 percent of expected production. As specified in current regulations in 7 CFR part 1437, NAP payments for low yield loss are calculated based on the loss of an eligible NAP crop in excess of 50 percent of expected production (guarantee) times 55 percent of the average market price for the crop. This means that the maximum payment for a total loss under NAP catastrophic coverage is 27.5 percent (50 percent of 55 percent).
The 2014 Farm Bill adds the availability of higher coverage levels for most crops (other than those grown for grazing) and retroactive coverage for 2012 fruit losses, as described in more detail in the following section of this document. The 2014 Farm Bill does not change the basic scope of NAP as a risk management program for crops not otherwise covered by a catastrophic risk protection plan of insurance.
The 2014 Farm Bill modifies NAP to permit producers an opportunity to obtain additional risk management coverage ranging from 50 to 65 percent of production, in 5 percent increments, and for 100 percent of the average market price. This “additional assistance” coverage is discussed below in the Additional Assistance Coverage Levels for 2012 Fruit Losses section. As specified in the 2014 Farm Bill, the premium for this additional level of coverage is 5.25 percent times the level of coverage. The premium is discussed below in the Premium Calculation section. The coverage levels and premium calculations are specified in the 2014 Farm Bill and FSA has no discretion to offer different coverage levels or premiums.
As noted earlier, the 2014 Farm Bill authorized NAP assistance retroactively for losses to 2012 fruit crops grown on trees and bushes in counties that had Secretarial disaster designations for frost or freeze for the 2012 crop year. This additional 2012 NAP assistance is being provided under NAPFF. Where the 2014 Farm Bill was silent with respect to NAPFF, FSA made a discretionary decision to make all producers of eligible fruit crops with eligible losses in disaster counties in 2012 eligible for NAPFF, whether or not they purchased 2012 NAP coverage during the original application period for 2012. Any producers of NAP eligible fruit crops intended for harvest as fresh or processed fruit or juice fruit (and not fruit for intended uses of seed or root stock), without regard to whether or not the producer previously obtained 2012 NAP coverage on eligible fruit crops in eligible counties, will be able to apply for NAPFF assistance for eligible causes of loss to these fruit crops in eligible counties.
NAPFF will be implemented using the existing regulations for NAP (7 CFR part 1437), including the definitions in those regulations.
The following definitions from similar disaster assistance programs also apply to this NOFA:
• “Beginning farmer” and “socially disadvantaged farmer” as defined in 7 CFR 1416.102, and
• “Bush,” “tree,” and “vine” as defined in 7 CFR 1416.402.
The following terms are specifically defined for NAPFF. They are similar to the way these terms are defined in the existing NAP and disaster assistance regulations, but are revised to reflect that NAPFF is only available for 2012 losses:
“Limited resource farmer” means a farmer or rancher who is both the following:
(a) A person whose direct or indirect gross farm sales did not exceed $163,200 in each of calendar years 2009 and 2010, and
(b) A person whose total household income was at or below the national poverty level for a family of four in each of the same two previous years referenced in paragraph (a) of this definition.
Limited resource producer status may be determined using the USDA Limited Resource Farmer and Rancher Online Self Determination Tool located on the Limited Resource Farmer and Rancher Web site at
For legal entities requesting to be considered Limited Resource Farmer or Rancher, the sum of the gross sales and household income must be considered for all members.
“Crop year” means the calendar year in which the crop is normally harvested or in which the majority of the crop would have been harvested. For the purpose of NAPFF assistance, the eligible crop year is 2012.
The 2014 Farm Bill sections on AGI and payment limits refer to “benefits” from FSA and CCC programs. (Most FSA and CCC program benefits are cash payments, but some programs provide non-cash benefits such as technical assistance and subsidized risk management products.) This NOFA uses the terms “assistance,” “coverage,” and “payments” to refer to NAP and NAPFF benefits. For NAP, in general, the period to apply for coverage ends before the crop is planted and coverage begins at least 30 days after application for coverage. Producers who had previously purchased NAP may be eligible to also receive assistance under NAPFF. For NAPFF only, assistance may be obtained retroactively by producers who did not previously apply for 2012 NAP coverage. In the case of NAPFF, assistance will provide payments for known losses.
NAPFF assistance is available only for losses that meet specific eligibility criteria and requirements established by the 2014 Farm Bill. All eligibility requirements described below for eligible fruit crops, eligible counties, eligible causes of loss, and eligible coverage period must be met in order to receive payment.
NAPFF assistance is available only for losses to fruit crops grown on a tree or bush. The following fruit crops are eligible: Apples, apricots, aronia,
Fruit crops grown on canes or vines are not eligible. This requirement is statutory and FSA has no discretion to extend NAPFF assistance to crops that do not meet this requirement. To administer NAPFF assistance, FSA is using the definitions of “bush,” “tree,” and “vine” as specified in the regulations for the Tree Assistance Program (TAP) at 7 CFR part 1416, subpart E, for consistency in determining the eligible fruit crops for NAPFF.
Losses must have occurred in an eligible county. Eligible counties for NAPFF are primary counties that received Secretarial disaster designations for the 2012 crop year due to frost or freeze and those counties contiguous to such counties that received Secretarial disaster designations for the 2012 crop year due to frost or freeze. A total of 731 counties, located in the following 37 States, are eligible counties for NAPFF: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. A map and a list of eligible counties are available on the FSA Web site and at FSA county offices. If any portion of a producer's fruit crop unit was physically located in an eligible county, the entire crop unit (as unit is defined in the current NAP regulations at 7 CFR 1437.8) is eligible for assistance under NAPFF.
The requirement to provide NAPFF assistance only in eligible counties is specified in the 2014 Farm Bill. CCC has no discretion to offer additional assistance under this NOFA for crops in other counties that did not have frost or freeze Secretarial disaster designations for the 2012 crop year.
As specified in 7 U.S.C. 7333 and in the current NAP regulations in 7 CFR 1437.4, NAP coverage is available only in counties where RMA does not offer catastrophic crop insurance coverage for those crops. CCC has no discretion to offer 2012 NAP coverage, including NAPFF, in counties for crops where catastrophic risk plan of insurance coverage was available for 2012.
While the county in which the loss occurred must have received a Secretarial disaster designation for the 2012 crop year specifically due to frost or freeze, eligible causes of loss in that county for the eligible fruit crop include all the eligible causes of loss specified in the current NAP regulations, not just frost or freeze. For example, if a fruit producer in a county that had a 2012 Secretarial disaster designation due to frost or freeze had losses due to floods or tornadoes, those losses would be eligible for coverage under this NOFA. Eligible causes of loss as specified in the current NAP regulations at 7 CFR 1437.9 include:
• Damaging weather occurring before or during harvest, including, but not limited to, drought, hail, excessive moisture, freeze, tornado, hurricane, excessive wind, or any combination of those;
• Adverse natural occurrence before or during harvest, such as earthquake, flood, or volcanic eruption; or
• A related condition, including, but not limited to, heat, insect infestation, or disease, which occurs as a result of an adverse natural occurrence or damaging weather occurring before or during harvest that directly causes, accelerates, or exacerbates the destruction or deterioration of an eligible crop, as determined by FSA.
The regulations in 7 CFR 1437.9(c) and (e), which specify eligible and ineligible causes of loss, respectively, apply to losses under this NOFA. Only losses to quantity are eligible losses under NAPFF. Value loss crops are not eligible for NAPFF. Payment will not be provided based on losses to quality.
Losses must have occurred during the 2012 crop year NAP coverage period as specified in 7 CFR 1437.5, which varies by crop. The 2012 coverage period for NAP, which applies to any eligible fruit crop grown on a tree or bush under NAPFF, began 30 days after the application closing date for the crop and ended on the earliest of:
• 10 months from the application closing date for the crop,
• The date harvest was complete,
• The normal harvest date,
• Abandonment of the crop, or
• Total destruction of the crop.
Producers applying for NAPFF assistance are not required to have previously filed a 2012 NAP application for coverage during the 2012 application period. Normally, NAP coverage begins no earlier than 30 days after the application is filed. However, under the terms of this NOFA, and as authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill, producers may apply for retroactive coverage only for eligible 2012 fruit crops.
NAPFF payments will be calculated based on the coverage period for the crop as it would have been for the producer who filed a timely application for coverage for 2012 NAP coverage. The coverage period for NAPFF is the longest coverage period that could have existed for the fruit crop in the county without regard to the actual date the producer of that crop filed an application for coverage. In other words, the provision that the coverage period cannot begin earlier than 30 days after the filing of the application for coverage is set aside for NAPFF.
Prior to the 2014 Farm Bill, NAP had only one coverage level—a “catastrophic” coverage that covered the amount of loss greater than 50 percent of the expected production based on the approved yield and reported acreage, and calculated payments based on 55 percent of the average market price for the crop established by the FSA state committee. This catastrophic level of coverage was the only type of NAP coverage previously offered in 2012.
The 2014 Farm Bill authorizes the Secretary to provide additional levels of NAP coverage, which requires payment of a premium in addition to the NAP service fee, beginning with the 2015 program year, and also retroactively applies these additional coverage levels to eligible 2012 losses in select counties for select eligible tree or bush fruit crops under this NOFA. FSA will calculate payments for the additional assistance coverage based on 100 percent of the average market price and:
• 50 percent of the approved yield,
• 55 percent of the approved yield,
• 60 percent of the approved yield, or
• 65 percent of the approved yield.
Because FSA is providing this coverage retroactively and losses for the 2012 crop year are known, FSA expects that each applicant would select the additional assistance coverage level that provides the largest payment based on the applicant's known losses and amount of the applicable premium. Therefore, to minimize the burden on the applicants, FSA will calculate
If a producer did not previously apply for NAP coverage for the 2012 crop year and pay the applicable service fee, the service fee must be paid at the time of NAPFF application. The service fee for the 2012 crop year is the lesser of $250 per crop or $750 per producer per administrative county, not to exceed a total of $1,875 for a producer with farming interests in multiple counties. This fee is specified in the 2008 Farm Bill and is not changed by the 2014 Farm Bill.
Producers who qualify as limited resource farmers may request a waiver of the service fee. Limited resource farmers who do not already have 2012 NAP coverage must request a service fee waiver and provide a certification of their eligibility for the waiver on form CCC-860 at the time of application. (The waiver of service fees for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill starts with the 2014 NAP program year and does not apply for NAPFF assistance.) Producers who previously applied for 2012 NAP coverage and submitted a certification of their status as limited resource farmers are not required to submit an additional certification for NAPFF.
Producers who previously applied for 2012 NAP coverage for NAPPF eligible crops or who and paid the maximum applicable service fee are not required to pay an additional service fee to apply for NAPFF crops. If producers paid less than the maximum service fee, then they will be required to pay an additional service fee, up to the maximum, for any additional NAPFF crops for which they apply for assistance. For example, a producer with a farm in a single county who bought coverage for any three 2012 NAP crops has already paid the maximum fee of $750, and therefore would not owe any additional service fees for NAPFF. A producer who had only purchased 2012 coverage for one crop in one county and who previously paid a service fee of $250 would need to pay the additional service fee for any additional NAPFF crops.
Premiums for NAPFF assistance will be calculated as the product of the producer's share, times the number of eligible acres devoted to the crop, times the approved yield per acre, times the coverage level, times the average market price, times a 5.25 percent premium fee. The maximum premium per producer, as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill, is $6,562.50 (the product of the applicable payment limitation of $125,000 times a 5.25 percent premium fee for the maximum level of coverage). (This will also be the maximum premium for NAP coverage in 2015 and subsequent years.)
For example, if Farmer Smith has a 100 percent share interest in 20 acres of apple trees intended for the fresh market, and the approved yield per acre for that crop is 500 bushels, and the average fresh market price is $12.75 per bushel, and the coverage level is 65 percent, the premium will be 1.000 (100 percent share) times 20 (acres) times 500 (bushels per acre) times 0.65 (coverage level of 65 percent) times $12.75 (price per bushel) times 0.0525 (premium factor), which equals $4,350.94.
Premiums will be calculated separately for each fruit crop, type, and intended use, (or final use, if different from intended use) but cannot exceed $6,562.50 per producer as explained above. A producer's total premium amount will be the sum of the premiums calculated for each fruit crop and type for which a producer is receiving NAPFF assistance.
The producer will not pay the premium for NAPFF separately; FSA will deduct it from the NAPFF payment. In the example above, if Farmer Smith suffered a 100 percent loss, the payment would be calculated as 1.000 (100 percent share) times 20 (acres) times 500 (bushels per acre) times 0.65 (coverage level) minus 0 bushels (actual production) times $12.75 (price per bushel), minus $4,350.94 (the premium), which equals a NAPFF payment of $78,524.06. (These example calculations do not include any service fees Farmer Smith has paid, because those would have been paid at the time of application for payment.)
Beginning farmers, limited resource farmers, and socially disadvantaged farmers are eligible for a 50 percent reduction of their calculated premium. (If Farmer Smith was a beginning farmer, the premium for apple trees for the fresh market would be $2,175.47.) To be eligible for a premium reduction, producers must request a premium reduction and provide a certification of their eligibility for the premium reduction on form CCC-860 at the time of application. Producers who previously applied for 2012 NAP coverage and submitted a certification of their status as limited resource producers are not required to submit an additional certification for NAPFF.
If a NAPFF payment calculated by FSA as specified in this NOFA is not sufficient to cover the calculated premium, no payment will be issued and no premium is due. (This is unlikely, and would occur only if the producer had relatively small losses, or losses determined after application to be ineligible.)
A producer applying for NAPFF payments is required to file a NAPFF application by September 22, 2014. As noted above, some producers may not owe a service fee, but all producers must file a NAPFF application to be eligible for NAPFF payment, regardless of whether they previously applied for 2012 NAP coverage, filed notices of loss, or received NAP payments for the 2012 crop year. Producers who did not previously apply for 2012 NAP coverage must pay the service fee as discussed above, or request a service fee waiver and provide a certification of their status as a limited resource farmer, if applicable, by September 22, 2014 in order for their NAPFF application to be considered complete.
In addition to a NAPFF application, any producer applying for NAPFF assistance must submit the following documents, if not already on file with the FSA county office:
• NAP application for coverage;
• NAP notice of loss;
• NAP application for payment;
• Acreage report, as specified in 7 CFR part 718;
• Farm operating plan for payment limitation review; and
• AGI certification of eligibility based on the $900,000 AGI limitation as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill.
These supporting documents and certifications are required and must be filed by September 22, 2014. All other general conservation compliance eligibility provisions of 7 CFR part 12 apply to NAPFF in the same way as those provisions applied to all other 2012 NAP assistance.
Producers who had 2012 NAP coverage and who already filed a report of production along with an application for payment that met NAP program requirements specified in 7 CFR part 1437 are not required to file additional production reports to accompany their NAPFF application, if that production report included NAPFF crops. Producers applying for NAPFF must certify the total amount of production of crops on the NAP application for payment and, unless previously submitted as specified in the NAP regulations in 7 CFR part 1437, submit verifiable or reliable production records, if available, to justify the certification of harvested production to the FSA county committee. Because this assistance is being made available retroactively, FSA has decided not to require loss adjustment appraisals, or other similar measures or requirements, because physical evidence of the 2012 loss is unlikely to be available for examination or verification.
If a producer applies for NAPFF and the producer has no acceptable verifiable or reliable production records because those records are not available, the FSA county committee will use the higher of the participant's certification of production or a maximum average loss level (MALL) established by the county committee for that crop to determine payment eligibility. This policy applies only to NAPFF assistance. It applies both to producers who have not previously applied for 2012 NAP assistance, and to producers that were previously found ineligible for 2012 NAP payments on an eligible crop for which NAPFF assistance is now being made available because they did not previously submit acceptable production evidence on that fruit crop. MALL will only be used for the purpose of processing the NAPFF application. It will not be used in the producer's approved yield or actual production history (APH) database for other purposes, including for subsequent NAP crop years.
In order for production reports or appraisals to be considered acceptable, production reports and appraisals must meet the requirements specified in 7 CFR part 1437. If the eligible crop was sold or otherwise disposed of through commercial channels, acceptable production records include: Commercial receipts; settlement sheets; warehouse ledger sheets or load summaries; or appraisal information from a loss adjuster acceptable to FSA. If the eligible crop was farm-stored, sold, fed to livestock, or disposed of by means other than commercial channels, acceptable production records for these purposes include: Truck scale tickets; appraisal information from a loss adjuster acceptable to FSA; contemporaneous reliable diaries; or other documentary evidence, such as contemporaneous reliable measurements. Determinations of reliability will take into account, as appropriate, FSA's ability to verify the evidence as well as the similarity of the evidence to reports or data received by FSA for the crop or similar crops. Other relevant factors may also be taken into account. FSA may, at any time before or after paying any individual NAPFF application, verify the production evidence submitted with records on file at the warehouse, gin, or other entity that received or may have received the reported production.
An approved yield is used to calculate NAPFF payments. These yields will be calculated as specified in the current NAP regulations, with the exceptions discussed below. For producers who previously obtained 2012 NAP coverage, the approved yield previously established for their crop for the 2012 crop year as specified in 7 CFR 1437.102(e)(2) will be used to determine the NAPFF payment amount.
The approved yield for NAPFF will be calculated as specified in 7 CFR part 1437 subpart B for producers who did not previously obtain 2012 NAP coverage. Producers who did not previously obtain 2012 NAP coverage will be allowed to submit actual yields for the APH base period for the purposes of NAPFF as long as verifiable or reliable records are available to confirm the actual yield.
If production yields were not certified in the APH base period for the 2012 approved yield currently established for NAPFF, producers may request that FSA replace the missing yields for such years with the missing crop year's actual yield as long as verifiable or reliable records are provided to justify the actual yield. These actual yields updated for the purpose of NAPFF will be termed “exception actual yields.” Any exception actual yields used for calculating NAPFF payments will not be used to calculate any other NAP payments for any other year.
The NAPFF payment to the eligible producer will be a net payment, which will be calculated as the maximum payment for which the producer is eligible based on crop losses, minus the premium and any other adjustments required for payment limits, average adjusted gross income (AGI), and other requirements. FSA will calculate NAPFF payments using a calculation similar to the one specified in 7 CFR 1437.105, with changes to address additional assistance coverage, payment limits, and any 2012 NAP assistance previously issued to a producer. Assistance will be calculated separately for each crop and use. FSA will use the following steps to calculate NAPFF payments:
Step 1: Multiply the total eligible acreage planted to the eligible crop by the producer's share.
Step 2: Multiply the result of step 1 by the approved yield per acre for the eligible crop for the producer times the applicable additional assistance coverage level elected by the producer. (For most producers, the coverage level will be 65 percent.)
Step 3: Multiply the applicable production for 2012 by the producer's share. (The applicable production for 2012 will be either the net production of the total eligible acreage based on acceptable production records, or the higher of the producer's certified production or production arrived at by applying MALL.)
Step 4: Subtract the result of step 3 from the result of step 2. (This subtracts actual or estimated production from expected production times the coverage level.) If this result is a negative number, the producer did not have sufficient losses to qualify for a NAPFF payment.
Step 5: Multiply the result of step 4 by the average market price and apply any applicable payment factors for harvested, prevented planted, or unharvested crops as specified in 7 CFR 1437.11.
Step 6: Multiply the value of salvage and secondary use by the producer's share, and subtract the result from the result of step 5.
Step 7: Verify that the amount in Step 6 would not exceed the 2014 Farm Bill payment limits
Step 8: Subtract the amount, if any, of 2012 NAP assistance previously paid to the producer for the same crop from the result of step 6. (For example, if the producer previously received payment for 2012 catastrophic level NAP coverage for the same crop, but now qualifies for 65 percent coverage of 100 percent of market price under NAPFF, the previous payment is subtracted from the NAPFF payment.)
Step 9: Subtract the applicable premium amount based on the applicable additional assistance coverage level from the result of step 8.
The result of Step 9 will be the NAPFF payment to the producer.
Sections 1603 and 1605 of the 2014 Farm Bill establish payment and income limitations, respectively, that apply to 2014 and subsequent crop, program, or fiscal year benefits, and retroactive 2012 crop year benefits for programs that were authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. FSA already implemented these payment and income limitations, which are specified in 7 CFR part 1400.
Under the 2008 Farm Bill, NAP assistance for the 2012 crop year was limited to $100,000, directly or indirectly, per person or legal entity. The 2014 Farm Bill increases the payment limitation for NAP benefits to $125,000 per person or legal entity. As under the 2008 Farm Bill, attribution of payments under 7 CFR part 1400 applies in administering the payment limitation of the 2014 Farm Bill. The $125,000 payment limit is retroactive to 2012 for NAPFF only, not for any other 2012 NAP payments.
That means that a person or legal entity may receive up to $125,000 total for NAPFF and other NAP payments for 2012, but the 2008 Farm Bill payment limit of $100,000 for all other 2012 NAP payments still applies. A producer can receive $125,000 total for the 2012 crop year if and only if at least $25,000 of such total 2012 crop year payments is from NAPFF assistance. (A producer could receive up to $125,000 for NAPFF payments alone.) If the producer is not eligible for any NAPFF payments, the total amount of 2012 crop year payments under NAP is still limited to $100,000.
The 2014 Farm Bill establishes an average AGI limit for most FSA and CCC programs of $900,000. The applicable years for determining average AGI for 2012 are 2008, 2009, and 2010. Under the 2008 Farm Bill, NAP payments were subject to a limit of $500,000 nonfarm average AGI. The $900,000 limit under the 2014 Farm Bill is for total average AGI, and this single AGI limit replaces the multiple limits for farm and non-farm income, and the separate limit for conservation programs, that were required by the 2008 Farm Bill. The $500,000 average AGI limitation from the 2008 Farm Bill does not apply to NAPFF under the 2014 Farm Bill, but remains in effect for any other 2012 NAP. This means that a producer who was not eligible for 2012 NAP due to exceeding the 2008 Farm Bill AGI limits may be eligible for NAPFF (but not any other 2012 NAP payments) if they are under the higher 2014 Farm Bill AGI limit.
All persons or legal entities, directly or indirectly applying for NAPFF assistance under this NOFA, must certify by the application deadline that the person or legal entity does not exceed the $900,000 average AGI limit. This includes members of legal entities, who must provide a certification by the application deadline in accordance with the regulations in 7 CFR 1400.502. The certification is in addition to any previous AGI certifications that the person or entity may have previously made regarding average AGI limits as required by the 2008 Farm Bill.
The provisions regarding multiple benefits in 7 CFR 1437.13 apply. Producers are prohibited from receiving benefits under both NAP, including NAPFF, and any other program administered by the Secretary for the same crop loss. If a producer is eligible to receive payments under NAP, including NAPFF, and benefits under any other program administered by the Secretary for the same crop loss, the producer must choose whether to receive the other program benefits or payments under NAP, including NAPFF, but not both.
The NAPFF assistance announced in this NOFA is authorized by section 12305 of the 2014 Farm Bill. CCC funding for NAP, including NAPFF, is authorized by 7 U.S.C. 7333, as amended. The amount of available funding is not limited. However, the payments in FY 2015 will be subject to sequestration as required by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended by the Budget Control Act of 2011, which mandates that federal agencies implement automatic, annual reductions to discretionary and mandatory spending limits. Payments made in FY 2014 are not sequestered.
The miscellaneous provisions in 7 CFR 1437.15 apply to NAPFF assistance.
The MALL value for a crop in a county will be established by the county committee and is not based on information from any individual program participant or applicant. MALLs established for NAPFF will be determined by county committees in accordance with instructions issued by the FSA's Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs. MALLs are matters of general applicability; they are not individual producer decisions or extent of eligibility decisions and are not subject to individual appeal or administrative review. The only issues that can be appealed with regard to MALLs are whether or not a particular MALL is being correctly applied (that is, that the producer either has or does not have acceptable production records accompanying their application and certification of production, or that the producer's certification of production is higher or lower than the level of production that would be arrived at using the county committee's established MALL).
All certifications of acreage and production are subject to verification and spot check. CCC may at any time request information or review the accuracy of any certification or report made by producers or applicants and if a review is performed that reveals unearned payments were issued, unearned payments must be refunded to FSA with interest from the date of disbursement.
Consistent with regulations in 7 CFR part 1437 and NAP's basic contract provisions, if a crop is subject to an arrangement, agreement, or contract for guaranteed payment, documentation of the arrangement, agreement, or contract for guaranteed payment must be provided in addition to acceptable verifiable or reliable records. Concealing the existence or failure to divulge or report the existence of any guaranteed payment contract or similar arrangement or agreement constitutes a misrepresentation of production information to FSA and renders the applicant ineligible for assistance under the application and possibly additional remedies as prescribed for the person or legal entity in 7 CFR part 1437 and NAP's basic provisions.
FSA does not consider this NOFA to be subject to rulemaking requirements because NAPFF is a limited program for 2012 losses only, is not of general application and future effect, and the existing NAP regulation applies as discussed above. NAPFF is subject to specific requirements of the 2014 Farm Bill for which FSA has little discretion. If this NOFA is considered to be a rule, then the rulemaking exceptions of the Administrative Procedure Act would apply. Specifically, if this notice is considered a rule, then it would be contrary to the public interest to delay its effectiveness to allow for public comment. This NOFA provides payments for producers for 2012 losses, and it would be contrary to public interest to delay the effective date for public comments on payments that are already at least 2 years after the eligible
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), FSA submitted an emergency information collection request on NAPFF so FSA can begin the application period upon publication of this NOFA. FSA is also requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a new information collection request. This information collection is one-time activity. If FSA needs to continue this request, the information collection request will be merged with 0560-0175, Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program information collection request upon the expiration date. Additionally, NAP is authorized by 7 CFR 7 U.S.C. 7333 and implemented under regulations in 7 CFR 1437. In NAP, the information FSA collects allows FSA to provide assistance under NAP for losses of commercial crops or other agricultural commodities (except livestock) for which catastrophic risk protection under 7 U.S.C. 1508(b) is not available, and that are not produced for food or fiber.
In the emergency request, NAPFF will only apply to 2012 annual fruit crops grown on bushes and trees. Therefore, FSA is making payments for losses to 2012 annual fruit crops grown on bushes or trees and located in counties that received Secretarial disaster designations, including counties contiguous to such counties, due to frost or freeze for the 2012 crop year.
The formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per response (including travel time) times the total estimated annual responses.
We are requesting comments on this information collection to help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; or
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice, including names and addresses, when provided, will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
The title and number of the Federal assistance program in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this NOFA applies is 10.451, Noninsured Assistance.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Tongass Advisory Committee (Committee) will meet in Ketchikan, Alaska. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. 2). Additional information concerning the Committee, including the meeting agenda, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at:
The meetings will be held on the following dates:
• Wednesday, August 6, 2014—10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
• Thursday, August 7, 2014—8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
• Friday, August 8, 2014—8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
All meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meetings will be held at the Best Western Landing Hotel, Sunny Point Ball Room, 3434 Tongass Avenue, Ketchikan, Alaska. Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Tongass National Forest Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.
Nicole McMurren, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 907-772-5875, or by email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
(1) Perform administrative tasks such as ethics training, Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) training, and discuss the committee members goals and interest; and
(2) Define areas where the committee can provide the most valuable input for developing an ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable forest
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by July 28, 2014 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time request for oral comments must be sent to Jason Anderson, Designated Federal Officer, Tongass National Forest, P.O. Box 309, Petersburg, Alaska 99833; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of reopening of public comment period.
The Forest Service is reopening the public comment period for the proposed directive regarding best management practices (BMPs) for water quality protection on National Forest System (NFS) lands for an additional 30 days. The original notice called for comments to be submitted by July 7, 2014.
Comments must be received, in writing, on or before August 21, 2014.
Submit comments electronically by following the instructions at the federal eRulemaking portal at
Michael Eberle, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air and Rare Plants Staff at (202) 205-1093. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, Monday through Friday.
The Forest Service proposed to revise Forest Service Manual (FSM 2500) and Handbook (FSH 2509.19) directives for best management practices (BMPs) for water quality protection on National Forest System (NFS) lands to establish a National system of BMPs and associated monitoring protocols and require their use on NFS lands in order to meet existing mandates under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act) (Pub. L. 92-500) and corresponding State laws. To provide the public the opportunity to review and comment on these proposed directives, the Agency initiated a 60-day comment period which closed on July 7, 2014. The Agency has decided to reopen the comment period for an additional 30 days to provide an opportunity to gather additional public input to inform the final directives for National Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Quality Protection on National Forest System (NFS) Lands.
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Amended Notice of Briefing and Business Meeting.
Friday, July 25, 2014; 9:00 a.m. E.S.T.
1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425.
This briefing is open to the public.
Topic:
• Staff Director's Report
Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District, grantee of FTZ 87, requesting subzone status for the facility of LEEVAC Shipyards, LLC, located in Jennings, Louisiana. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 16, 2014.
The proposed subzone (75 acres) is located at 111 Bunge Street in Jennings (Jefferson Davis Parish). The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 87. Production authority has already been approved for the facility (B-11-2014, 79 FR 31297, 6/2/2014).
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 2, 2014. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to September 15, 2014.
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
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that grain-oriented electrical steel (GOES) from Germany, Japan, and Poland is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013. The final weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determinations” section of this notice.
July 22, 2014.
Stephen Banea at (202) 482-0656 (Germany); Steve Bezirganian at (202) 482-1131 (Japan); or Alan Ray at (202) 482-5403 (Poland); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On May 12, 2014, the Department published the preliminary determinations of sales at LTFV of GOES from Germany, Japan, and Poland.
In May and June 2014, the mandatory respondents in the investigations from Germany and Japan requested that the Department postpone the final determinations in those cases, pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(1). These companies also requested that the Department extend provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2). Subsequently, the petitioners and a domestic interested party
The scope of the investigations covers GOES, which is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight specific levels of silicon, carbon, and aluminum. For a complete description of the scope of the investigations, see Appendix I to this notice.
The Department did not verify any of the mandatory respondents in these investigations because none of the mandatory respondents participated in the investigations prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations.
On May 14 and May 19, 2014, respectively, the Department received requests to postpone the final determinations from the mandatory respondents in the Japan investigation (
On May 20 and 21, 2014, respectively, JFE and NSSMC responded to the objections of the domestic industry, stating that: (1) There is no requirement under the statute or the regulations that a respondent may request a postponement of the final only if it participated in the investigation; (2) the Department's workload would be essentially unaffected by a postponement; and (3) the Department has recently postponed its final determinations under similar circumstances.
On May 28, 2014, the domestic industry responded to JFE's and NSSMC's submissions, stating that respondents' failure to respond to the Department's information requests impeded the proceeding, and when the Department has postponed final determinations in the past, there either had been no objection from the petitioners or the petitioners had requested the postponement. Thus, the domestic industry contends that the precedent cited by JFE and NSSMC is not applicable.
On June 2, 2014, NSSMC replied to the domestic industry's May 28 submission, noting that the domestic industry had identified only one instance where a request for postponement was denied.
Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. Further, 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months.
After considering all submissions on this issue, the Department has determined that additional time is not required to complete these final determinations, given that: (1) No interested parties have submitted case briefs or otherwise commented on our preliminary determinations; (2) the Department will avoid expenditure of further administrative resources by completing the Germany and Japan investigations at the same time as the Poland investigation, in which no exporter requested a postponement of the final determination; (3) the domestic industry, including the petitioners, object to postponing these final determinations, unlike the circumstances in
We made no changes to our preliminary determinations in the Germany, Japan, and Poland investigations. Therefore, we continue to determine that the following margins exist for the following entities for the POI:
We made no changes to our critical circumstances analysis for Poland announced in the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of GOES from Germany and Japan as described in the “Scope of the Investigations” section of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 12, 2014, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations of those investigations in the
With respect to entries of GOES from Poland, in accordance with section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries from Stalprodukt S.A. and the companies covered by the “all others” rate that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 11, 2014, which is ninety days prior to the publication of the preliminary determination of that investigation in the
Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determinations of sales at LTFV. Because the final determinations in these proceedings are affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of GOES from Germany, Japan, and Poland no later than 45 days after our final determinations. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist for any country, the associated proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist for any country, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order for that country directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These determinations and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
The scope of these investigations covers grain-oriented silicon electrical steel (GOES). GOES is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths. The GOES that is subject to these investigations is currently classifiable under subheadings 7225.11.0000, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9030, and 7226.11.9060 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 scope of these investigations is dispositive. Excluded are flat-rolled products not in coils that, prior to importation into the United States, have been cut to a shape and undergone all punching, coating, or other operations necessary for classification in Chapter 85 of the HTSUS as a transformer part (
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce; U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; opportunity for comments.
On Thursday, May 22, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum, Establishing a National Goal and Developing Airport Specific Action Plans to Enhance the Entry Process for International Travelers to the United States. The Memorandum directs the Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland Security to develop within 120 days a national goal for improving service levels for international arrivals. It also directs the Secretaries to develop airport-specific action plans that include actions from both private and public sectors to measurably improve the entry experience for international arrivals to those airports. This notice notifies interested stakeholders about how to submit comments and ideas on determining the national goal and how to improve all aspects of the international arrivals process.
Comments must be received on or before Friday, August 15, 2014.
Electronic comments are preferred and may be sent to:
Jennifer Pilat, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 4043, International Trade Administration, Washington, DC 20230,
On May 22, 2014, President Obama directed the Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland Security to lead an interagency team over the next 120 days, in close partnership with industry, to develop a national goal and develop airport-specific plans to enhance the entry process for international travelers to the United States. The measures the Administration is taking to expedite the arrivals process will enhance security by focusing officer time on the highest-risk passengers and facilitating the process for the vast majority of legitimate travelers.
Along with general comments and suggestions, the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security are also specifically seeking input on the following questions:
1. What are your suggestions to improve the international arrivals experience at U.S. Airports?
2. What kind of technology should be considered to improve the international arrivals experience?
3. What recommendations do you have for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to improve passport and baggage inspection?
4. What recommendations do you have for the airlines to improve the arrivals experience?
5. What recommendations do you have for airport operators to improve airport facilities as it relates to international arrivals?
6. Is there anything missing in the international arrivals process that should be added to make the process more comfortable and/or pleasant?
7. What recommendations do you have to improve traveler perception of the international arrivals process?
Members of the public or interested stakeholders may submit comments or ideas regarding this Memorandum, for consideration in drafting the national goal and airport-specific plans. All comments submitted should reference this notice.
Stakeholder input may be submitted to:
The fact sheet, and Travel and Tourism progress report are available at:
The full text of the May 22 Memorandum is available at:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability.
NMFS announces the adoption of a Final Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plan for the endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (herein referred to as winter-run Chinook salmon), the threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU (herein referred to as spring-run Chinook salmon), and the threatened California Central Valley steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (herein referred to as steelhead). The Final Recovery Plan for these species (Final Recovery Plan) is now available.
Electronic copies of the Final Recovery Plan are available online at:
A CD ROM of the Final Recovery Plan can be obtained by emailing a request to
Brian Ellrott, Central Valley Recovery Coordinator by email to
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We published a Notice of Availability of the Draft Recovery Plan in the
The ESA requires that recovery plans incorporate, to the extent practicable: (1) Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered; (2) site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goals; and (3) estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions. Our goal is to restore winter-run Chinook salmon, spring-run Chinook salmon, and steelhead to the point where they are viable and no longer need the protections of the ESA.
The Final Recovery Plan provides background on the natural history of salmon and steelhead in the Central Valley, population viability trends for winter-run Chinook salmon, spring-run Chinook salmon, and steelhead, and the potential threats to these species. The Final Recovery Plan lays out a recovery strategy to address the potential threats based on the best available science and includes goals that incorporate objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species be removed from the list. The Final Recovery Plan is not regulatory, but presents guidance for use by agencies and interested parties to assist in the recovery of winter-run Chinook salmon, spring-run Chinook salmon, and steelhead. The Final Recovery Plan
We expect the Final Recovery Plan to help us and other Federal agencies take a consistent approach to section 7 consultations under the ESA and to other ESA decisions. For example, the Final Recovery Plan will provide information on the biological context for the effects that a proposed action may have on the listed ESU. The best available information in the Final Recovery Plan on the natural history, threats, actions, and priorities for recovery can be used to help assess risks. Consistent with the adoption of this Final Recovery Plan for winter-run Chinook salmon, spring-run Chinook salmon, and steelhead, we will implement relevant actions for which we have authority, work cooperatively on implementation of other actions, and encourage other Federal and state agencies to implement recovery actions for which they have responsibility and authority.
Recovery of winter-run Chinook salmon, spring-run Chinook salmon, and steelhead will require a long-term effort throughout the Central Valley and surrounding watersheds in cooperation and coordination with Federal, state, tribal and local government agencies, and the community.
NMFS has reviewed the Plan for compliance with the requirements of the ESA section 4(f), determined that it does incorporate the required elements and is therefore adopting it as the Final Recovery Plan for the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU, the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU, and the Central Valley steelhead DPS.
16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.
The HMSMT will meet Tuesday, August 12 to Thursday, August 14, 2014. This meeting will start at 8:30 a.m. and continue until business is concluded on each day.
August 12, Pacific Room, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037-1509;
August 13, T-29 Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, 8840 Biological Grade, La Jolla, CA 92037;
August 14, Stenella Room, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037-1509.
Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2280.
The HMSMT will discuss the development of alternatives and analyses for issues to be addressed as part of the HMS biennial harvest specifications and management measures process. The Pacific Council identified six topics to potentially address through the biennial process (see the June 2014 Decision Summary Document at
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to Mervi Kunnasranta, Ph.D., University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 111, 80101 Joensuu Finland, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial/educational photography on harbor seals (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 21, 2014.
The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office:
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)427-8401; fax (301)713-0376.
Courtney Smith or Amy Sloan, (301)427-8401.
On April 3, 2014, notice was published in the
Permit No. 18694 authorizes commercial/educational underwater and vessel-based filming and photography of the freshwater harbor seal population at Lake Iliamna, Alaska. Filming will take place for approximately one week between spring and fall annually, most likely during the seals' molt period in summer, after pupping; up to 280 seals may be approached and filmed annually. Obtained footage will be part of an international documentary film presenting the world's other freshwater seal species, to be published in Europe.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Thursday, July 24, 2014, 10 a.m.-12 p.m.
Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
In accordance with the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy memorandum of July 14, 2014, DoD is re-instating the temporary practice of providing accelerated payments to all prime contractors.
Effective August 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016, unless otherwise rescinded or extended.
Mark Gomersall, phone 571-372-6099.
OMB Memorandum M-14-10,
This notice promulgates the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) memorandum,
DoD is re-instating the temporary practice of providing accelerated payments to all prime contractors, effective August 1, 2014. DoD contracting officers will continue to use the clause at FAR 52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors, which requires contractors, upon receipt of accelerated payments from the Government, to make accelerated payments to small business subcontractors. The Director, DPAP memorandum is available at:
Take notice that on July 1, 2014, Colombia Pipeline, LLC (Colombia), 17086 Interstate Highway 10 West, Suite 210, San Antonio, Texas 78257, filed an application pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and part 153 of the Commission's regulations, for an order authorizing the siting, connection, construction, and operation of new border crossing pipeline facilities for the exportation of up to 1.120 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas at the International Boundary between the United States and Mexico in Webb County, Texas, and for a Presidential Permit for such facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Brandon Seale, Vice President of Mexican Operations, Howard Midstream Energy Partners, LLC, 17086 Interstate Highway 10 West, Suite 210, San Antonio, Texas 78257, or call (210) 278-1543, or fax (210) 298-2221, or by email
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 6, 2014.
Take notice that on July 2, 2014, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 717 Texas Street, Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77002-2761, filed an application in the above referenced docket pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting to install, own and operate one new compressor unit and appurtenant facilities at ANR's existing Sulphur Springs Compressor Station located in Henry County, Indiana. ANR avers that the Project will provide 133,643 Dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of additional firm service on ANR's Lebanon Lateral from the Glen Karn meter facilities in Darke County, Ohio to the Sulphur Springs Compressor Station. ANR estimates the total cost of the Project to be $35.3 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Robert Jackson, Director Certificates and Regulatory Administration, ANR Pipeline Company, 717 Texas Street, Suite 2400, Houston, Texas, 77002-2761, by telephone at (832) 320-5487, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 6, 2014.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR § 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on July 14, 2014, pursuant to Rule 207(a) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2), NM Neptune, LLC (NM Neptune), filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that the Commission disclaim jurisdiction over NM Neptune under sections 201 and 203(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act, as amended (FPA).
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the 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
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 13, 2014.
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Niagara Expansion Project, proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (TGP) and the Northern Access 2015 Project, proposed by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) in the above-referenced dockets. TGP requests authorization to construct new natural gas pipeline facilities and modifications at existing compressor and meter stations in Erie and Chautauqua Counties, New York and Mercer County, Pennsylvania to lease 140,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas capacity from National Fuel. National Fuel proposes to construct compression and metering facilities in Erie and Cattaraugus Counties, New York to provide the proposed leased capacity to TGP. According to TGP and National Fuel, their projects would increase natural gas delivery capacity in the northeast region of the U.S.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Niagara Expansion Project and the Northern Access 2015 Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of
TGP proposes to construct approximately 3.1 miles of 30-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Chautauqua County, New York; modify piping at an existing compressor station in Mercer County, Pennsylvania; install a new pig
National Fuel proposes to construct a new 15,400 horsepower compressor station in Cattaraugus County, New York; install 7,700 horsepower of additional compression and ancillary facilities at the existing Concord Compressor Station in Erie County, New York; and modify the existing East Eden Station in Erie County, New York to allow for bi-directional flow.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before August 15, 2014.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments with the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP14-88-000 or CP14-100-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
On February 7, 2014, Dynegy Point Estero Wave Park, LLC (Dynegy) filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed Point Estero Wave Park Project (project). The proposed project would be developed in a phased approach. First, under a demonstration phase, Dynegy plans to deploy a single approximately 1-megawatt (MW) GWAVE Power Generating Vessel (wave energy converter or WEC). Second, under a potential commercial license, Dynegy plans to deploy 10 to 16 approximately 1-MW WEC's. Third, Dynegy plans to seek authorization to deploy additional WEC's with a total installed capacity of 650 MW. Two or more high voltage submarine cables would transmit power to shore, interconnecting with Pacific Gas and Electric's switchyard facilities at Morro Bay. The requested project boundary comprises approximately 5.2 square nautical miles (4-miles-long by 1.5-miles-wide) of coastal waters and lands located along the coast of San Luis Obispo County, California, near the town of Morro Bay.
The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land disturbing or construction activities or to otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
Applicant Contact: Henry D. Jones, Dynegy Inc., 601 Travis, Suite 1400, Houston, TX 77002; (713) 767-0480.
FERC Contact: Jim Hastreiter, (503) 552-2760.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
For a simpler method of submitting text only comments, click on “Quick Comment.” For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
On February 7, 2014, Dynegy Estero Bay Wave Park, LLC (Dynegy) filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the proposed Estero Bay Wave Park Project (project). The proposed project would be developed in a phased approach. First, under a demonstration phase, Dynegy plans to deploy a single approximately 1-megawatt (MW) GWAVE Power Generating Vessel (wave energy converter or WEC). Second, under a potential commercial license, Dynegy plans to deploy 10 to 16 approximately 1-MW WEC's. Third, Dynegy plans to seek authorization to deploy additional WEC's with a total installed capacity of 650 MW. Two or more high voltage submarine cables would transmit power to shore, interconnecting with Pacific Gas and Electric's switchyard facilities at Morro Bay. The requested project boundary comprises approximately 2.73 square nautical miles (1.0-mile-wide by 2.73-miles-long) of coastal waters and lands located along the coast of San Luis Obispo County, California, near the town of Morro Bay.
The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land disturbing or construction activities or to otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications 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 a simpler method of submitting text only comments, click on “Quick Comment.” For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for comment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking comment on a draft Class Determination regarding the confidentiality of business information submitted in compliance documents for 2014 and subsequent model year vehicles, engines and equipment.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 5, 2014.
Submit your comments referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0229 online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Holly Pugliese, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4288; fax number: 734-214-4869; email address:
EPA's Office of General Counsel (OGC) issues class determinations to describe the categories of business information submitted to the Agency that can be considered confidential and when and if such information can be released to the public when disclosure is requested under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA” or “the Act”). On March 28, 2013, OGC issued “Class Determination 1-13, Confidentiality of Business Information Submitted in Certification Applications for 2013 and Subsequent Model Year Vehicles, Engines and Equipment” (
As a follow-up to that class determination, OGC will be issuing a new class determination that will address the confidentiality of business information submitted in compliance reports for 2014 and subsequent model year vehicles, engines and equipment. This class determination will apply prospectively for 2014 and subsequent model year vehicles, engines and equipment regulated by OTAQ and covers information that is submitted by manufacturers to satisfy post-certification compliance reporting requirements as required by applicable Clean Air Act regulatory requirements. A copy of the draft class determination can be found under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0229 at
For the class determination covering certification information, EPA solicited comment directly from manufacturers through trade associations. However, because this is the first class determination issued by EPA that addresses compliance documents and information, EPA believes that a more formal approach is appropriate. EPA will review all comments submitted to the docket and will issue the final class determination later this year.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Notice; input accepted.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), acting in its capacity as Conservator, is requesting public input on the draft eligibility requirements that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) would use to approve private mortgage insurers that provide mortgage insurance on loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Additional information about the draft eligibility requirements and the process for submitting input can be found on FHFA's Web site and accessed through the following link:
FHFA requests that input be submitted no later than September 8, 2014. Submitted responses will be posted without change, including personal information such as name, street address, email address, and telephone number on
In accordance with Section 271.25 of its rules regarding availability of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its meeting held on June 17-18, 2014.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial conditions that will foster maximum employment and price stability. In particular, the Committee seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent with federal funds trading in a range from 0 to
By order of the Federal Open Market Committee, July 14, 2014.
1:00pm. (Eastern Time) July 28, 2014.
Frostburg University, Lane University Center—Board Room 109, 101 Midlothian Rd., Frostburg, MD 21532.
Parts will be open to the public and parts will be closed to the public.
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB information collection.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Information Specific to a Contract or Contracting Action (not required by regulation).
Submit comments on or before: September 22, 2014.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0163, Information Specific to a Contract or Contracting Action (Not Required by Regulation), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jeffrey M. Pitts, Program Analyst, GSA Acquisition Policy Division, at telephone 202-501-0712 or email
The General Services Administration (GSA) has various mission responsibilities related to the acquisition and provision of supplies, transportation, information technology, telecommunications, real property management, and disposal of real and personal property. These mission responsibilities generate requirements that are realized through the solicitation and award of public contracts. Individual solicitations and resulting contracts may impose unique information collection/reporting requirements on contractors, not required by regulation, but necessary to evaluate particular program accomplishments and measure success in meeting special program objectives.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB information collection.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding Zero Burden Information Collection Reports.
Submit comments on or before: September 22, 2014.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-0250, Zero Burden Information Collection Reports, by any of the following methods:
•
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 3090-0250. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-0250, Zero Burden Information Collection Reports”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0250, Zero Burden Information Collection Reports” on your attached document.
•
•
Ms. Dana Munson, Procurement Analyst, General Services Acquisition Policy, at telephone 202-357-9652 or via email to
This information requirement consists of reports that do not impose collection burdens upon the public. These collections require information which is already available to the public at large or that is routinely exchanged by firms during the normal course of business. A general control number for these collections decreases the amount of paperwork generated by the approval process.
GSA has a published rule in the
None.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Notice on letters of nomination.
The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) established the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) to review Medicaid and CHIP access and payment policies and to advise Congress on issues affecting Medicaid and CHIP. CH1PRA gave the Comptroller General of the United States responsibility for appointing MACPAC's members. For appointments to MACPAC that will be effective January 1, 2015, I am announcing the following: Letters of nomination and resumes will be accepted through September 5th, 2014 to ensure adequate opportunity for review and consideration of nominees prior to appointment of new members.
GAO: Office of Public Affairs, (202) 512-4800.
Public Law 111-3, Section 506; 42 U.S.C. § 1396.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.
The meeting will be held on Friday, July 25, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Eisenberg Conference Center,
Jaime Zimmerman, Designated Management Official, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 20850, (301) 427-1456. For press-related information, please contact Alison Hunt at (301) 427-1244.
If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management on (301) 827-4840, no later than Friday, July 11, 2014. The agenda, roster, and minutes are available from Ms. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Ms. Campbell's phone number is (301) 427-1554.
The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on health care quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships.
The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.
On Friday, July 25, 2014, there will be a subcommittee meeting for the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m. The subcommittee meeting is open the public. The Council meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair and approval of previous Council summary notes. The meeting is open to the public. The meeting will begin with the AHRQ Director presenting an update on current research, programs, and initiatives. Following the Director's Update, the agenda will include a discussion on Delivery System Reform and updates from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and from AHRQ on Health Information Technology. The final agenda will be available on the AHRQ Web site at
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by August 21, 2014:
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by September 22, 2014.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to
FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 513(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(g)) provides a means for obtaining the Agency's views about the classification and regulatory requirements that may be applicable to a particular device. Section 513(g) provides that within 60 days of the receipt of a written request of any person for information respecting the class in which a device has been classified or the requirements applicable to a device under the FD&C Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide such person a written statement of the classification (if any) of such device and the requirements of the FD&C Act applicable to the device.
The guidance document entitled “Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff FDA and Industry Procedures for Section 513(g) Requests for Information Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act” establishes procedures for submitting, reviewing, and responding to requests for information respecting the class in which a device has been classified or the requirements applicable to a device under the FD&C Act that are submitted in accordance with section 513(g) of the FD&C Act. FDA does not review data related to substantial equivalence or safety and effectiveness in a 513(g) request for information. FDA's responses to 513(g) requests for information are not device classification decisions and do not constitute FDA clearance or approval for marketing. Classification decisions and clearance or approval for marketing require submissions under different sections of the FD&C Act. Additionally, the FD&C Act, as amended by the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-85), requires FDA to collect user fees for 513(g) requests for information. The guidance document entitled “Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff User Fees for 513(g) Requests for Information” assists FDA staff and regulated industry by describing the user fees associated with 513(g) requests. The Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet (Form FDA 3601), which accompanies the supplemental material described in this information collection, is approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0511 and expires April 30, 2016.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Respondents to this collection of information are mostly device manufacturers; however, anyone may submit a 513(g) request for information. The total number of annual responses is based on the average number of 513(g) requests received each year by the Agency.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing a public meeting to discuss current scientific and regulatory approaches to biomarker development, acceptance, and utility in drug and biologic (hereafter referred to as therapeutic product) development programs. The purpose of the public meeting is to initiate constructive discussion and information sharing on the advancement of biomarker science in the context of therapeutic product development among relevant stakeholders. Specifically, the meeting will focus on identifying challenges for biomarker applications in early- and late-phase clinical trials and emerging best practices for successful biomarker-based programs, including codevelopment of in vitro diagnostic devices and use of biomarkers as outcome measures in clinical trials. FDA is conducting this meeting in collaboration with Brookings Institution. This meeting satisfies an FDA commitment that is part of the fifth authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V).
If you need special accommodations because of disability, please contact Joanna Klatzman at the Brookings Institution (email:
On July 9, 2012, the President signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144). Title I of FDASIA reauthorizes PDUFA and provides FDA with the user fee resources necessary to maintain an efficient review process for human drug and biological products. The reauthorization of PDUFA includes performance goals and procedures for
The objectives of the meeting are as follows:
• Initiate constructive discussion and information-sharing about challenges and best practices in biomarker acceptance and utility in the context of therapeutic product development programs,
• share current experience regarding critical issues in the transition of exploratory biomarkers to their use in clinical trial design and analysis plans, including best practices in the coordination of codevelopment of therapeutic products with in vitro diagnostic devices, and
• obtain input on evidentiary criteria for biomarkers as outcome measures in clinical trials.
Although many external stakeholders propose using predictive, prognostic, pharmacodynamic, or surrogate biomarkers to enhance therapeutic product development, the scientific rationale, quality, and quantity of supportive data to support the transition from exploratory studies to confirmatory trials are variable. This meeting will discuss common uses of biomarkers in therapeutic product development programs. Discussion topics include specific considerations for early- and late-phase clinical trials when employing biomarker-based trial designs, emerging best practices in codevelopment of therapeutic products with in vitro diagnostic devices, and discussion of context-specific scenarios in which biomarkers may be used as outcome measures.
The public input from the meeting will be used to identify opportunities for biomarker-related regulatory guidance, improve understanding and consistency in regulatory review of therapeutic product applications that incorporate biomarkers in clinical trial designs, and identify potential strategies to facilitate scientific exchanges in regulatory and non-regulatory contexts.
FDA seeks input on a range of topics related to common challenges and emerging strategies for application of biomarkers in clinical trials, whether for patient selection or as an outcome measure in therapeutic product development. Potential topics for discussion include the following:
• Early-phase trial designs and exploratory biomarker analysis approaches to effectively inform whether biomarker-enriched confirmatory trial strategies or other strategies are appropriate,
• evidentiary standards for incorporating novel biomarkers into the design and analysis of pre-marketing confirmatory trials (e.g., for patient selection), and need for and timing of data collection in non-targeted populations,
• prospective/retrospective approaches to validate biomarkers in the context of confirmatory trials,
• approaches to establish and modify thresholds for quantitative biomarkers prior to conducting confirmatory trials,
• best practices for biospecimen collection and in vitro diagnostic assay development in early-phase therapeutic trials to support subsequent biomarker/diagnostic codevelopment,
• best practices for effective communication between regulatory agencies and therapeutic or diagnostic sponsors in the setting of codevelopment, and
• codevelopment considerations for biomarkers that are predictive, but not necessarily essential to the safe and effective use of the therapeutic product.
• Criteria for consideration of biomarker outcomes in clinical trials as correlates,
• principles to consider for biomarker outcomes as replacement endpoints of clinical endpoints considering the following:
○ Multiple causal pathways of a disease process,
○ biomarker endpoint is not in the causal pathway of the disease process,
○ interventions with mechanisms of action independent of the disease process,
• evidence for a compelling context for the use of a biomarker as a surrogate endpoint, and
• roles, if any, on metaanalysis of clinical trials data to establish the utility of biomarker outcomes as surrogates.
In this
The agenda and background materials will be available approximately 2 weeks before the meeting at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open 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 Karen Abraham-Burrell 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).
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 agenda will be available 2 days prior to the meeting on the HRSA Web site (
As this meeting will be a combined format of both in-person and webinar, members of the public and interested parties who wish to participate “in-person” should make an immediate request by emailing their first name, last name, and contact email to the Designated Federal Official for the committee, Mr. Shane Rogers, at
Mr. Shane Rogers, Designated Federal Official, ACTPCMD, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 12C-06, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, call (301) 443-5260, or email
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the Council of Councils.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
A portion of 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.
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. Information is also available on the Council of Council's home page at
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
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 Council for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and/or 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 grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 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.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announces the persons who will serve on the National Institutes of Health's Senior Executive Service 2014 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 which 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 NIH Senior Executive Service (SES) members:
For further information about the NIH Performance Review Board, contact the Office of Human Resources, Workforce Relations Division, NIH, Building 31, Room B3C07, Bethesda, Maryland 20892; telephone 301-402-9203 (not a toll-free number).
60-Day Notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 22, 2014.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0048 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2006-0025. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The address listed in this notice should only be used to submit comments concerning this information collection. Please do not submit requests for individual case status inquiries to this address. If you are seeking information about the status of your individual case, please check “My Case Status” online at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
• Filing by Mail: 199,714 responses at 30 minutes (.50 hours) per response.
• Electronically: 2,108 responses at 20 minutes (.333 hours) per response.
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
Under the Endangered Species Act, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the receipt and availability of a proposed low-effect habitat conservation plan and accompanying incidental take permit for take of the gopher tortoise incidental to construction of a hydrocarbon test well drilling pad in Greene County, Mississippi. We invite public comments on these documents.
We must receive any written comments at our Mississippi Field Office (see
Mr. David Felder, Fish and Wildlife Biologist (see
We announce the availability of the proposed low-effect habitat conservation plan (HCP) which analyzes the take of the threatened gopher tortoise (
The applicant proposes to minimize and mitigate the take of up to three gopher tortoises by relocating the tortoises impacted by test well drilling pad construction to the Chickasawhay Conservation Bank in Greene County, Mississippi, using Service-approved relocation methods. The Chickasawhay Conservation Bank is a Service-approved gopher tortoise relocation site that is conserved and managed in perpetuity for gopher tortoises. All fees associated with the relocation of tortoises and conservation bank management will be paid by Petro-Chem Operating Company, Inc.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's project, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, will individually and cumulatively have a minor or negligible effect on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, issuance of the ITP is a “low-effect” action and qualifies as a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6), as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1), and as defined in our Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996).
We base our determination that issuance of the ITP qualifies as a low-effect action on the following three criteria: (1) Implementation of the project would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) Implementation of the project would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and
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.
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of several methods. Please reference TE40185B-0 in such comments. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Mississippi Field Office (see
The area encompassed by the HCP and ITP application is the 2.46 acre hydrocarbon test well drilling pad and associated access road, located at latitude 31.319229, longitude 7 −88.783426, Greene County, Mississippi.
We will evaluate the ITP application, including the HCP and any comments we receive, to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will also evaluate whether issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will issue the ITP for the incidental take of gopher tortoises.
We provide this notice under Section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Announcement of draft policy and solicitation of public comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a draft policy on crediting voluntary conservation actions taken for species prior to their listing under the Endangered Species Act. The proposed policy seeks to give landowners, government agencies, and others incentives to carry out voluntary conservation actions for nonlisted species by allowing the benefits to the species from a voluntary conservation action undertaken prior to listing under the Act to be used—either by the person who undertook such action or by a third party—to mitigate or to serve as a compensatory measure for the detrimental effects of another action undertaken after listing. This policy will help us further our efforts to protect native species and conserve the ecosystems on which they depend.
•
•
We will post all comments on
Jim Serfis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Communication and Candidate Conservation, 4401 N Fairfax Drive, Suite 420, Arlington, VA 22203, telephone 703/358-2171; facsimile 703/358-1735.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or FWS) is charged with implementing the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Recognizing that species benefit from focused conservation actions taken to address threats to their survival, the Service encourages landowners to conserve candidate and other at-risk species by stabilizing and increasing populations so that the species may not need listing. In March 2012, the Service published in the
The comments and recommendations in the 95 responses the Service received in response to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking supported the tenet that, if the need to list a species under the Act can be avoided, everyone, including the species, benefits. The responses also underscored the need for incentives for individuals and agencies, both Federal and State, to invest in conservation actions for species prior to listing. The comments and recommendations made by the individuals, organizations, and agencies covered an array of issues such as the need for guidance on developing crediting programs, updating the Service's mitigation policy, the need for conservation strategies to guide candidate conservation agreements, streamlining the conservation agreement process, and improving conservation banking. The comments are available at
The proposed policy described herein is based on recommendations generated by the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. The Service will address other recommendations through additional regulations, policies, or guidance.
The policy also makes clear that the Service will evaluate the conservation value of a prelisting conservation action based on its inclusion and priority in a conservation strategy for the species. A conservation strategy is a foundational document that should guide all conservation efforts for at-risk nonlisted species, including Federal, State, Tribal, and private conservation actions. A strategy can be authored by any one of these entities, but ideally it will be created as a joint effort. Coordinated efforts will likely result in better conservation outcomes for the species and efficiencies in implementing and monitoring conservation actions. From the Service's perspective, the primary goal of the strategy is to provide the necessary information to guide management of a species so that it does not need the protections of the Act.
Section 2 of the proposed policy also establishes that a voluntary prelisting conservation action undertaken by anyone, including a Federal agency, can be treated as described in the policy if the action is undertaken in a State that chooses to participate. Thus, unlike some other incentive-based policies (e.g., the Safe Harbor Agreements policy (64 FR 32717, June 17, 1999) and the Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAA) policy (64 FR 32726, June 17, 1999)) that apply only to non-Federal property owners, the proposed policy applies to anyone or any entity who wants to take advantage of it and who undertakes the prelisting
Acknowledging the jurisdiction of the States over nonlisted species, the last component requires the action be undertaken as part of a State-administered program. In short, the proposed policy contemplates the active engagement of the States in designing and implementing a program to encourage voluntary prelisting conservation actions, as further described in section 4 of the proposed policy. The policy also makes it clear that States can use Federal funds in accordance with Section 6 of the Act to measure, monitor, and provide oversight to ensure the successful implementation and maintenance of the voluntary pre-listing conservation actions as they relate to candidate species. The States may contract with a third party to fulfill the measuring, monitoring, and oversight obligations that are necessary to ensure the successful implementation and maintenance of the voluntary prelisting conservation actions.
First, CCAAs and voluntary prelisting conservation actions employ different mechanisms for achieving a conservation benefit to the species. A CCAA is intended to provide a property owner (non-Federal) with an assurance that, if the species covered by the CCAA is later listed as threatened or endangered, no new restrictions or conservation obligations will be imposed on the property owner for that species. In contrast, the purpose of the proposed policy's treatment of a voluntary prelisting conservation action is to give a property owner (Federal or non-Federal) the opportunity to have that action serve as mitigation or a compensatory measure for the detrimental impact of an action undertaken after the species is listed as endangered or threatened.
Second, CCAAs are subject to more exacting approval requirements. To qualify for a CCAA, a non-Federal property owner must commit to carry out conservation measures that, assuming other necessary property owners were to carry out commensurate conservation measures, would be sufficient to preclude the need to list a species. In contrast, to be treated as a voluntary prelisting conservation action under the proposed policy, an action need only be beneficial to a particular species; the policy requires no specific magnitude of benefit.
While it is possible for a voluntary prelisting conservation action to satisfy the requirements of both the CCAA policy and this proposed policy, the action cannot be treated under both policies: Using a conservation action as mitigation or a compensatory measure against a future detrimental action is inconsistent with the intent of the CCAA policy to secure durable conservation commitments that would constitute a particular property owner's necessary contributions to precluding the need to list a species.
Some States may have their own laws or regulatory authorities (separate from the Act) under which they can impose mitigation requirements for certain activities. If that is the case, and a person who undertakes a voluntary prelisting conservation action is allowed by the State to treat the benefits of that action as fulfilling the mitigation requirements of State law, the individual cannot subsequently use the same action as mitigation for a separate activity carried out after listing. That is, if used prior to listing to meet the mitigation requirements of State law, the benefits of prelisting conservation actions cannot be used again as mitigation for separate actions carried out later. Use of prelisting conservation to meet State mitigation requirements should be reflected in the register maintained by a State so as to prevent such double counting.
A voluntary prelisting conservation action must be:
(1) Beneficial to a species that is, or may become, a candidate or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered,
(2) Started prior to the final listing of the benefitted species as an endangered or threatened species under the Act, and after the date this policy is finalized. The actions may be part of an already established conservation program, plan, or strategy or be included in such a program, plan, or strategy that has been developed after the date this policy is finalized.
(3) Not required by any Federal, State, or local law, regulation, permit, or other regulatory mechanism.
(4) Undertaken as part of a State- or multi-State-administered program, including the most recent version of a State Wildlife Action Plan or other State conservation strategy that is intended to encourage voluntary conservation measures for the species.
Section 6 funds may be used to measure, monitor, and oversee the implementation of the pre-listing conservation actions as they relate to candidate species.
We intend that a final policy will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We, therefore, solicit comments, information, and recommendations from governmental agencies, Indian Tribes, the scientific community, industry groups, environmental interest groups, and any other interested parties. All comments and materials received by the date listed above in
In addition to more general comments and information, we ask that you comment on the following specific aspects of the policy:
(1) The policy requires an overall positive assistance to the species; how should we define this benefit?
(2) The policy requires that a prelisting conservation action be part of a State plan. What approach should we take if there is no State plan for the species?
(3) For those species for which the State does not have the authority or jurisdiction, should we revise the policy to allow prelisting conservation actions for these species to receive credit? If so, how would these prelisting conservation actions be tracked and monitored?
(4) How should we quantify the value of the voluntary prelisting conservation actions and credits?
(5) Based on the species and the nature of the actions, how should we determine the percentage set aside?
(6) The policy allows for the transfer of credits. How could we develop an uncomplicated trading system mechanism?
If you submit information via
As mentioned above, we intend to apply this policy, when finalized, in considering prelisting voluntary conservation efforts. Below we discuss compliance with several Executive Orders and statutes as they pertain to this draft policy.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this policy is not a significant rule.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that our regulatory system must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this policy in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This draft policy sets forth the Service's policy regarding the consideration of voluntary prelisting conservation actions through Section 7 of the Act should a species be listed. A full description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are set forth earlier in this document. The policy will provide an incentive to Federal, State, or local government agencies, Indian Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, or private individuals to take voluntary conservation actions for species before they are listed under the Act.
The Service, States, local government agencies, Indian Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, or private landowners are the entities that are affected by this draft policy. However, the effect is very limited; if they so choose, each entity would only need to report, to the State, limited information on any voluntary conservation action they took and wished to receive credit under this policy. Therefore, for the reasons described above, this draft policy would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(a) On the basis of information contained in the “Regulatory Flexibility Act” section above, this draft policy would not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502, that this policy would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. As explained above, small governments could potentially be affected because the draft policy could place additional requirements on any city, county, or other local municipalities. However, the requirement, which is to collect minimal information on any prelisting conservation actions they voluntarily choose to implement and report to their State wildlife agency, would only result in a minimal effect.
(b) This draft policy would not produce a Federal mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a “significant regulatory action”' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This policy could impose only minimal obligations on local or tribal governments and as well as on State governments if they choose to participate. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this draft policy would not have significant takings implications. This draft policy would not pertain to “taking” of private property interests, nor would it directly affect private property. A takings implication assessment is not required because this draft policy (1) would not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a physical invasion of property and (2) would not deny all economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This draft policy would substantially advance a legitimate government interest (establish a policy through which the Service would consider voluntary prelisting conservation actions through Section 7 of the Act should a species become listed) and would not present a barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this draft policy does not have significant Federalism effects and a Federalism assessment is not required. This draft policy pertains only to the Service's treatment of voluntary prelisting conservation actions should the species become listed under the Act, and would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. A State that chooses to participate under the policy must monitor prelisting conservation actions. Since States have an existing mechanism to conduct the monitoring for other purposes, the proposed policy does not create a new requirement.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), this draft policy would not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The establishment of a policy for the Service to consider voluntary prelisting conservation actions in the context of Section 7 of the Act should the species be listed should not significantly affect or burden the judicial system.
This proposed policy contains a collection of information that we have submitted to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
We will collect the following information:
• Description of the prelisting conservation action being taken.
• Location of the action (does not include a specific address).
• Name of the entity taking the action and their contact information (email address only).
• Frequency of the action (ongoing for X years, or one-time implementation) and an indication if the action is included in a State Wildlife Action Plan.
• Any transfer to a third party of the mitigation or compensatory measure rights.
We estimate that 10 States will choose to participate. Each State will collect information from landowners, businesses and organizations, and tribal and local governments that wish to receive credit for voluntary prelisting conservation actions. States may collect this information via an Access database, Excel spreadsheet, or other database of their choosing and submit the information to the Fish and Wildlife Service (via email) annually. We will use this information to calculate the amount of credits that the entity taking the conservation action will receive. We will keep track of the credits and notify the entity of how much credit they have earned. The entity can then use these credits to mitigate or offset the detrimental effects of other actions they take after the species is listed (assuming it is listed).
As part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the reporting burden associated with this proposed information collection. We specifically invite comments concerning:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper implementation of the proposed Prelisting Conservation Actions policy, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
If you wish to comment on the information collection requirements of this proposed policy, send your comments directly to OMB (see detailed instructions under the heading Comments on the Information Collection Aspects of this Proposal in the ADDRESSES section). Please identify your comments with 1018-AY29. Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer (see detailed instructions under the heading Comments on the Information Collection Aspects of this Proposal in the ADDRESSES section).
We have analyzed the proposed policy in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(c)), the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and the Department of the Interior's NEPA procedures (516 DM 2 and 8; 43 CFR part 46).
We have determined that the proposed policy is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements consistent with 40 CFR 1508.4 and 43 CFR 46.210(i). This categorical exclusion applies to policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are “of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” This action does not trigger an extraordinary circumstance, as outlined in 43 CFR 46.215, applicable to the categorical exclusion. Therefore, the proposed policy does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” and the Department of the Interior Manual at 512 DM 2, we have considered possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have preliminarily determined that there are no potential adverse effects of issuing this draft policy. Our intent with the draft policy is to provide a consistent approach to the consideration of voluntary prelisting conservation actions, including those taken on Tribal lands. We will continue to work with Tribes as we finalize this draft policy.
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. The draft policy, if made final, is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule or policy we publish must:
a. Be logically organized;
b. Use the active voice to address readers directly;
c. Use clear language rather than jargon;
d. Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
e. Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
The primary authors of the draft policy are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, Branch of Communications and Candidate Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before June 28, 2014. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by August 6, 2014. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
A request for removal has been received for the following resource:
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3022”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) has issued a Final Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337 and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation of section 337, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The ALJ recommended a limited exclusion order directed to the products of the remaining respondents that are combined with specific software functionality found to infringe the asserted patents. The remaining respondents include the following: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC; LG Electronics, Inc.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.; Toshiba Corporation; and Toshiba American Information Systems, Inc. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.50(a)(4).
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in its investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on July 16, 2014. Comments should address whether issuance of an exclusion order in this investigation could affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the order are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the potential order;
(iii) indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are produced in the United States or are otherwise available in the United States, with respect to the articles potentially subject to the order;
(iv) indicate whether Complainant, Complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to an exclusion order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the exclusion order would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on August 14, 2014.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 C.F.R. § 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-882”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. § 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
This action is taken under authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, and Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. Part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on April 1, 2013 (78 FR 19524) and determined on July 5, 2013 that it would conduct full reviews (78 FR 42105, July 15, 2013). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on June 27, 2014. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4479 (July 2014), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On July 16, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in the lawsuit entitled
The United States and the State of Minnesota by its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, filed this lawsuit under the Clean Air Act. The United States' and the State's complaint seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of the New Source Review (NSR) and Title V provisions of the Clean Air Act, at the defendant's Boswell and Laskin coal-fired power
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $26.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Delinquent Filer Voluntary Compliance Program,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 21, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Delinquent Filer Voluntary Compliance (DFVC) Program information collection. The DFVC Program is intended to encourage, through the assessment of reduced civil penalties, delinquent plan administrators voluntarily to comply with their annual reporting obligations under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Title I. The only information collection requirement included in the DFVC Program is to provide data necessary to identify the plan along with the penalty payment. ERISA section 502(c)(2) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Chief Evaluation Office, Labor
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that required data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Department is soliciting comments concerning its proposal to collect information from program participants through a participant tracking system (PTS).
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before September 22, 2014.
A copy of this information collection request, with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge contacting Jonathan Simonetta, Chief Evaluation Office, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-2312, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Jonathan Simonetta, Chief Evaluation Office, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg., Room S2312, Washington, DC 20210, by telephone at 202-693-5959 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
1.
The proposed interventions fill gaps in services and expand on current services in two pilot sites, Boston's Mayor's Office of Jobs & Community Services (MOJCS) and Baltimore's Mayor's Office of Employment Development (MOED). In Boston, the proposed intervention fills a gap in services by providing career training for youth who have completed their GED or high school degree. In Boston, according to MOJCS, educational programs aimed at young people steer them toward a four-year college degree, while career training is geared toward adults. Boston's MOJCS currently provides programs that aim to get youth a high school degree. A career training program to serve youth who have completed their high school degree would fill an important gap in services. In Baltimore, the proposed intervention primarily expands on current services for disconnected youth who do not have a high school degree. The proposed intervention developed with Baltimore is designed to keep youth without a high school degree engaged in an academic and career training program until they receive their certification and degree and to provide financial support during that process. The proposal would expand on the current services provided for these youth in Baltimore by creating an integrated job training program for them.
Underpinning both of these proposals will be the provision of a caring adult who will help participants navigate their respective education and training programs. These caring adults will take the form of a career navigator or case manager who will meet frequently with participants as they go through their respective programs and provide consistent support to these disconnected youth as they traverse their education and training.
To gauge the efficacy of the services provided to participants in these two cities, a participant tracking system (PTS) will be developed to measure youth outcomes, program implementation, and relevant contextual (systemic) factors of every participant who enters the two respective programs. The data collection effort with this group will gather information about participants' demographic backgrounds; their education and training as they go through their respective programs; their employment and wages before, during, and after program completion; the
This tracking system will provide critical information to Department policymakers on whether participants are effectively receiving education and training services, as well as the dosage and length of the caring adult model services. Data collection tasks include: (1) Design and test the PTS; and (2) execute the PTS, and (3) analyze the data and report the results. The period of performance of this evaluation ends in March 2016. The overall budget for the evaluation is $3,000,000. The evaluation contractor is The Urban Institute.
2.
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the Internet, without redaction. Comments received will also be summarized and addressed in the request submitted for Office of Management and Budget approval. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
3.
Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Underground Construction Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 21, 2014.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Underground Construction Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1926.800. The requirements apply to an Occupation Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer engaged in underground construction. The information collections the DOL seeks to extend by this ICR include: (1) Posting various warning signs and notices, (2) developing and maintaining certification inspection records for hoists, and (3) developing and maintaining records of air quality tests. OSH Act sections 6(b)(7) and 8 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2014. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice of MACOSH Meeting.
This
The Committee and workgroups will meet at the U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, in Conference Rooms C-5521 Room 4 and C-5515 Room 2. Meeting attendees must use the visitor's entrance located at 3rd & C Streets NW.
OSHA will place comments and requests to speak, including personal information, in the public docket which may be available online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
Copies of this
All MACOSH committee and workgroup meetings are open to the public. Interested persons may attend the full Committee and its workgroup meetings at the time and place listed above. The full Committee agenda will include: An OSHA activities update; a review of the minutes from the previous meeting; and reports from each workgroup. The workgroup agendas will include discussions on: Surface preparation and preservation in shipyards; shipboard refrigeration systems; pedestal crane safety on commercial fishing vessels; preventing chassis drivers from jostling in the cab in marine terminals; the accuracy of declared container weights; baggage handling in cruise terminal operations; a review of the 2010 International Maritime Organization annex “Guidance on Providing Safe Working Conditions for Securing of Containers on Deck”; and log handling safety.
The workgroups, which include the Longshoring workgroup and the Shipyard workgroup, will meet from 9 a.m. until approximately 5 p.m. on August 19, 2014 in Conference Rooms C-5521 Room 4 and C-5515 Room 2. The full Committee will meet from 9 a.m. until approximately 5 p.m. on August 20, 2014, in Conference Room C-5521 Room 4.
Interested parties also may submit written comments, including data and other information, using any one of the methods listed in the
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 655, 656, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29 CFR part 1912.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from June 26, 2014, to July 9, 2014.
Comments must be filed by August 21, 2014. A request for a hearing must be filed by September 22, 2014.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0169 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:
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0169 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 submissions 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 into ADAMS.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Performing the proposed changes in battery parameter surveillance testing and verification is not a precursor of any accident previously evaluated. Furthermore, these changes will help to ensure that the voltage and capacity of the batteries is such that they will provide the power assumed in calculations of design basis accident mitigation.
Therefore, DTE concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve any modification of the plant or how the plant is operated; they only involve surveillance testing and verification activities.
Therefore, DTE concludes that these proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant, and containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed changes.
The proposed Fermi 2 revisions of the SRs ensure the continued availability and operability of the batteries. As such, sufficient [direct current] capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment remains within the design basis.
Therefore, DTE concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change reflects a design change to the turbine control system that results in the use of an increased control oil pressure system, necessitating a change to the value at which a low EH fluid oil pressure initiates a reactor trip on turbine trip. The EH oil pressure is an input to the reactor trip instrumentation in response to a turbine trip event. The value at which the low Electro-Hydraulic fluid oil initiates a reactor trip is not an accident initiator. A change in the nominal control oil pressure does not introduce any mechanisms that would increase the probability of an accident previously analyzed. The reactor trip on turbine trip function is initiated by the same protective signal as used for the ASO System trip signal. There is no change in form or function of this signal and the probability or consequences of previously analyzed accidents are not impacted.
The proposed change also adds test requirements to a TS instrument function related to those variables that have a significant safety function to ensure that instruments will function as required to initiate protective systems or actuate mitigating systems at the point assumed in the applicable setpoint calculation. Surveillance tests are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the TSs for which surveillance tests are added are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The EH fluid oil pressure decreases in response to a turbine trip. The value at which the low EH fluid oil initiates a reactor trip is not an accident initiator. The proposed TS change reflects the higher pressure that will be sensed after the pressure switches are relocated from the ASO System to the AST [Auto Stop Trip] high pressure header. Failure of the new switches would not result in a different outcome than is considered in the current design basis. Further, the change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but ensures that the instruments perform as assumed in the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The change involves a parameter that initiates an anticipatory reactor trip following a turbine trip. The safety analyses do not credit this anticipatory trip for reactor core protection. The original pressure switch configuration and the new pressure switch configuration both generate the same reactor trip signal. The difference is that the initiation of the trip will now be adjusted to a different system of higher pressure. This system function of sensing and transmitting a reactor trip signal on turbine trip remains the same. Also, the proposed change adds test requirements that will assure that (1) technical specifications instrumentation Allowable Values will be limiting settings for assessing instrument channel operability and (2) will be conservatively determined so that evaluation of instrument performance history and the as left tolerance requirements of the calibration procedures will not have an adverse effect on equipment operability. The testing methods and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components, specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis including the updated Final Safety Analysis Report. There is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis because no change is made to the accident analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such that the probability of a SGTR is not increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by the conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The proposed change will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to exceed those assumptions.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the Steam Generator Program will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs or their method of operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or component.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes also isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes. Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change will continue to require monitoring of the physical condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a reduction in the margin of safety compared to the current requirements.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. SDM is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types at all times during the fuel cycle.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to Function 7 names are administrative in nature and ensure that the description of SDV Water Level—High instrumentation in TS matches the plant configuration. The addition of a missing channel check SR and TSTF-493 footnotes for the new Function 7.b instruments makes the TS more comprehensive by ensuring the appropriate surveillances and footnotes are applied to this instrumentation.
The replacement instruments for Function 7.b meet the high functional reliability standard of GDC 21 [General Design Criteria 21, “Protection system reliability and testability,” of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A] and all pertinent requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(h)(2). The instrumentation modification was reviewed under 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1) and determined to not meet any of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2).
The addition of a channel check to Function 7.a and addition of TSTF-493 notes (d) and (e) to SR 3.3.1.1.10 for the Function 7.b instrumentation do not change accident frequency or consequences. TS requirements that govern operability or routine testing of plant instruments are not assumed to be initiators of any analyzed event because these instruments are intended to prevent, detect, or mitigate accidents. Additionally, these proposed changes will not increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the proposed changes do not adversely impact structures, systems, or components. The proposed TS changes establish requirements that ensure components are operable when necessary for the prevention or mitigation of accidents or transients. Furthermore, there will be no change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents released offsite.
In summary, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to administratively revise instrument descriptions, incorporate a new SR, and add footnotes to an existing SR do not change the parameters within which Columbia is operated.
The proposed changes do not adversely impact the manner in which the SDV Water Level—High RPS [Reactor Protection System] instrumentation will operate under normal and abnormal operating conditions. The instrumentation design changes were reviewed under 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1) and determined to not meet any of the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2). The proposed changes will not alter the functional demands on credited equipment. No alteration in the procedures which ensure that Columbia remains within analyzed limits are proposed and no change is being made to procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event.
Therefore, these proposed changes provide an equivalent level of safety and will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the function descriptions in TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 Functions 7.a and 7.b are considered administrative in nature, and do not impact plant safety.
Margins of safety are established in the design of components, the configuration of components to meet certain performance parameters, and in the establishment of setpoints to initiate alarms and actions. The proposed changes support a planned upgrade of the SDV instrumentation that preserves the reliability of the RPS system. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the probability of failure or availability of the affected instrumentation. The instrumentation design changes were evaluated under 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1) and determined not to meet any of the criteria of 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2).
The addition of a Channel Check SR to TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 Function 7.a and the addition of TSTF-493 notes (d) and (e) to SR 3.3.1.1.10 for the new scram discharge instrumentation in TS Table 3.3.1.1-1 Function 7.b are conservative changes that align the SRs for proper determination of operability with that of similar instrumentation.
On this basis, is concluded that the proposed changes do not result in a reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Reactor Building crane is being upgraded to meet the applicable single-failure-proof criteria of NUREG 0554 and NUREG 0612 for the modification of the existing non single-failure-proof crane. While loads in excess of 2,000 lbs [pounds] shall continue to be prohibited from travel over irradiated fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool by the PNPS [Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station] Technical Specifications, a Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) lid will be permitted to travel over irradiated fuel assemblies in a transfer cask, using a single-failure-proof handling system as described in NUREG-0800 Section 9.1.5 Paragraph llI.4.C, to enable the conduct of dry cask storage loading and unloading operations. Specifically, this will enable the MPC lid and its associated lifting apparatus to travel over irradiated fuel assemblies in a MPC. The probability of dropping this load onto an irradiated fuel assembly in the canister is reduced as a result of the reliability of the single-failure-proof handling system.
The proposed change does not affect the consequences of any accidents previously evaluated in the PNPS UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report]. The change involves the travel of heavy loads over irradiated fuel assemblies in a transfer cask using a single-failure-proof handling system. Under these circumstances, no new load drop accidents are postulated and no changes to the probabilities or consequences of accidents previously evaluated are involved.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Section 10.3 of the PNPS UFSAR evaluates fuel storage and handling operations. Section 14 of the PNPS UFSAR discusses the analysis of design basis fuel handling accidents involving drop of an irradiated assembly resulting in multiple fuel rod failures and consequent release of radioactivity. The change involves the travel of heavy loads over irradiated fuel assemblies in a transfer cask using a single-failure-proof handling system. Under these circumstances, no new or different load drop accidents are postulated to occur and there are no changes in any of the load drop accidents previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The revised Technical Specification changes do not involve a reduction in any margin of safety. Technical Specification 4.3.4 currently prohibits travel of heavy loads in excess of 2,000 lbs over irradiated fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool. The proposed change will continue to restrict travel of heavy loads in excess of 2,000 lbs over irradiated fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool, with the exception of the MPC lid over irradiated fuel assemblies in the canister to enable dry cask storage operations. This exception is only permitted when the heavy load is handled using a single-failure-proof handling system. Due to the reliability of this upgraded handling system that complies with the guidance of NUREG-0800 Section 9.1.5 for a single-failure-proof handling system, a load drop accident is not considered a credible event. Under these circumstances, no
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the SEP [Site Emergency Plan] do not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or precursors, nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and ERO [Emergency Response Organization] to perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition. The proposed changes only remove positions that will no longer be credited in the SEP in the permanently defueled condition.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reduce the number of on-shift and ERO positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes do not involve installation of new equipment or modification of existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to the way that the equipment or facility is operated so that no new accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes are associated with the SEP staffing and do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change does not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed changes. The revised SEP will continue to provide the necessary response staff with the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative in nature as it revises previously approved specific TS [Technical Specifications] Required Actions Notes that are no longer applicable following plant modification installation and implementation to reflect the applicable RTS [Reactor Trip System] and ESFAS [Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System] Functions with installed bypass test capability.
The proposed change does not impact any accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events modeled in the safety analyses. The proposed change does not alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility, nor does it affect the structural and functional integrity of the RTS and ESFAS. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of any structures, systems, and components from performing their intended design function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the applicable acceptance criteria.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to revise previously approved specific TS Required Actions Notes that are no longer applicable to specific RTS and ESFAS Functions with installed bypass test capability is administrative in nature. The proposed change does not result in a change to any design function or the manner in which the RTS and ESFAS operates to provide plant protection. The RTS and ESFAS will continue to have the same setpoints after the proposed change is implemented. In addition, this change does not install or modify any plant equipment. Therefore, no new failure modes are being created nor does the change result in the creation of any changes to the existing accident scenarios or do they create any new or different accident scenarios. The types of accidents defined in the UFSAR [updated final safety analysis report] continue to represent the credible spectrum of events to be analyzed which determine safe plant operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No safety analyses are changed or modified as a result of the proposed change to revise previously approved specific TS Required Actions Notes that are no longer applicable to RTS and ESFAS Functions with installed bypass test capability. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. Margins associated with the current applicable safety analyses acceptance criteria are unaffected. The current safety analyses remain bounding since their conclusions are not affected by this change and the plant will continue to operate in a manner consistent with the safety analyses. The safety systems credited in the safety analyses will continue to be available to perform their mitigation functions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the above evaluation, EGC concludes that the proposed amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, paragraph (c), and, accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
No.
The proposed change revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture event (SGTR) is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such that the probability of a SGTR is not increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by the conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The proposed change will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to exceed these assumptions.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
No.
The proposed changes to the SG Program will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs or their method of operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or component.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
No.
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes also isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change will continue to require monitoring of the physical condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a reduction in the margin of safety compared to the current requirements.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
No.
The proposed change provides a short Completion Time to restore an inoperable system for conditions under which the existing Technical Specifications require a plant shutdown to begin within one hour in accordance with Limiting Condition for Operation 3.0.3. Entering into Technical Specification Actions is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of any accident previously evaluated that may occur during the proposed Completion Times are no different from the consequences of the same accident during the existing one hour allowance. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
No.
The proposed change increases the time the plant may operate without the ability to perform an assumed safety function. The analyses in WCAP-16125-NP-A, “Justification for Risk-Informed Modifications to Selected Technical Specifications for Conditions Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown,” Revision 2, August 2010, demonstrated that there is an acceptably small increase in risk due to a limited period of continued operation in these conditions and that this risk is balanced by avoiding the risks associated with a plant shutdown. As a result, the change to the margin of safety provided by requiring a plant shutdown within one hour is not significant.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed addition of a new TS to address the operability of the ADVs does not alter the assumed initiators to any analyzed event. The probability of an accident previously evaluated will not be increased by this proposed change. This proposed change will not affect radiological dose consequence analyses. The radiological dose consequence analyses assume a certain release of radioactive material through the ADVs following a steam generator tube rupture (SGTR), which is not affected by the addition of the ADVs to the TS. The addition of a Surveillance Requirement for the ADVs will continue to ensure that the ADVs can perform their specified function. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated will not be increased by this proposed change.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed TS for the ADVs will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed addition of a new TS to address the operability of the ADVs has been evaluated to determine the effect of adding the new TS to the operation of the plant. This change does not involve any alteration in the plant configuration (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or make changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed addition of a new TS to address the operability of the ADVs would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is related to the ability of the ADV to release enough steam to cool the Reactor Coolant System down and be isolated when required to limit the radioactive release from a SGTR. The inclusion of the ADVs in the TS will provide limited time for continued operation without both ADVs available. This ensures that the margin of safety is maintained by ensuring that the ADV can meet the assumptions for its operation specified in the SGTR analysis. Since the radiological consequences of a SGTR are not affected
Therefore, the proposed addition of a new TS to address the operability of the ADVs does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No.
The proposed change, modifying the as-found and as-left lift settings in the Surveillance Requirement of the PSVs, does not change the design function or operation of the PSVs and it does not change the way the PSVs are maintained, tested, or inspected. The PSVs are not accident initiators; they operate in response to the pressurization of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS). They limit the pressure of the RCS to less than the allowable American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel, Section III Code during an accident or transient. Analyses were performed of peak pressure events, which are evaluated against the RCS limit. Action of the PSVs is required to mitigate the consequences of these events. The change in the setpoint tolerance and a change in one valve's nominal setpoint were explicitly considered in the analysis of these events. The RCS pressure remained below the required limits with these changes considered. Therefore, this change does not impact the ability of the PSVs to perform their safety function during evaluated accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No.
The proposed change, modifying the as-found and as-left lift settings in the Surveillance Requirement of the PSVs, does not change the PSVs design function to maintain RCS pressure below the RCS pressure Safety Limit of 2750 psia [pounds per square inch absolute] during design basis accidents nor does it affect the PSVs ability to perform this design function. The proposed change does not require any modification to the plant (other than the setpoint change) or change equipment operation or testing. It also does not create any credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators that would cause an accident not previously considered.
Therefore the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No.
The proposed change, modifying the as-found and as-left lift settings in the Surveillance Requirement of the PSVs, does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety in maintaining RCS pressure below Safety Limits of 2750 psia during design basis accidents. The analyses conducted in support of this proposed change evaluated the ability of the PSVs to maintain an adequate safety margin assuming the change in setpoint tolerances and a change in one valve's nominal setpoint. The analysis determined that the response of the PSVs would maintain an adequate safety margin to the reactor coolant Safety Limit of 2750 psia.
Therefore the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety of maintaining RCS pressure the below RCS pressure Safety Limit.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the Technical Specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The changes do not involve a physical
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures and components specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including the updated final safety analysis report and the bases to the TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Calvert Cliffs will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Revision 1 in accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Nuclear Energy Institute 04-10, Revision 1 methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment's request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the Technical Specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be [sic] capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, FPL will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC-approved NEI 04-10, Revision 1 in accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. NEI 04-10, Revision 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the Technical Specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be [sic] capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the surveillance frequencies for Surveillance Requirements that have a set periodicity from the TS to a licensee controlled Surveillance Frequency Control Program. This change does not alter any existing surveillance frequencies. Within the constraints of the Program, the licensee will be able to change the periodicity of these surveillance requirements. Relocating the surveillance frequencies does not impact the ability of structures, systems or components (SSCs) from performing there [sic] design functions, and thus, does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for structures, systems, and components (SSCs) specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, FPL will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC-approved NEI 04-10, Revision 1 in accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. NEI 04-10, Revision 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177, An Approach for Plant-Specific Risk-Informed Decision-Making: Technical Specifications.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the
Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not result in a change in the manner in which the Reactor Trip System (RTS) and engineered safety features actuation system (ESFAS) provide plant protection. The RTS and ESFAS will continue to have the same setpoints after the proposed changes are implemented. There are no design changes associated with the license amendment.
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not impacted by these changes. Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are maintained, and diversity with regard to the signals that provide reactor trip and engineered safety features actuation is also maintained. All signals credited as primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
SNC has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment(s) by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, Issuance of amendment, as discussed below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. SDM is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types at all times during the fuel cycle.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed change presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates Technical Specification (TS) 4.2, “Augmented Inspections,” TS 4.15, “Augmented Inservice Inspection Program for High Energy Lines Outside of Containment,” and the associated TS Bases to the Surry Technical Requirements Manual (TRM). In addition, TS 6.4.U, “Augmented Inspections and Examinations,” will be added to the Surry TS. The proposed relocation of the TS 4.2 and TS 4.15 requirements to the TRM is appropriate since these requirements do not satisfy the categories and criteria of 10CFR50.36(c), which specifies what items qualify for inclusion in the TS.
Specifically, the TS 4.2 augmented inspections of the low head safety injection piping located in the valve pit, the reactor coolant pump flywheel, the low pressure turbine rotor blades, sensitized stainless steel, and TS 4.15 augmented inspections of the welds in the main steam and main feedwater lines in the main steam valve house of each unit will be relocated to the TRM. The augmented inspections, which are performed in addition to required ASME Code Section Xl inspections/examinations, will continue to be performed as required by the TRM.
The plant systems and components to which the augmented inspections apply will not be operated in a different manner. The proposed relocation of the augmented inspections does not involve a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic operation of installed plant systems and components, to which the augmented inspections apply, is unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because the relocation of the augmented inspections to the TRM has no impact on any safety analysis assumptions, as indicated by the fact that the requirements do not meet the 10CFR50.36(c) criteria for inclusion in the TS. In addition, the augmented inspections will be moved to the TRM without change and will continue to be performed as required by the TRM.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
(1) Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. ZS has, in effect, a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved (NRC) emergency plan. The remaining ZNPS accident (Radioactive Waste Handling Accident) and the credible accidents involving the ISFSI and the Modular, Advanced Generation, Nuclear All-purpose Storage (MAGNASTOR) system have been analyzed and determined that none result in doses to the public beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Protective Action Guides (PAGs). These analyses have not changed. With spent fuel relocated to the ISFSI, the Spent Fuel Pool previously analyzed events (Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling,
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. ZS has, in effect, an NRC-approved emergency plan. The remaining ZNPS accident (Radioactive Waste Handling Accident) and the credible accidents involving the ISFSI and MAGNASTOR system have been analyzed and determined that none result in doses to the public beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would exceed the EPA's PAGs. These analyses have not changed. With spent fuel relocated to the ISFSI, the Spent Fuel Pool previously analyzed events (Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling, Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Inventory, and Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Building) are no longer credible. Accidents associated with the ISFSI are addressed in the MAGNASTOR Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
(3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. Margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and primary containment) to perform their design functions during and following postulated accidents. ZS has, in effect, an NRC-approved emergency plan. The remaining ZNPS accident (Radioactive Waste Handling Accident) and the credible accidents involving the ISFSI and MAGNASTOR system have been analyzed and determined that none result in doses to the public beyond the owner controlled area boundary that would exceed the EPA's PAGs These analyses have not changed. With spent fuel relocated to the ISFSI, the Spent Fuel Pool previously analyzed events (Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling, Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Inventory, and Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Building) are no longer credible.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) The applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 7, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 9, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
This TS change is part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP) TS Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, “Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to Address Advanced Fuel Designs.” The licensee stated there are no variations or deviations from the NRC staff's model safety evaluation.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The supplements dated February 27, March 27, April 30, and December 9, 2013; and January 22, March 14, April 15, May 9, and May 23, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The supplements dated February 27, March 27, April 30, and December 9, 2013; and January 22, March 14, April 15, May 9, and May 23, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 1, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 3, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 1, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 1, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received, by letter dated June 9, 2014, an application from Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion) requesting an amendment, in the form of changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) to Materials License Number SNM-2507 for the North Anna Power Station (NAPS) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by September 22, 2014.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0154 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:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
• NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
John-Chau Nguyen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9202; email:
The proposed changes to TS 4.2.3, “Storage Pad” will define the minimum allowable center-to-center spacing between individual casks on NAPS ISFSI Pad. Dominion is requesting a revision to the Technical Specifications of the TN-32 casks utilized at its NAPS ISFSI located in Louisa County, Virginia (ADAMS Accession No. ML14160A707). License No. SNM-2507 authorizes the licensee to receive, store, and transfer spent fuel from NAPS, Units 1 and 2.
An NRC administrative completeness review found the application acceptable for a technical review (ADAMS Accession No. ML14190A179). Prior to approving the amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (the Act), and the NRC's regulations. The NRC's findings will be documented in a safety evaluation report and an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment will be the subject of a subsequent notice in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located in One White Flint North, Room O1-F21 (first floor), 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth, with particularity, the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted, with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies, and procedures. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will set the time and place for any prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings, and the appropriate notices will be provided.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
A State, local governmental body, federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by September 22, 2014. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by September 22, 2014.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of July 21, 28, August 4, 11, 18, 25, 2014.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 21, 2014.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
Thursday, July 31, 2014
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 4, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 11, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 18, 2014.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 25, 2014.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call Rochelle Bavol, 301-415-1651.
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 (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301-287-0727, or by email at
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an email to
Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Notice of Public Webinar.
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), on behalf of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the Committee on Technology,
The public webinar will be held on Thursday, July 31, 2014, from 12:00 p.m. to 13:00 p.m.
For information about the webinar, please visit
Dr. Tarek Fadel, 703-292-7926,
A public copy of the “Progress Review on the Coordinated Implementation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy” can be accessed at
Notice of Request for Information.
The U.S. economy's requirements for raw materials have and will change over time, especially with the introduction of new products and processing technologies. Furthermore, as the global economy grows, there are increasing concerns regarding the availability and access to the raw materials that will be necessary to sustain U.S. economic growth and advance other national policies. As the criticality of materials shifts over time, studying the early warning signs and the underlying forces of potential material supply disruption can inform proactive policy development for emerging critical materials. One of the roles of the Critical and Strategic Minerals Supply Chain Subcommittee (CSMSC Subcommittee) of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability is to develop a methodology for identifying critical materials and monitoring changes in criticality on an ongoing basis, providing “early warning” to policymakers and other stakeholders. The views of U.S. industry and other stakeholders are important to inform both an understanding of current conditions and the characterization of anticipated future demand for critical materials.
Responses must be received by August 31, 2014, to be considered.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
OSTP will not respond to individual submissions or publish publicly a compendium of responses, except as required by applicable law. A response to this RFI will not be viewed as a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas discussed. OSTP will not pay for information provided under this RFI. This RFI is not accepting applications for financial assistance or financial incentives. OSTP has no obligation to respond to those who submit comments, and/or give any feedback on any decision made based on the responses received.
Cyrus Wadia, (202) 456-4444,
PURPOSE: The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders on issues related to demand, supply and supply chain structure, R&D, and technology transitions related to raw materials (including, but not limited to, minerals and gases) used in the U.S. economy. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which co-chairs the NSTC's Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability, is specifically interested in information on raw materials of interest to the public. Input on the current and future production of and demand for relevant materials, concerns related to raw material availability, and overall market dynamics are topics of additional relevance, as are the role of emerging technologies, trends in nationally important sectors and global shifts in product markets.
• What materials will be particularly important, and of concern (due to availability, price, etc.) to your technologies and/or your industry over the next 5 years?
• What is the growth in demand forecast for your technologies? What factors drive this assessment?
• At what point(s) in technology or product development or manufacturing do you select raw materials? How do you consider price? How do you
• What investments, if any, are you making to identify raw material input alternatives?
• Are there any emerging disruptive technologies or technology transitions (e.g., new applications or substitutes) that would dramatically change demand in the near term (5 years) or long term (15 years)?
• What barriers exist to exploration for additional resources of raw materials in the United States and globally?
• Once discovered, what barriers exist to the timely development of raw materials in the United States and globally?
• Is current North American separation, smelting, and/or refining capacity adequate to ensure reliable material supplies?
• What innovations in separation, smelting/refining technology or processes might affect U.S. or global resource supplies? What are the environmental impacts of these innovations?
• Are the mining, separation, smelting, and/or refining sites of the minerals required for your technologies adequately diversified to account for potential market failures or political risks?
• How do market size, market price, capital availability and other economic factors affect production decisions?
• What are the supply chains for the technologies identified as being important to your manufacturing processes and industry? How would you describe the significant stages of the supply chain?
• Are there vulnerabilities in the supply chain (domestic, foreign, sole source, import reliance, etc.) that lead to concerns regarding the supply of any of these materials and/or the ability to manufacture these technologies?
• How do you assess supply chain vulnerabilities and their impact?
• How would you describe the market dynamics of your supply chains, including the overall supply of materials of interest?
• Are there any market distortions in the supply chain, such as opacity, lack of information, or trade-related distortions?
• Is there price volatility? If so, what factors drive this volatility?
• What are some strategies you employ to mitigate supply chain concerns? (e.g., stockpiles, hedging, etc.)
• How do you cope with price volatility?
• Do you consider using technologies available with slightly reduced performance to avoid price and availability concerns?
• Is there additional information, not requested above, that you believe the CSMSC Subcommittee should consider in identifying emerging critical materials? If so, please provide here.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Information collected and information prepared pursuant to Regulation S-X focus on the form and content of, and requirements for, financial statements filed with periodic reports and in connection with the offer and sale of securities. Investors need reasonably current financial statements to make informed investment and voting decisions.
The potential respondents include all entities that file registration statements or reports pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (
Regulation S-X specifies the form and content of financial statements when those financial statements are required to be filed by other rules and forms under the federal securities laws. Compliance burdens associated with the financial statements are assigned to the rule or form that directly requires the financial statements to be filed, not to Regulation S-X. Instead, an estimated burden of one hour traditionally has been assigned to Regulation S-X for incidental reading of the regulation. The estimated average burden hours are solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of SEC rules or forms.
Recordkeeping retention periods are based on the disclosure required by various forms and rules other than Regulation S-X. In general, balance sheets for the preceding two fiscal years, income and cash flow statements for the preceding three fiscal years, and condensed quarterly financial statements must be filed with the Commission. Five year summary financial information is required to be disclosed by some larger registrants.
Filing financial statements, when required by the governing rule or form, is mandatory. Because these statements are provided for the purpose of disseminating information to the securities markets, they are not kept confidential.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view the information discussed in this notice at
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The purpose of Form N-54A is to notify the Commission that the investment company making the notification elects to be subject to Sections 55 through 65 of the Investment Company Act, enabling the Commission to administer those provisions of the Investment Company Act to such companies.
The Commission estimates that on average approximately 14 business development companies file these notifications each year. Each of those business development companies need only make a single filing of Form N-54A. The Commission further estimates that this information collection imposes a burden of 0.5 hours, resulting in a total annual PRA burden of 7 hours. Based on the estimated wage rate, the total cost to the business development company industry of the hour burden for complying with Form N-54A would be approximately $2,338.
The collection of information under Form N-54A is mandatory. The information provided under the form is not kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-19 requires every national securities exchange and registered national securities association to file a Form X-17A-19 with the Commission and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) within 5 business days of the initiation, suspension, or termination of any member and, when terminating the membership interest of any member, to notify that member of its obligation to file financial reports as required by Exchange Act Rule 17a-5(b).
Commission staff anticipates that the national securities exchanges and registered national securities associations collectively will make 800 total filings annually pursuant to Rule 17a-19 and that each filing will take approximately 15 minutes. The total reporting burden is estimated to be approximately 200 total annual hours.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17f-2(e) requires every member of a national securities exchange, broker, dealer, registered transfer agent, and registered clearing agency (“covered entities”) claiming an exemption from the fingerprinting requirements of Rule 17f-2 to make and keep current a statement entitled “Notice Pursuant to Rule 17f-2” (“Notice”) containing the information specified in paragraph (e)(1) to support their claim of exemption.
Rule 17f-2(e) contains no filing requirement. Instead, paragraph (e)(2) requires covered entities to keep a copy of the Notice in an easily accessible place at the organization's principal office and at the office employing the persons for whom exemptions are claimed and to make the Notice available upon request for inspection by the Commission, appropriate regulatory agency (if not the Commission) or other designated examining authority. Notices prepared pursuant to Rule 17f-2(e) must be maintained for as long as the covered entity claims an exemption from the fingerprinting requirements of Rule 17f-2. The recordkeeping requirement under Rule 17f-2(e) assists the Commission and other regulatory agencies with ensuring compliance with Rule 17f-2.
We estimate that approximately 75 respondents will incur an average burden of 30 minutes per year to comply with this rule, which represents the time it takes for a staff person at a covered entity to properly document a claimed exemption from the fingerprinting requirements of Rule 17f-2 in the required Notice and to properly retain the Notice according to the entity's record retention policies and procedures. The total annual burden for all covered entities is approximately 38 hours (75 entities × .5 hours, rounded up).
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17f-2(c) allows persons required to be fingerprinted pursuant to Section 17(f)(2) of the Act to submit their fingerprints to the Attorney General of the United States or its designee (i.e., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)) through a registered national securities exchange or a registered national securities association (collectively, also known as “self-regulatory organizations” or “SROs”) pursuant to a fingerprint plan filed with, and declared effective by, the Commission. Fingerprint plans have been declared effective for the American, Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia stock exchanges and for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and the Chicago Board Options Exchange. Currently, FINRA accounts for the bulk of the fingerprint submissions.
It is estimated that 5,000 respondents submit approximately 288,000 sets of fingerprints (consisting of 198,500 electronic sets and 89,500 hard copy sets) to SROs on an annual basis. The Commission estimates that it would take approximately 15 minutes to create and submit each fingerprint card. The total reporting burden is therefore estimated to be 72,000 hours, or approximately 15 hours per respondent, annually.
In addition, the SROs charge an estimated $30.25 fee for processing fingerprint cards submitted electronically, resulting in a total annual cost to all 5,000 respondents of $6,004,600, or $1,200.92 per respondent per year. The SROs charge an estimated $44.50 fee for processing fingerprint cards submitted in hard copy, resulting in a total annual cost to all 5,000 respondents of approximately $3,982,700, or $796.54 per respondent per year. The combined annual cost to all respondents is thus $9,987,300.
Because the FBI will not accept fingerprint cards directly from submitting organizations, Commission approval of fingerprint plans from certain SROs is essential to carry out the Congressional goal to fingerprint securities industry personnel. Filing these plans for review assures users and their personnel that fingerprint cards will be handled responsibly and with due care for confidentiality.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title for the collection of information is “Form N-6F (17 CFR 274.15), Notice of Intent to Elect to be Subject to Sections 55 through 65 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.” The purpose of Form N-6F is to notify the Commission of a company's intent to file a notification of election to become subject to Sections 55 through 65 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1
The Commission estimates that on average approximately 15 companies file these notifications each year. Each of those companies need only make a single filing of Form N-6F. The Commission further estimates that this information collection imposes burden of 0.5 hours, resulting in a total annual PRA burden of 7.5 hours. Based on the estimated wage rate, the total cost to the industry of the hour burden for complying with Form N-6F would be approximately $2,505.
The collection of information under Form N-6F is mandatory. The information provided under the form is not kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes [sic] extend the pilot period for the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program (the “Retail Liquidity Program” or the “Program”), which is currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2014, until March 31, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
The purpose of this filing is to extend the pilot period of the Retail Liquidity Program,
In July 2012, the Commission approved the Retail Liquidity Program on a pilot basis.
The Retail Liquidity Program was approved by the Commission on a pilot basis. Pursuant to NYSE Rule 107C(m), the pilot period for the Program is scheduled to end on July 31, 2014.
The Exchange established the Retail Liquidity Program in an attempt to attract retail order flow to the Exchange by potentially providing price improvement to such order flow. The Exchange believes that the Program promotes competition for retail order flow by allowing Exchange members to submit RPIs to interact with Retail Orders. Such competition has the ability to promote efficiency by facilitating the price discovery process and generating additional investor interest in trading securities, thereby promoting capital formation. The Exchange believes that extending the pilot is appropriate because it will allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze data regarding the Program that the Exchange has committed to provide.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change simply extends an established pilot program for an additional eight months, thus allowing the Retail Liquidity Program to enhance competition for retail order flow and contribute to the public price discovery process.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period for the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program (the “Retail Liquidity Program” or the “Program”), which is currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2014, until March 31, 2015. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to extend the pilot period of the Retail Liquidity Program,
In July 2012, the Commission approved the Retail Liquidity Program on a pilot basis.
The Retail Liquidity Program was approved by the Commission on a pilot basis. Pursuant to NYSE MKT Rule 107C(m)—Equities, the pilot period for the Program is scheduled to end on July 31, 2014.
The Exchange established the Retail Liquidity Program in an attempt to attract retail order flow to the Exchange by potentially providing price improvement to such order flow. The Exchange believes that the Program promotes competition for retail order flow by allowing Exchange members to submit RPIs to interact with Retail Orders. Such competition has the ability to promote efficiency by facilitating the price discovery process and generating additional investor interest in trading securities, thereby promoting capital formation. The Exchange believes that extending the pilot is appropriate because it will allow the Exchange and the Commission additional time to analyze data regarding the Program that the Exchange has committed to provide.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change simply extends an established pilot program for an additional eight months, thus allowing the Retail Liquidity Program to enhance competition for retail order flow and contribute to the public price discovery process.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would allow the pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from the temporary interruption in the pilot program. Further, the Commission notes that because the proposed rule change was filed on an immediately effective basis on July 3, 2014, the fact that the current pilot program does not expire until July 31, 2014 will afford interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposal before the Exchange requires it to become operative. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 31, 2014.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Section I of the Pricing Schedule which pertains to Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY and Section II of the Pricing Schedule which pertains to Multiply Listed Options fees.
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 filing is to amend Section I of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule entitled “Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in SPY” to eliminate the $0.38 Customer Complex Order Rebate for executions in SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Customer Complex Order Rebate for executions in SPY.
The Exchange proposes to reduce the Firm Options Transaction Charges in Penny Pilot Options and non-Penny Pilot Options for electronic simple orders in Apple Inc. (“
The Exchange believes that offering Firms the opportunity to lower the Options Transaction Charge from $0.48 to $0.25 (for Penny Pilot) and from $0.70 to $0.25 (for non-Penny Pilot) for electronic simple orders in these symbols will encourage the transaction of these types of orders on Phlx, thereby increasing liquidity to the benefit of all market participants.
Today, Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a “Monthly Market Maker Cap” of $550,000 for: (i) Electronic and floor Option Transaction Charges; (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e)); and (iii) fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL Order or specifically responding to a PIXL auction. The trading activity of separate Specialist and Market Maker member organizations is aggregated in calculating the Monthly Market Maker Cap if there is Common Ownership between the member organizations.
All dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll and box spread strategy executions (as defined in Section II) are excluded from the Monthly Market Maker Cap. In addition, Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii) have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap are assessed a $0.17 per contract fee in symbols other than AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM and QQQ.
The Exchange now proposes to add EEM, FXI, TWTR, VXX and XLF to the list of symbols to which this $0.17 per contract fee does not apply. The Exchange believes that assessing Specialists and Market Makers no fee in these symbols if they are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap will incentivize Specialists and Market Makers to offer improved bids and offers on the Exchange in these symbols.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the Customer Complex Order Rebate for executions in SPY is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customers, unlike other market participants, already are not assessed Fees for Adding Liquidity or Fees for Removing Liquidity with respect to execution of Complex Orders in SPY. No other market participant receives a rebate for executions of Complex Orders in SPY. The elimination of the rebate will apply to all Customers uniformly.
The Exchange's proposal to reduce the Firm Options Transaction Charges for simple electronic orders from $0.48 per contract (in Penny Pilot options) and $0.70 per contract (in non-Penny Pilot options) to $0.25 per contract in AAPL, BAC, EEM, FB, FXI, IWM, QQQ, TWTR, VXX and XLF is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, because it will allow the Exchange to incentivize Firms to send electronic simple orders in these symbols to the Exchange and because pricing by symbol is a common practice on many U.S. options exchanges as a means to incentive order flow to be sent to an exchange for execution.
Finally, as proposed, Firms will be charged only $0.25 in these symbols
The Exchange desires to incentivize Firms that receive reduced rates at other options exchanges to select Phlx as a venue by offering competitive pricing to these market participants. Such competitive, differentiated pricing exists today on other options exchanges. The Chicago Board of Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) assesses a reduced fee to Clearing Trading Permit Holder Proprietary
The Exchange believes there is nothing impermissible about Phlx offering a discount solely to Firm since this is consistent with the above examples and longstanding differentials between Firm, other broker-dealers and professionals. The options exchanges have differentiated between retail customers and professional customers, broker/dealers clearing in the “Firm” range at The Options Clearing Corp, broker/dealers registered as market makers, away market makers, early-adopting market makers, and many others; and the Commission has permitted price differentiation based on whether an order is processed manually versus electronically. The proposal is consistent with previously accepted pricing proposals accepted by the Commission.
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge a Professional the same rate as a Broker-Dealer, as it can be argued that Professionals have the same technological and information advantages as Broker-Dealers trading for their own account,
The Exchange's proposal to not assess a fee to Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and (ii) have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap in EEM, FXI, TWTR, VXX and XLF as well as in AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM and QQQ is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange desires to incentivize Specialists and Market Makers to transact more options in these symbols and bring additional liquidity to the Exchange. All market participants will benefit from the increased Customer liquidity brought to the Exchange. The Exchange today differentiates pricing by option symbols.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the Customer Complex Order Rebate for executions in SPY will not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition because all Exchange members will be treated uniformly with respect to the elimination of Customer Complex Order Rebate in SPY.
The Exchange's proposal to reduce the Firm Options Transaction Charges for simple electronic orders in Penny Pilot Options from $0.48 per contract (in Penny Pilot options) and $0.70 per contract (in non-Penny Pilot options) to $0.25 per contract in AAPL, BAC, EEM, FB, FXI, IWM, QQQ, TWTR, VXX and XLF will not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition because the $0.25 assessed to Firms under this proposal is similar to rates offered by other options exchanges, chiefly MIAX ($0.25), Chicago Board Options Exchange ($0.35) and NYSE AMEX Options ($0.32).
Specialists and Market Makers will be offered the opportunity to pay no fees, after they have satisfied the obligations related to the Monthly Market Maker Cap, in EEM, FXI, TWTR, VXX and XLF as well as in AAPL, BAC, FB, IWM and QQQ. As noted above Specialists and Market Makers have burdensome quoting obligations to the market that do not apply to Customers, Professionals, Firms and Broker-Dealers. Specialists and Market Makers serve an important role on the Exchange with regard to order interaction and they provide liquidity in the marketplace. Additionally, Specialists and Market Makers incur costs unlike other market participants including, but not limited to, PFOF and other costs associated with market making activities, which results in a higher average cost per execution as compared to Firms, Broker-Dealers and Professionals. The proposed differentiation as between Specialists and Market Makers as compared to other market participants recognizes the differing contributions made to the trading environment on the Exchange by these market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attract Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants. For these reasons noted above, the Exchange does not believe that offering Specialists and Market Makers the opportunity to cap fees in certain symbols imposes an undue burden on competition.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate. Accordingly, the fees that are described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged by other venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.
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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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”),
NASDAQ is filing a proposed rule change to modify fees for the NASDAQ Basic data product under Rule 7047 and to correct an error in the text of Rule 7023 (governing NASDAQ Depth-of-Book data). The proposal is immediately effective and will be implemented as of July 1, 2014.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(a)-(b) No change.
(c) Enterprise License Fees
(1) A Distributor that is also a broker-dealer pays a monthly fee of $25,000 for the right to provide NASDAQ TotalView and NASDAQ OpenView
(2) A Distributor that is also a broker-dealer pays a monthly fee of $100,000 for the right to provide NASDAQ TotalView and NASDAQ OpenView for Display Usage [by Professional and Non-Professional Subscribers] for Internal Distribution, or for External Distribution to
(3) No change.
(d)-(e) No change.
(a) No change.
(b) User Fees
(1)-(4) No change.
(5) As an alternative to
(6) No change.
(c)-(d) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
NASDAQ Basic is a proprietary data product that provides best bid and offer information from the NASDAQ Market Center and last sale transaction reports from the NASDAQ Market Center and from the FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility (“FINRA/NASDAQ TRF”). As such, NASDAQ Basic is a “non-core” product that provides a subset of the “core” quotation and last sale data provided by securities information processors (“SIPs”) under the CQ/CT Plan and the NASDAQ UTP Plan. In this filing, NASDAQ is proposing to modify the existing enterprise license for a broker-dealer (“BD”) to provide NASDAQ Basic to Non-Professional Subscribers with whom it has a brokerage relationship so that it covers distribution through the BD's approved electronic system to both Professional and Non-Professional Subscribers with whom it has a brokerage relationship, subject to certain other conditions described below and in the proposed rule.
NASDAQ Basic contains three separate components, which may be purchased individually or in combination: (i) NASDAQ Basic for NASDAQ, which contains the best bid and offer on the NASDAQ Market Center and last sale transaction reports for NASDAQ and the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF for NASDAQ-listed stocks, (ii) NASDAQ Basic for NYSE, which contains the best bid and offer on the NASDAQ Market Center and last sale transaction reports for NASDAQ and the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF for NYSE-listed
The fee structure for NASDAQ Basic features a fee for Professional Subscribers and a reduced fee for Non-Professional Subscribers.
Distributors
As an alternative to monthly Subscriber fees for Non-Professional Subscribers, NASDAQ currently offers an enterprise license under which a BD may distribute NASDAQ Basic to an unlimited number of Non-Professional Subscribers with whom the BD has a brokerage relationship at a rate of $100,000 per month (as well as the applicable monthly Distributor fee).
Because the focus of the license is to achieve the broad distribution of data to many investors by providing a volume discount, the licensee is also required to distribute NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ and/or NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/NYSE MKT (“NLS”) via the internet pursuant to Rule 7039(b)(2)(B), at a level that allows it to qualify for the $50,000 fee cap provided for in Rule 7039(b). The NLS data feeds contain last sale activity in U.S. equities within the NASDAQ Market Center and reported to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. In certain instances, NLS is distributed under a per Subscriber or per query model, under which a fee is charged for each person that receives the data or for each instance in which a user accesses last sale information about a particular stock. In order to achieve broad distribution of the information to investors, NASDAQ also offers fee models for NLS for distribution via the internet or television, with fees based on the number of Web site visitors or the estimated number of households reached via television. In all instances, the fee payable for NLS is capped at $50,000 per month (plus applicable distributor fees, as discussed below). Although the information included in NLS is also included in NASDAQ Basic, the requirement for internet distribution of NLS would accomplish different transparency goals than distribution of NASDAQ Basic under the license. Specifically, while NASDAQ Basic would be distributed to BD customers via an electronic system for account access, NLS would be distributed broadly via the BD's public Web site, to allow for broad distribution of the information to current customers, potential customers, and interested members of the public and retail investment community.
The licensee would also be required to distribute NASDAQ TotalView and/or NASDAQ OpenView under an enterprise license pursuant to Rule 7023(c)(1). NASDAQ TotalView provides, for NASDAQ-listed securities, all orders and quotes from all NASDAQ members displayed in the NASDAQ Market Center as well as the aggregate size of such orders and quotes at each price level in the execution functionality of the NASDAQ Market Center. NASDAQ OpenView provides the same information as NASDAQ TotalView with respect to stocks listed on exchanges other than NASDAQ. Under the applicable enterprise license, a Distributor that is also a BD pays a monthly fee of $25,000 for the right to provide NASDAQ TotalView and NASDAQ OpenView for distribution to an unlimited number of Non-Professional Subscribers with whom the BD has a brokerage relationship.
The licensee must also pay Distributor Fees for NASDAQ Basic, under Rule 7047(c)(1), or for NASDAQ Last Sale under Rule 7039(c). The applicable fees are $1,500 per month for each product, but the licensee is required to pay the fee only with respect to one of the products. Thus, if a prospective distributor of NASDAQ Basic under the license is already distributing NASDAQ Last Sale and paying the fee with respect to that product, it is not required to pay an additional Distributor Fee.
The existing license for distribution of NASDAQ Basic to Non-Professional Subscribers is not currently being used by any customer. Therefore, the change will neither advantage nor disadvantage current Subscribers. Based on input from the retail investment community and members, NASDAQ has determined that the lack of demand for the license may be attributable to the reluctance of BDs to distinguish among their customers in the manner required to ensure that the data is not distributed to Professional Subscribers. Accordingly, by widening the scope of the license to any Subscriber that is a brokerage customer, NASDAQ believes that the license may allow BDs to achieve wide distribution of NASDAQ Basic, NASDAQ Last Sale, and NASDAQ TotalView/OpenView without the need to distinguish Professional and Non-Professional Subscribers or to pay individual fees for any single Subscriber. Accordingly, although the modified license may reflect a price increase in comparison with the existing license, NASDAQ believes that demand for the license will increase because of the associated reduction of administrative costs and the cost certainty provided by an enterprise license. The proposed Enterprise License will, however, require firms to report the number of Subscribers receiving NASDAQ Basic a minimum of once per calendar year to provide NASDAQ with accurate information to understand the scope of distribution.
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act
[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.
By removing unnecessary regulatory restrictions on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold at all, it follows that the price at which such data is sold should be set by the market as well. NASDAQ Basic exemplifies the optional nature of proprietary data, since, depending on a customer's specific goals, it may opt to purchase core SIP data or only the subset provided through NASDAQ Basic. Moreover, as discussed in more detail below, the price that NASDAQ is able to charge is constrained by the existence of substitutes in the form of SIP data and competitive products offered by other SROs.
The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in
The Court in
Moreover, as discussed in the order approving the initial pilot, and as further discussed below in NASDAQ's Statement on Burden on Competition, data products such as NASDAQ Basic are a means by which exchanges compete to attract order flow. 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 proposed changes do not alter the reasonableness of the fees for NASDAQ Basic. Although the enterprise license will be modified to increase the applicable fee, the modified license will also broaden the range of customers to which a BD can distribute the data, to include Professional Subscribers for which the fees for individual distribution are higher. In addition, the modified fee will reduce the associated administrative cost of the license by eliminating the need for a BD to distinguish between Professionals and Non-Professionals within its customer base. NASDAQ also notes that the individual fees associated with Professional use of both NASDAQ Basic and SIP data recently increased.
The changed license fee also continues to reflect an equitable allocation and continues not to be unfairly discriminatory, because NASDAQ Basic is a voluntary product for which market participants can readily substitute core data feeds that provide additional quotation and last sale information not available through NASDAQ Basic. Accordingly, NASDAQ is constrained from pricing the product in a manner that would be inequitable or unfairly discriminatory. Moreover, the broadening of the license to allow distribution to both Professional and Non-Professional Subscribers reflects an equitable allocation of fees because it increases the usefulness of the license to member firms and thereby has the potential to broaden the distribution of NASDAQ Basic to customers. Similarly, the requirements for licensees also to distribute NLS and NASDAQ TotalView and/or NASDAQ OpenView are reasonable because an enterprise license is in essence a volume discount for BDs that distribute data to a wide extent. Because the goal of the license is to encourage wide distribution at a fee that is more reasonable than per Subscriber fees, NASDAQ believes that is reasonable to offer this fee reduction to members that are, in fact, achieving wide distribution of data to customers and the public. Similarly, NASDAQ believes that the requirements are consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and not unreasonably discriminatory because they limit the volume discount to those members that can both benefit from a fee cap due to their scope of distribution and that are achieving the goal of providing customers and the public with a range of market data.
The proposed changes to the text of Rule 7023 are consistent with the Act because they are intended solely to correct clearly erroneous language in the text of the rule, and therefore do not modify the fees payable by BDs that obtain subscriptions through the applicable enterprise licenses thereunder. Accordingly, the changes are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they serve to promote clarity but do not alter the rights or obligations of Subscribers.
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. NASDAQ's ability to price NASDAQ Basic is constrained by (1) competition among exchanges, other trading platforms, and TRFs that compete with each other in a variety of dimensions; (2) the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed consolidated data; and (3) the inherent contestability of the market for proprietary data.
The market for proprietary data products 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 TRF data component of NASDAQ Basic, 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 executions and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is
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 NASDAQ Basic that may be distributed through market data vendors, the vendors provide price discipline for proprietary data products because they control a means of access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Thomson 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 Charles 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 NASDAQ Basic 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 data through their brokerage firm or other distribution sources. Conversely, the value of such products to distributors and investors decreases if order flow falls, because the products contain less content.
Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is impossible to create exchange data without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products. Similarly, the inclusion of trade reporting data in a product such as NASDAQ Basic may assist in attracting customers to the product, thereby assisting in covering the additional costs associated with operating and regulating a TRF.
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
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 unreasonable 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, and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
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, BATS, and 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 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 NASDAQ Basic, the data provided through that product appears both in (i) real-time core data products offered by the SIPs for a fee, and (ii) free SIP data products with a 15-minute time delay, and finds a close substitute in similar 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 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, Markit aggregates and disseminates data from over 50 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 substantial pricing discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of the consolidated data stream. Because consolidated data contains marketwide information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for proprietary data (such as quotation and last sale data) that is simply a subset of the consolidated data. The availability 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.
The competitive nature of the market for non-core “sub-set” products such as NASDAQ Basic is borne out by the performance of the market. In May 2008, the internet portal Yahoo! began offering its Web site viewers real-time last sale data (as well as best quote data) provided by BATS. In June 2008, NASDAQ launched NLS, which was initially subject to an “enterprise cap” of $100,000 for customers receiving only one of the NLS products, and $150,000 for customers receiving both products. The majority of NASDAQ's sales were at
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'.”
Competition has also driven NASDAQ continually to improve its data offerings and to cater to customers' data needs. The NASDAQ Basic product itself is a product of this competition, offering a subset of core data to users that may not wish to receive or pay for all consolidated data. The existence of numerous alternatives to NASDAQ Basic, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources ensures that NASDAQ cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, without losing business to these alternatives. Accordingly, NASDAQ believes that the acceptance of the NASDAQ Basic product in the marketplace demonstrates the consistency of these fees with applicable statutory standards. Likewise, the fee changes proposed herein will be subject to these same competitive forces. If the proposed change is deemed to result in an excessive fee, only NASDAQ will suffer, since its customers will merely migrate to competitive alternatives.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 31, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission initially received two comment letters on the Proposal.
On April 7, 2014, the Commission sought additional comment on the proposed rule change and extended the time period for Commission action to July 17, 2014.
Under the Phlx's existing Customer Rebate Program in its Pricing Schedule, the Exchange pays tiered rebates to members for executions of customer option orders on Phlx. The different tiers are based on a member organization's (and its affiliates under common ownership)
Phlx proposed amending its Customer Rebate Program in two ways. First, the Proposal would allow a Phlx member organization to aggregate its (and its affiliates under common ownership) customer volume in multiply-listed options that is electronically delivered and executed across Phlx and its two affiliated NASDAQ OMX exchanges, The NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”), and/or NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (“BX Options”) (collectively, the “NASDAQ OMX exchanges”), for purposes of determining whether it meets the volume tiers on Phlx. Second, the Proposal would increase the customer rebates offered for these transactions executed on Phlx by $0.02 per contract,
The Exchange believes the additional rebate would lower costs to transact business on Phlx and increase the volume of customer orders directed to and executed on Phlx, to the benefit of all market participants on Phlx.
As noted above, the Commission received thirteen comment letters on the proposed rule change,
Several commenters who do not support the Proposal argue that it is inconsistent with the statutory language of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a registered national securities exchange provide for “the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
The commenter that supports the Proposal believes that if an exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposed fees, the exchange's fees are presumed to be equitable, fair, reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory.
Phlx also responds to the commenters opposing the Proposal by arguing that the phrase “persons using its facilities” in Section 6(b)(4) of the Act only refers to one category of market participant that is bound by an exchange's rules.
Several commenters believe the Proposal is inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires the rules of a national securities exchange to, among other things, not be “designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.”
The commenter that supports the Proposal argues that the Proposal is not unfairly discriminatory, noting that the Proposal does not require a Phlx member to become a member of NOM or BX Options to meet the rebate eligibility threshold.
In response to commenters opposing the Proposal, Phlx asserts that the Proposal is not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed rebate is available on equal terms to any market participant that may qualify for the rebate by executing the required volume on Phlx alone.
One commenter, MIAX, believes that the Proposal would cause “disparate treatment” between two similarly positioned market participants on Phlx.
Phlx does not directly respond to MIAX's example, but asserts that the MIAX example of price differentiation between two market participants who trade the same volume on Phlx does not mean that a rebate is unfairly discriminatory because “
Two commenters also note that the ArcaBook Order
Phlx disagrees with commenters who assert that the ArcaBook Order demonstrates that exchanges cannot cooperate with each other on fees.
One commenter argues that Phlx has not provided any support that additional volume transacted at either NOM or BX Options generates efficiencies at Phlx that would justify, on efficiency grounds, the enhanced rebates.
Phlx disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that the enhanced rebate is not an efficiency-based volume discount and believes that the commenter does not contend that the Proposal constitutes unfair discrimination under the Act.
Several commenters oppose the proposed rebate because they believe it is inconsistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange “not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate” in furtherance of the Act.
In response, Phlx states its belief that a single-exchange operator can compete by increasing its own volume-based rebate or offering its own differentiated products, even if those services do not precisely match those offered by Phlx or any other exchange.
Phlx also argues that single market exchanges can compete with the Proposal by registering multiple exchanges and offering competing multi-exchange fees.
The commenter that supports the Proposal believes that the Proposal would not place any undue burden on competition.
Phlx argues that the Proposal does not constitute anti-competitive tying because Phlx member organizations are not required to use NOM or BX Options to receive the enhanced rebate.
In its response, Phlx argues that the Proposal is simply a price cut and there is no evidence that low prices harm competition.
In its response to the request for additional comment in the Extension Notice, Phlx states that it does not believe the Proposal will have a material effect on the structure of the options or equities markets or lead to a change in the total number of options exchanges.
Moreover, Phlx believes that the Proposal should not be held to violate the Act merely because it creates an incentive for another market operator to open a new exchange.
Finally, Phlx argues that the Commission's concern over the expansion of the number of exchanges presupposes that the Proposal will be successful and encourage other exchanges to respond by offering similar enhanced rebates to investors.
One commenter responded to the request for additional comment in the Extension Notice arguing that the Proposal will lead to an increase in the number of exchange registrations resulting in unnecessary market fragmentation.
Furthermore, two commenters raised concern about the potential impact of the Proposal on a market-wide basis. One commenter believes that the Proposal imposes obstacles to the development of a national market system for securities and that ignoring the precedent in the ArcaBook Order would require a major change to the underlying assumptions regarding a national market system, a change that could have significant unintended consequences.
Under Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act, the Commission shall approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to such organization.
After careful consideration, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with: (1) Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange “provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities;”
In the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission highlighted the statutory provisions referenced above, and noted that the Commission intended to further assess whether this additional customer rebate on Phlx, which is based on execution volume across the NASDAQ OMX exchanges, is consistent with the statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange under the Act.
To evaluate whether a fee, such as Phlx's proposed rebate, is consistent with the Act, the Commission applies a “market-based approach.”
As discussed more fully below and as explained in the ArcaBook Order, the Commission historically has reviewed whether a proposed exchange rule is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act on an exchange-by-exchange basis—that is, an exchange's proposed rule change is analyzed at the individual level of the registered securities exchange and not at the group level of exchanges.
Section 6 of the Exchange Act . . . prohibits a national securities exchange from adopting rules that are designed to permit unfair discrimination among its customers or that would impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition. All of these requirements are applied at the level of the individual registered securities exchange, not at the group level of exchanges that are under common control. In particular, a proposed exchange rule must stand or fall based, among other things, on the interests of customers, issuers, broker-dealers, and other persons using the facility of that exchange.
Specifically, the Commission believes that providing a rebate for transactions on Phlx based on the aggregate amount of customer volume transacted across all three of the NASDAQ OMX exchanges would be inconsistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act
As outlined above, the Proposal would allow market participants to aggregate volume across Phlx, NOM, and BX Options for purposes of determining whether they meet the volume tiers on Phlx. However, the Commission historically has reviewed whether a proposed exchange rule is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act on an exchange-by-exchange basis.
Thus, as articulated by the Commission in the ArcaBook Order, the Commission has analyzed whether this proposed rule change is consistent with the Act at the level of the individual registered securities exchange—not the group level. In applying this principle, it is notable that the Proposal could result in the Exchange charging different fees to Phlx members that are similarly situated and transact the same amount and type (electronically delivered) of customer volume on the Phlx exchange. For example, a Phlx member who transacts 2.3% of national customer volume in multiply-listed options in a month on Phlx would not qualify for the additional rebate. However, another Phlx member who also transacts 2.3% of national customer volume in multiply-listed options in a month on Phlx and who transacts an additional 0.5% of national customer volume in multiply-listed options in a month on NOM would qualify for the rebate. Further, given the second Phlx member's customer volume transacted on NOM, this second Phlx member need only transact 2.0% of national customer volume in multiply-listed options in that month on Phlx to qualify for the enhanced rebate.
Thus, under the Proposal, a Phlx member that transacts less national customer volume in multiply-listed options in a month on Phlx than other members would qualify for the additional proposed rebate while those other Phlx members with higher national customer volume percentages on Phlx—the exchange proposing the rebate—would not qualify. The Commission does not believe that the arguments put forth by Phlx provide a basis consistent with the Act as to why this disparity is equitable or not unfairly discriminatory when analyzing the treatment of Phlx members using the Phlx exchange.
Phlx argues that the Proposal provides for the equitable allocations of fees because the proposed rebate is limited to market participants who transact business on Phlx and only applies to orders actually executed on the Phlx exchange.
Phlx believes that the resulting lower costs will incentivize market participants to increase the amount of customer orders sent to the Exchange, thereby enhancing the quality of its markets by narrowing quote spreads and further increasing customer volume to Phlx.
Finally, Phlx argues that the proposed rebate is structured as a volume-based discount and is similar to the existing rebate tiers in Section B of the Pricing Schedule, which the Commission has previously accepted.
Given the principle articulated by the Commission in its ArcaBook Order, and based on the record, the Commission therefore does not believe that the proposed fee structure, which as commenters noted, would allow the Exchange to charge different fees to Phlx members that are similarly situated and transact the same amount and type of customer volume on Phlx, is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act which, requires that the rules of a registered national securities exchange “provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.”
Phlx also argues that the Proposal is not unfairly discriminatory under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, asserting that because any market participant could qualify for the proposed rebate by transacting the required amount of customer volume on Phlx alone and thus market participants are not required to become members of NASDAQ OMX exchanges to qualify for the proposed rebate.
Phlx argues that market participants can easily register as members of Phlx and its affiliated exchanges at minimal cost, which will expand the pool of market participants who can receive the rebate.
In analyzing this Proposal and in making its determination to disapprove the rule change, the Commission has considered whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
Additionally, commenters assert that the Proposal would lead to adverse effects on competition by placing burdens on competing exchanges
The Commission has considered whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation, but, as discussed above, the Commission does not find that the Proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission does not find that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its Supplemental Liquidity Providers Pilot (“SLP Pilot” or “Pilot”) (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its SLP Pilot,
In October 2008, the NYSE implemented significant changes to its market rules, execution technology and the rights and obligations of its market participants all of which were designed to improve execution quality on the Exchange. These changes are all elements of the Exchange's enhanced market model referred to as the “New Market Model” (“NMM Pilot”).
As part of the NMM Pilot, NYSE eliminated the function of specialists on the Exchange creating a new category of market participant, the Designated
The SLP Pilot is scheduled to end operation on July 31, 2014 or such earlier time as the Commission may determine to make the rules permanent. The Exchange is currently preparing a rule filing seeking permission to make the SLP Pilot permanent, but does not expect that filing to be completed and approved by the Commission before July 31, 2014.
The NYSE established the SLP Pilot to provide incentives for quoting, to enhance competition among the existing group of liquidity providers, including the DMMs, and add new competitive market participants. The Exchange believes that the SLP Pilot, in coordination with the NMM Pilot, allows the Exchange to provide its market participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage the addition of liquidity, facilitate the trading of larger orders more efficiently and operates to reward aggressive liquidity providers. As such, the Exchange believes that the rules governing the SLP Pilot (Rule 107B) should be made permanent.
Through this filing the Exchange seeks to extend the current operation of the SLP Pilot until December 31, 2014, in order to allow the Exchange to formally submit a filing to the Commission to convert the SLP Pilot rule to a permanent rule.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it seeks to extend a pilot program that has already been approved by the Commission. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to facilitate transactions in securities and to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system because the SLP Pilot provides its market participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage the addition of liquidity and operates to reward aggressive liquidity providers. Moreover, requesting an extension of the SLP Pilot will permit adequate time for: (i) The Exchange to prepare and submit a filing to make the rules governing the SLP Pilot permanent; (ii) public notice and comment; and (iii) completion of the 19b-4 approval process. Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting the services it offers and the requirements it imposes to remain competitive with other U.S. equity exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would allow the pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from the temporary interruption in the pilot program. Further, the Commission notes that because the proposed rule change was filed on an immediately effective basis on July 3, 2014, the fact that the current pilot program does not expire until July 31, 2014 will afford interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposal before the Exchange requires it to become operative. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 31, 2014.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 31, 2014, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”)) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
On March 14, 2014, FINRA extended the time period in which the Commission must approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change to May 20, 2014.
On May 20, 2014, the Commission issued an order instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
On July 11, 2014, FINRA filed a letter responding to comments and Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.
As further described in the Notice of Filing, FINRA is proposing to amend (1) NASD Rule 2340 (Customer Account Statements) to modify the requirements relating to the inclusion of a per share estimated value for unlisted DPP and REIT securities on a customer account statement; and (2) FINRA Rule 2310 (Direct Participation Programs) to modify the requirements applicable to members' participation in a public offering of unlisted DPP or REIT securities.
In response to comments received by the Commission, FINRA is proposing to amend the proposed rule change as follows:
1. FINRA is revising proposed NASD Rule 2340(c) to require general securities members to include in customer account statements a per share estimated value for a DPP or REIT security developed in a manner reasonably designed to ensure that the per share estimated value is reliable. Thus, FINRA is eliminating the voluntary or “not priced” option originally proposed. Moreover, FINRA is revising proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(1) to state that the per share estimated value will be deemed to have been developed in a manner reasonably designed to ensure that it is reliable if the member uses one of the two specified methodologies.
2. FINRA is eliminating the “no reason to believe that the per share estimated value is unreliable” standard from the general provision in proposed NASD Rule 2340(c). As revised, proposed NASD Rule 2340(c) would require disclosure of valuations and proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(1) would deem valuations calculated under the two defined methodologies to have been developed in a manner reasonably designed to ensure that they are reliable. As a result, FINRA believes the “no reason to believe that the per share estimated value is unreliable” standard in the general provision in proposed NASD Rule 2340(c) is not necessary.
3. FINRA is removing the “over distribution” deduction from the per share estimated value in the “net investment” methodology in proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(1)(A)(ii) and replacing it with enhanced disclosure of “over distribution” on customer account statements. As revised, proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(2)(A) would require account statements that include a “net investment” per share estimated value for a DPP or REIT security to disclose, if applicable, prominently and in proximity to disclosure of distributions and the per share estimated value the following: “IMPORTANT—Part of your distribution includes a return of capital. Any distribution that represents a return of capital reduces the estimated per share value shown on your account statement.”
4. FINRA is revising the “net investment” methodology in proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(1)(A) to make clear that firms may use the maximum offering percentage when the issuer provides a range of amounts available for investment unless the member has reason to believe that such percentage is unreliable, in which case the member must use the minimum offering percentage.
5. FINRA is modifying the “net investment” methodology in proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(1)(A) to lengthen the time period in which members may use the “net investment” methodology. The proposed rule change, as amended, would allow “net investment” values to be included on customer account statements at any time before 150 days following the second anniversary of breaking escrow. FINRA is making a parallel change to proposed FINRA Rule 2310(b)(5)(B)(i).
6. FINRA is modifying proposed FINRA Rule 2310(b)(5)(B) to clarify issuer disclosure requirements, including the elimination of the requirement to identify the service used to obtain a valuation, and require more frequent valuations. As revised, proposed FINRA Rule 2310(b)(5)(D)(i) would require that the per share estimated value be based on valuations of the assets and liabilities of the DPP or REIT performed at least annually by, or with the material assistance or confirmation of, a third-party valuation expert or service.
7. FINRA is modifying proposed FINRA Rule 2310(b)(5) to specifically except DPPs that are subject to the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“1940 Act”) from the requirements under the rule in recognition that business development companies that fall under the definition of DPP are subject to an existing regulatory framework under the 1940 Act for determining and publishing net asset value on a regular basis. In addition, FINRA is revising proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(1)(B) to state, in the case of DPPs subject to the 1940 Act, the appraised value methodology under Rule 2340(c)(1)(B) shall be consistent with the valuation requirements of the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder.
8. FINRA is extending the effective date of the proposed rule change to no earlier than 18 months following Commission approval. FINRA believes this extended timeframe will give industry participants time to make adjustments to product structures and any necessary operational changes.
FINRA is also proposing the following changes:
1. FINRA is proposing to change the title of NASD Rule 2340(c) from “Unlisted DPP/REIT Securities” to “DPP and Unlisted REIT Securities” to more accurately reflect the types of securities that are subject to the rule. FINRA also is changing the title of proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(1)(B) from “independent valuation” to “appraised value” to more accurately reflect the per share estimated value methodology.
2. FINRA is revising the “net investment” methodology in proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(1)(A)(i) to clarify that “another equivalent disclosure” means “another equivalent disclosure that reflects the estimated percentage deduction from the aggregate dollar amount of securities registered for sale to the public of sales commissions, dealer manager fees, and estimated issuer offering and organization expenses.”
3. FINRA is modifying the “appraised value” methodology to clarify in proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(1)(B) that the member may include a per share estimated value reflecting an appraised valuation disclosed in the Issuer Report based on the valuations of the assets and liabilities of the DPP or REIT performed at least annually by, or with the material assistance or confirmation of, a third-party valuation expert or service and derived from a methodology that conforms to standard industry practice.
4. FINRA is eliminating the required disclosures in proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(2)(A)(i) regarding characteristics of the per share estimated value and proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(2)(B) on the “not priced” option. FINRA believes that streamlined disclosure will be more effective than also requiring an account statement to describe per share estimated value, its source, and the method by which it was developed, as would have been required under the originally proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(2)(A)(i). In addition, FINRA believes the disclosures in proposed NASD Rule 2340(c)(2)(B) are no longer necessary because the revised proposal requires a general securities member to include in a customer account statement a per share estimated value of a DPP or REIT security.
5. FINRA is modifying proposed FINRA Rule 2310(b)(5) to state that a member shall not participate in a public offering of the securities of a DPP that is not subject to the requirements of the 1940 Act or of a REIT unless they meet the requirements under the rule. In addition, FINRA is revising proposed FINRA Rule 2310(b)(5)(A) to clarify that the issuer of the DPP or REIT must agree to disclose a per share estimated value of the DPP or REIT security, developed in a manner reasonably designed to ensure it is reliable, in the DPP or REIT periodic reports filed pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act.
6. FINRA is clarifying in proposed FINRA Rule 2310(b)(5)(D)(iii) that the valuation must be accompanied by a written opinion or report by the issuer, delivered at least annually to the broker-dealer, that explains the scope of the review, the methodology used to develop the valuation or valuations, and the basis for the value or values reported.
7. FINRA is making a technical change to delete FINRA Rule 5110(f)(2)(L) instead of the originally proposed deletion of FINRA Rule 5110(f)(2)(M) because FINRA renumbered the subparagraphs of FINRA Rule 5110(f)(2) after the filing of the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2014-006 and should be submitted on or before August 12, 2014.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its Supplemental Liquidity Providers Pilot (“SLP Pilot” or “Pilot”) (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its SLP Pilot,
In October 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) implemented significant changes to its market rules, execution technology and the rights and obligations of its market participants all of which were designed to improve execution quality on the NYSE. These changes were all elements of the NYSE's and the Exchange's enhanced market model referred to as the “New Market Model” (“NMM Pilot”).
As part of the NMM Pilot, NYSE eliminated the function of specialists on the Exchange creating a new category of market participant, the Designated Market Maker or “DMM.”
The NYSE adopted NYSE Rule 107B governing SLPs as a six-month pilot program commencing in November 2008. This NYSE pilot has been extended several times, most recently to July 31, 2014.
The Exchange established the SLP Pilot to provide incentives for quoting, to enhance competition among the existing group of liquidity providers, including the DMMs, and add new competitive market participants. NYSE MKT Rule 107B—Equities is based on NYSE Rule 107B. NYSE MKT Rule 107B—Equities was filed with the Commission on December 30, 2009, as a “me too” filing for immediate effectiveness as a pilot program.
The Exchange believes that the SLP Pilot, in coordination with the NMM Pilot and the NYSE SLP Pilot, allows the Exchange to provide its market participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage the addition of liquidity, facilitate the trading of larger orders more efficiently and operates to reward aggressive liquidity providers. As such, the Exchange believes that the rules governing the SLP Pilot (NYSE MKT Rule 107B—Equities) should be made permanent.
Through this filing the Exchange seeks to extend the current operation of the SLP Pilot until December 31, 2014, in order to allow the Exchange to formally submit a filing to the Commission to convert the SLP Pilot rule to a permanent rule. The Exchange is currently preparing a rule filing seeking permission to make the Exchange's SLP Pilot permanent, but does not expect that filing to be
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it seeks to extend a pilot program that has already been approved by the Commission. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to facilitate transactions in securities and to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system because the SLP Pilot provides its market participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage the addition of liquidity and operates to reward aggressive liquidity providers. Moreover, requesting an extension of the SLP Pilot will permit adequate time for: (i) The Exchange to prepare and submit a filing to make the rules governing the SLP Pilot permanent; (ii) public notice and comment; and (iii) completion of the 19b-4 approval process. Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting the services it offers and the requirements it imposes to remain competitive with other U.S. equity exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would allow the pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from the temporary interruption in the pilot program. Further, the Commission notes that because the proposed rule change was filed on an immediately effective basis on July 3, 2014, the fact that the current pilot program does not expire until July 31, 2014 will afford interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposal before the Exchange requires it to become operative. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 31, 2014.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE MKT Rule 500—Equities to extend the operation of the pilot program that allows “UTP Securities” to be traded on the Exchange pursuant to a grant of unlisted trading privileges. The pilot program is currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2014; the Exchange proposes to extend it until the earlier of Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) approval to make such pilot permanent or December 31, 2014. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE MKT Rule 500—Equities to extend the operation of the pilot program that allows “UTP Securities” to be traded on the Exchange pursuant to a grant of unlisted trading privileges.
NYSE MKT Rules 500-525—Equities, as a pilot program, govern the trading of any “UTP Securities” on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP Pilot Program”).
The UTP Pilot Program includes any security, other than a security that is listed on the Exchange, that (i) is designated as an “eligible security”
The Exchange notes that its New Market Model Pilot (“NMM Pilot”), which, among other things, eliminated the function of specialists on the Exchange and created a new category of market participant, the Designated Market Maker (“DMM”),
Extension of the UTP Pilot Program in tandem with the NMM Pilot, both from July 31, 2014 until the earlier of Commission approval to make such pilots permanent or December 31, 2014, will provide for the uninterrupted trading of UTP Securities on the Exchange on an unlisted trading privileges basis and thus continue to encourage the additional utilization of, and interaction with, the Exchange, and provide market participants with improved price discovery, increased liquidity, more competitive quotes and greater price improvement for UTP Securities.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Exchange believes that its proposal to extend the UTP Pilot Program is consistent with (i) Section 6(b) of the Act,
Specifically, the Exchange believes that extending the UTP Pilot Program would provide for the uninterrupted trading of UTP Securities on the Exchange on an unlisted trading privileges basis and thus continue to encourage the additional utilization of, and interaction with, the Exchange, thereby providing market participants with additional price discovery, increased liquidity, more competitive quotes and potentially greater price improvement for UTP Securities. Additionally, under the UTP Pilot Program, UTP Securities trade on the Exchange pursuant to rules governing the trading of Exchange-Listed securities that previously have been approved by the Commission. Accordingly, this proposed rule change would permit the Exchange to extend the effectiveness of the UTP Pilot Program in tandem with the NMM Pilot, which the Exchange has similarly proposed to extend until the earlier of Commission approval to make such pilot permanent or December 31, 2014.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting the services it offers and the requirements it imposes to remain competitive with other U.S. equity exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would allow the pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from the temporary interruption in the pilot program. Further, the Commission notes that because the proposed rule change was filed on an immediately effective basis on July 3, 2014, the fact that the current pilot program does not expire until July 31, 2014 will afford interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposal before the Exchange requires it to become operative. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative July 31, 2014.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its New Market Model Pilot, currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2014, until the earlier of Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) approval to make such pilot permanent or December 31, 2014. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its New Market Model Pilot (“NMM Pilot”),
The Exchange notes that parallel changes are proposed to be made to the rules of NYSE MKT LLC.
In October 2008, the NYSE implemented significant changes to its market rules, execution technology and the rights and obligations of its market participants all of which were designed to improve execution quality on the Exchange. These changes are all elements of the Exchange's enhanced market model. Certain of the enhanced market model changes were implemented through a pilot program.
As part of the NMM Pilot, NYSE eliminated the function of specialists on the Exchange creating a new category of market participant, the Designated Market Maker or DMM.
In addition, the Exchange implemented a system change that allowed DMMs to create a schedule of additional non-displayed liquidity at various price points where the DMM is willing to interact with interest and provide price improvement to orders in the Exchange's system. This schedule is known as the DMM Capital Commitment Schedule (“CCS”).
The NMM Pilot further modified the logic for allocating executed shares among market participants having trading interest at a price point upon execution of incoming orders. The modified logic rewards displayed orders that establish the Exchange's BBO. During the operation of the NMM Pilot, orders or portions thereof that establish priority
The NMM Pilot was originally scheduled to end operation on October 1, 2009, or such earlier time as the Commission may determine to make the rules permanent. The Exchange filed to extend the operation of the Pilot on several occasions in order to prepare a rule filing seeking permission to make the above described changes permanent.
The NYSE established the NMM Pilot to provide incentives for quoting, to enhance competition among the existing group of liquidity providers and to add a new competitive market participant. The Exchange believes that the NMM Pilot allows the Exchange to provide its market participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage the addition of liquidity, facilitate the trading of larger orders more efficiently and operates to reward aggressive liquidity providers. As such, the Exchange believes that the rules governing the NMM Pilot should be made permanent. Through this filing the Exchange seeks to extend the current operation of the NMM Pilot until December 31, 2014, in order to allow the Exchange time to formally submit a filing to the Commission to convert the pilot rules to permanent rules.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it seeks to extend a pilot program that has already been approved by the Commission. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to facilitate transactions in securities and to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system because the NMM Pilot provides its market participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage the addition of liquidity, facilitate the trading of larger orders more efficiently and operates to reward aggressive liquidity providers. Moreover, requesting an extension of the NMM Pilot will permit adequate time for: (i) The Exchange to prepare and submit a filing to make the rules governing the NMM Pilot permanent; (ii) public notice and comment; and (iii) completion of the 19b-4 approval process. Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting the services it offers and the requirements it imposes to remain competitive with other U.S. equity exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would allow the pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from the temporary interruption in the pilot program. Further, the Commission notes that because the proposed rule change was filed on an immediately effective basis on July 3, 2014, the fact that the current pilot program does not expire until July 31, 2014 will afford interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposal before the Exchange requires it to become operative. For this reason, the Commission designates the
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its New Market Model Pilot, currently scheduled to expire on July 31, 2014, until the earlier of Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) approval to make such pilot permanent or December 31, 2014. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its New Market Model Pilot (“NMM Pilot”) that was adopted pursuant to its merger with the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”).
The Exchange notes that parallel changes are proposed to be made to the rules of NYSE.
In December 2008, the Exchange implemented significant changes to its equities market rules, execution technology and the rights and obligations of its equities market participants all of which were designed to improve execution quality on the Exchange. These changes are all elements of the Exchange's enhanced market model that it implemented through the NMM Pilot.
As part of the NMM Pilot, the Exchange eliminated the function of equity specialists on the Exchange creating a new category of market participant, the Designated Market Maker or DMM.
In addition, the Exchange implemented a system change that allowed DMMs to create a schedule of additional non-displayed liquidity at various price points where the DMM is willing to interact with interest and provide price improvement to orders in the Exchange's system. This schedule is known as the DMM Capital Commitment Schedule (“CCS”).
The NMM Pilot further modified the logic for allocating executed shares among market participants having trading interest at a price point upon execution of incoming orders. The modified logic rewards displayed orders that establish the Exchange's BBO. During the operation of the NMM Pilot, orders or portions thereof that establish priority
The NMM Pilot was originally scheduled to end operation on October 1, 2009, or such earlier time as the Commission may determine to make the rules permanent. The Exchange filed to extend the operation of the Pilot on several occasions
The Exchange established the NMM Pilot to provide incentives for quoting, to enhance competition among the existing group of liquidity providers and to add a new competitive market participant. The Exchange believes that the NMM Pilot allows the Exchange to provide its market participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage the addition of liquidity, facilitate the trading of larger orders more efficiently and operates to reward aggressive liquidity providers. As such, the Exchange believes that the rules governing the NMM Pilot should be made permanent. Through this filing the Exchange seeks to extend the current operation of the NMM Pilot until December 31, 2014, in order to allow the Exchange time to formally submit a filing to the Commission to convert the pilot rules to permanent rules.
The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it seeks to extend a pilot program that has already been approved by the Commission. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to facilitate transactions in securities and to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system because the NMM Pilot provides its market participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage the addition of liquidity, facilitate the trading of larger orders more efficiently and operates to reward aggressive liquidity providers. Moreover, requesting an extension of the NMM Pilot will permit adequate time for: (i) The Exchange to prepare and submit a filing to make the rules governing the NMM Pilot permanent; (ii) public notice and comment; and (iii) completion of the 19b-4 approval process. Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting the services it offers and the requirements it imposes to remain competitive with other U.S. equity exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver would allow the pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from the temporary interruption in the pilot program. Further, the Commission notes that because the proposed rule change was filed on an immediately effective basis on July 3, 2014, the fact that the current pilot program does not expire until July 31, 2014 will afford interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposal before the Exchange requires it to become operative. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 31, 2014.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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 Exchange proposes to merge New York Block Exchange LLC (the “Company”) into NYSE (the “Merger”) and, effective as of the consummation of the Merger, delete the text of the Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “LLC Agreement”) of the Company. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to merge the Company into NYSE and, effective as of the consummation of the Merger, delete the text of the LLC Agreement.
On January 22, 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) approved on a pilot basis the governance structure proposed by the Exchange with respect to the New York Block Exchange (“NYBX”), an electronic trading facility of the Exchange for NYSE-listed securities that was established by means of the Company, as a joint venture between the Exchange and BIDS Holdings L.P. (“BIDS Holdings”).
The foregoing ownership arrangements would have violated NYSE Rule 2B without an exception from the Commission.
The Exchange ceased operating NYBX on February 28, 2013 because, after years of operations, the facility did not garner enough volume to achieve critical mass and did not have strong customer support.
On June 17, 2014, the Company redeemed the membership interest of BIDS Holdings for consideration of $1.00. As a result, NYSE is now the sole member of the Company.
Because NYBX is no longer operating, NYSE proposes to merge the Company into NYSE in the Merger and repeal the text of the LLC Agreement in its entirety, effective as of the consummation of the Merger.
The Company is a limited liability company formed and validly existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. NYSE is a limited liability company organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of New York. The Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “DLLCA”) and the New York Limited Liability Company Law (the “NYLLCL”) each permits a limited liability company formed and existing under the DLLCA to merge with and
Following the effective date of this rule filing, the parties will execute the merger agreement. The certificates of merger will be filed in the State of Delaware and the State of New York, at which time the Company will cease to exist and NYSE will be the sole surviving company.
Article 13, Section 13.1 of the LLC Agreement requires any amendment to or repeal of the LLC Agreement to be either filed with, or filed with and approved by, the Commission under Section 19 of the Act before it is effective. Because NYBX has already ceased operating and the Exchange has already submitted two immediately effective proposed rule changes in connection therewith, and because the Company will no longer exist upon consummation of the Merger, the Exchange believes that the deletion of the text of the LLC Agreement should be immediately effective as of the consummation of the Merger.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue, but rather would eliminate an obsolete governing document for a corporate entity that no longer has an operational purpose and thus will be eliminated via the Merger.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange stated that the proposed rule change will not affect investors or the public interest because NYBX already ceased operating in February 2013 and no public comments have been received about the cessation. In addition, the Exchange stated that permitting the proposed rule change will help the Exchange avoid unnecessary expenses for a corporate entity that is no longer operating. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change raises no novel issues. Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, because it helps avoid investor confusion by eliminating an obsolete governing document for a corporation that no longer has an operational purpose and will be eliminated via the Merger. The Commission, therefore, waives the 30-day operative delay requirement and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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)
1. The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the Cambria Global Momentum ETF under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (“Managed Fund Shares”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (”Shares”) of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares
Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio. In addition, Commentary .06 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to preserve and grow capital from investments in the U.S. and foreign equity, fixed income, commodity and currency markets, independent of market direction. The Fund will be considered a “fund of funds” that seeks to achieve its investment objective by primarily investing in other 1940 Act-registered exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) and other exchange traded products (“ETPs”) including, but not limited to, exchange-traded notes (“ETNs”),
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to preserve and grow capital by producing absolute returns with reduced volatility and manageable risk and drawdowns. The Fund will invest in Underlying Vehicles spanning all the major world asset classes including equities, bonds (including high yield bonds, which are commonly referred to as “junk bonds”), real estate, derivatives, commodities, and currencies. The Adviser will actively manage the Fund's portfolio utilizing a quantitative strategy with risk management controls in an attempt to protect capital. Through Underlying Vehicles, the Fund may have exposure to companies in any industry and of any market capitalization. Under normal market conditions, the Fund expects to invest at least 40% of its net assets, including through investments in Underlying Vehicles, in securities of issuers located in at least three different countries (including the United States).
Through Underlying Vehicles, the Fund may invest in shares of real estate investment trusts (“REITs”), which are pooled investment vehicles that invest primarily in real estate or real estate-related loans and trade on a U.S. exchange.
While, under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in Underlying Vehicles, as described above, the Fund may invest its remaining 20% of net assets in other securities and financial instruments, other than Underlying Vehicles, including futures contracts, cash and cash equivalents, as described below.
Exchange-Traded Equity Securities. The Fund may invest in exchange-traded common stocks. The Fund also may invest in foreign securities by purchasing “Depositary Receipts”, including American Depositary Receipts (“ADRs”), European Depositary Receipts (“EDRs”) and Global Depositary Receipts (“GDRs”) or other securities convertible into securities of issuers based in foreign countries. These securities may not necessarily be denominated in the same currency as the securities which they represent.
With respect to its exchange-traded equity securities investments, the Fund will normally invest in equity securities that are listed and traded on a U.S. exchange or in markets that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) or parties to a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with the Exchange. In any case, not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in the aggregate invested in exchange-traded equity securities will consist of equity securities whose principal market is not a member of ISG or a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
Fixed Income Securities. The Fund may invest in debt and other fixed income securities, as described below. Debt and other fixed income securities include fixed and floating rate securities of any maturity. Fixed rate securities pay a specified rate of interest or dividends. Floating rate securities pay a rate that is adjusted periodically by reference to a specified index or market rate. Fixed and floating rate securities
The Fund may invest in indexed bonds, which are a type of fixed income security whose principal value and/or interest rate is adjusted periodically according to a specified instrument, index, or other statistic (
The Fund may invest in securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its agencies, instrumentalities, and political subdivisions
The Fund may invest in fixed income securities of any credit quality, from investment grade securities to high yield securities. Investment grade securities are securities rated in one of the four highest rating categories by at least two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (“Rating Organizations”) rating that security, such as Standard & Poor's Ratings Services (“Standard & Poor's”) or Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody's”), or rated in one of the four highest rating categories by one Rating Organization if it is the only Rating Organization rating that security, or unrated, if deemed to be of comparable quality
For securities that carry a rating assigned by a Rating Organization, Cambria will use the highest rating assigned by the Rating Organization to determine a security's credit rating. Commercial paper must be rated at least “A-1” or equivalent by a Rating Organization. Corporate debt obligations must be rated at least “B-”or equivalent by a Rating Organization. For securities that are not rated by a Rating Organization, Cambria's internal credit rating will apply and be subject to equivalent rating minimums.
Futures. The Fund may invest in futures contracts on indices, currencies and commodities. The Fund will trade only futures contracts that are listed and traded on a U.S. board of trade. According to the Registration Statement, the Fund's investments in futures, will be subject to the limits on leverage imposed by the 1940 Act. Section 18(f) of the 1940 Act and related Commission guidance limit the amount of leverage that an investment company, such as the Fund, can obtain.
Cash and Cash Equivalents. The Fund may temporarily invest a portion of its assets in cash or cash equivalents pending other investments or to maintain liquid assets required in connection with some of the Fund's investments. Cash and cash equivalents include money market instruments, such as obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Government, its agencies and/or instrumentalities (including government-sponsored enterprises), bankers' acceptances, bank certificates of deposit, repurchase agreements
Investments in Other Investment Companies. The Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies to the extent permitted by law. The Fund may make significant investments in money market funds. In addition, the Trust intends to enter into agreements with unaffiliated ETFs that permit such unaffiliated ETFs to sell, and the Fund to purchase, the unaffiliated ETFs' shares in excess of the limits imposed by Sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the 1940 Act.
Temporary Defensive Position. To respond to adverse market, economic, political or other conditions, the Fund may invest 100% of its total assets, without limitation, in high-quality debt securities (
The Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies to the extent that such an investment would be consistent with the requirements of Section 12(d)(1) of the 1940 Act, or any rule, regulation or order of the Commission or interpretation thereof.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek to qualify for treatment as a Regulated Investment
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser
The Fund's investments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objective and will not be used to achieve leveraged returns (
The net asset value (“NAV”) of Shares will be calculated each business day by SEI as of the close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), generally 4:00 p.m., Eastern time on each day that the NYSE is open. The Fund will calculate its NAV per Share by taking the value of its total assets, subtracting any liabilities, and dividing that amount by the total number of Shares outstanding, rounded to the nearest cent. Expenses and fees, including the management fees, will be accrued daily and taken into account for purposes of determining NAV.
When calculating the NAV of the Fund's Shares, investments will generally be valued using market valuations. Market valuations are generally valuations (i) obtained from an exchange, a pricing service or a major market maker (or dealer) or (ii) based on a price quotation or other equivalent indication of a value supplied by an exchange, a pricing service or a major market maker (or dealer), in each case as approved by the Trust's Board of Trustees pursuant to the Trust's valuation policies and procedures. Thus, to the extent that the Fund uses a pricing vendor approved for the Trust by the Board, whether the pricing vendor bases valuations upon dealer quotes, a proprietary analysis of the relevant market, matrix pricing, sensitivity analysis, a combination of the above or any other means, the price provided by the pricing vendor may be considered a market valuation.
Exchange-traded equity securities, including Underlying Vehicles, common stocks and sponsored Depositary Receipts, as well as futures contracts, will be valued at the official closing price on their principal exchange or board of trade, or, lacking any current reported sale at the time of valuation, at the mean of the most recent bid and asked quotations on their principal exchange or board of trade. Unsponsored Depositary Receipts, fixed income securities (including bonds; U.S. Government obligations; corporate debt securities; securities issued by foreign governments and supra-national agencies; master-demand notes; Yankee dollar and Eurodollar bank certificates of deposit; time deposits; bankers' acceptances; commercial paper; inflation-indexed securities; zero coupon securities; and money market instruments) will be valued at the mean between the most recent bid and asked quotations.
Repurchase agreements will be valued at cost. Fixed-income instruments maturing in 60 days or less will be valued at amortized cost and those maturing in excess of 60 days will be valued at the midpoint of bid and asked quotations. Investments in non-exchange-traded investment companies (including money market funds) will be valued at their NAV.
Any assets or liabilities denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar will be converted into U.S. dollars at the current exchange rate on the date of valuation as quoted by one or more third parties.
If a market quotation is not readily available or is deemed not to reflect an instrument's market value, the Fund will determine its fair value pursuant to policies and procedures approved by the Board. The Fund may use fair valuation to price securities that trade on a foreign exchange, if any, when a significant event has occurred after the foreign exchange closes but before the time at which the Fund's NAV is calculated. In such cases, the Fund may use various criteria, including an evaluation of U.S. market moves after the close of foreign markets, in determining whether a foreign security's market price is reflective of market value and, if not, the fair value of the security. In general, in determining an instrument's fair value, the Fund may consider, among other things, price comparisons among multiple sources, corporate actions and news events, other financial indicators. Fair value pricing involves subjective judgments. Accordingly, it is possible that the fair value determination for an instrument is materially different than the value that could be realized upon the its sale.
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will sell and redeem Shares in aggregations of 50,000 Shares (each, a “Creation Unit”) on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without a sales load, at the NAV next determined after receipt of an order in proper form on any business day. The size of a Creation Unit is subject to change.
The purchase or redemption of Creation Units from a Fund must be effected by or through an “Authorized Participant” (
The consideration for a Creation Unit of a Fund will be the “Fund Deposit”. The Fund Deposit will consist of the “In-Kind Creation Basket” and “Cash Component”, or an all cash payment (“Cash Value”), as determined by
If the NAV per Creation Unit exceeds the market value of the securities in the In-Kind Creation Basket, the purchaser will pay the Balancing Amount to the Fund. By contrast, if the NAV per Creation Unit is less than the market value of the securities in the In-Kind Creation Basket, the Fund will pay the Balancing Amount to the purchaser.
The Transfer Agent, in a portfolio composition file sent via the NSCC, generally will make available on each business day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern time), a list of the names and the required number of shares of each security in the In-Kind Creation Basket to be included in the current Fund Deposit for each [sic] Fund (based on information about the Fund's portfolio at the end of the previous business day) (subject to amendment or correction). If applicable, the Transfer Agent, through the NSCC, also will make available on each business day, the estimated Cash Component or Cash Value, effective through and including the previous business day, per Creation Unit.
The announced Fund Deposit will be applicable, subject to any adjustments as described below, for purchases of Creation Units of the Fund until such time as the next-announced Fund Deposit is made available. From day to day, the composition of the In-Kind Creation Basket may change as, among other things, corporate actions and investment decisions by Cambria are implemented for the Fund's portfolio. The Fund reserves the right to accept a nonconforming (
The Fund may, in its sole discretion, permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash “cash in lieu”) to be added to the Cash Component to replace any security in the In-Kind Creation Basket. The Fund may permit or require cash in lieu when, for example, the securities in the In-Kind Creation Basket may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery or may not be eligible for transfer through the systems of DTC. Similarly, the Fund may permit or require cash in lieu when, for example, the Authorized Participant or its underlying investor is restricted under U.S. or local securities law or policies from transacting in one or more securities in the In-Kind Creation Basket.
To compensate the Trust for costs incurred in connection with creation and redemption transactions, investors will be required to pay to the Trust a “Transaction Fee” as described in the Registration Statement.
According to the Registration Statement, Fund Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Fund through the Transfer Agent and only on a business day. The redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit will consist of the “In-Kind Redemption Basket” and a “Cash Redemption Amount”, or an all cash payment (“Cash Value”), in all instances equal to the value of a Creation Unit.
The Cash Redemption Amount will typically include a Balancing Amount, reflecting the difference, if any, between the NAV of a Creation Unit and the market value of the securities in the In-Kind Redemption Basket. If the NAV per Creation Unit exceeds the market value of the securities in the In-Kind Redemption Basket, the Fund will pay the Balancing Amount to the redeeming investor. By contrast, if the NAV per Creation Unit is less than the market value of the securities in the In-Kind Redemption Basket, the redeeming investor will pay the Balancing Amount to the Fund.
The composition of the In-Kind Creation Basket will normally be the same as the composition of the In-Kind Redemption Basket. Otherwise, the In-Kind Redemption Basket will be made available by the Adviser or Transfer Agent. The Fund reserves the right to accept a nonconforming (
In lieu of an In-Kind Redemption Basket and Cash Redemption Amount, Creation Units may be redeemed consisting solely of cash in an amount equal to the NAV of a Creation Unit, which amount is referred to as the Cash Value. If applicable, information about the Cash Value will be made available by the Adviser or Transfer Agent.
The right of redemption may be suspended or the date of payment postponed: (i) for any period during which the NYSE is closed (other than customary weekend and holiday closings); (ii) for any period during which trading on the NYSE is suspended or restricted; (iii) for any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal of the Shares or determination of a Fund's NAV is not reasonably practicable; or (iv) in such other circumstances as permitted by the Commission.
The Fund may, in its sole discretion, permit or require the substitution of an amount of cash (“cash in lieu”) to be added to the Cash Redemption Amount to replace any security in the In-Kind Redemption Basket. A Fund may permit or require cash in lieu when, for example, the securities in the In-Kind Redemption Basket may not be available in sufficient quantity for delivery or may not be eligible for transfer through the systems of DTC. Similarly, the Fund may permit or require cash in lieu when, for example, the Authorized Participant or its underlying investor is restricted under U.S. or local securities law or policies from transacting in one or more securities in the In-Kind Redemption Basket.
If it is not possible to effect deliveries of the securities in the In-Kind Redemption Basket, the Trust may in its discretion exercise its option to redeem Shares in cash, and the redeeming beneficial owner will be required to receive its redemption proceeds in cash. In addition, an investor may request a redemption in cash that a Fund may, in its sole discretion, permit. In either case, the investor will receive a cash payment equal to the NAV of its Shares based on the NAV of Shares of the relevant Fund next determined after the redemption request is received in proper form (minus a Transaction Fee, including a variable charge, if applicable, as described in the Registration Statement).
The Fund may also, in its sole discretion, upon request of a shareholder, provide such redeemer a portfolio of securities that differs from the exact composition of the In-Kind Redemption Basket, or cash in lieu of some securities added to the Cash Component, but in no event will the total value of the securities delivered and the cash transmitted differ from the NAV. Redemptions of Fund Shares for the In-Kind Redemption Basket will be subject to compliance with applicable federal and state securities laws and the Fund (whether or not it otherwise permits cash redemptions) reserves the right to redeem Creation Units for cash to the extent that the Trust could not lawfully deliver specific securities in the In-Kind Redemption Basket upon redemptions or could not do so without
When cash redemptions of Creation Units are available or specified for the Fund, they will be effected in essentially the same manner as in-kind redemptions. In the case of a cash redemption, the investor will receive the cash equivalent of the In-Kind Redemption Basket minus any Transaction Fees.
Additional information regarding creation and redemption procedures is included in the Registration Statement.
The Fund's Web site (
On a daily basis, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the following information regarding each portfolio holding, as applicable to the type of holding: ticker symbol, CUSIP number or other identifier, if any; a description of the holding (including the type of holding); the identity of the security, commodity, index or other asset or instrument underlying the holding, if any; quantity held (as measured by, for example, par value, notional value or number of shares, contracts or units); maturity date, if any; coupon rate, if any; effective date, if any; market value of the holding; and the percentage weighting of the holding in the Fund's portfolio. The Web site information will be publicly available at no charge.
In addition, a basket composition file, which includes the security names and share quantities required to be delivered in exchange for the Fund's Shares, together with estimates and actual cash components, will be publicly disseminated daily prior to the opening of the NYSE via NSCC. The basket represents one Creation Unit of the Fund.
Investors can also obtain the Trust's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), the Fund's Shareholder Reports, and the Trust's Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR, filed twice a year. The Trust's SAI and Shareholder Reports are available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and the Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at
Intra-day price quotations on the securities and other assets held by the Fund will be available from major broker-dealer firms. Intra-day price information on such assets will also be available through free and subscription services that can be accessed by Authorized Participants and other investors. For example, pricing information for exchange-traded securities (including exchange-traded equity securities (such as common stocks and Underlying Vehicles), futures contracts and sponsored Depositary Receipts, will be readily available from the Web sites of the exchanges or boards of trade trading such securities or futures contracts, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, and subscription services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Pricing information for unsponsored Depositary Receipts, non-exchange-traded investment company securities, fixed income securities (including bonds; U.S. Government obligations; corporate debt securities; securities issued by foreign governments and supra-national agencies; master-demand notes; Yankee dollar and Eurodollar bank certificates of deposit; time deposits; bankers' acceptances; commercial paper; inflation-indexed securities; and zero coupon securities), repurchase agreements, and money market instruments will be available through brokers and dealers and/or subscription services, such as Markit, Bloomberg and Thompson Reuters.
In addition, the Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”),
Additional information regarding the Trust and the Shares, including investment strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings disclosure policies, distributions and taxes is included in the Registration Statement. All terms relating to the Fund that are referred to, but not defined in, this proposed rule change are defined in the Registration Statement.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Opening, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, Commentary .03, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.
The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, the Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act,
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.
FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares, Underlying Vehicles, other exchange-traded equity securities, and futures with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and Underlying Vehicles, other exchange-traded equity securities, and futures from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, Underlying Vehicles, other exchange-traded equity securities, and futures from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
Not more than 10% of the net assets of the Fund in the aggregate invested in exchange-traded equity securities will consist of equity securities whose principal market is not a member of ISG or a market with which the Exchange does not have a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated Portfolio Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the Portfolio Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (5) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.
In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Fund is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time each trading day.
[Insert Section 3(b) from Form 19b-4.] [sic] The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. The Fund's portfolio holdings will be disclosed on its Web site daily after the close of trading on the Exchange and prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange the following day. Moreover, the IIV will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. On each business day, before commencement of trading in Shares in the Core Trading Session on the Exchange, the Fund will disclose on its Web site the Disclosed Portfolio that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of NAV at the end of the business day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the Exchange proprietary quote and trade services and via the CTA high-speed line. Intra-day price quotations on the securities and other assets held by the Fund will be available from major broker-dealer firms. Intra-day price information on such assets will also be available through free and subscription services that can be accessed by Authorized Participants and other investors. For example, pricing information for exchange-traded securities (including exchange-traded equity securities (such as common stocks and Underlying Vehicles), futures contracts and sponsored Depositary Receipts, will be readily available from the Web sites of the exchanges or boards of trade trading such securities or futures contracts, automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, and subscription services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Pricing information for unsponsored Depositary Receipts, non-exchange-traded investment company securities, fixed income securities (including bonds; U.S. Government obligations; corporate debt securities; securities issued by foreign governments and supra-national agencies; master-demand notes; Yankee dollar and Eurodollar bank certificates of deposit; time deposits; bankers' acceptances; commercial paper; inflation-indexed securities; and zero coupon securities), repurchase agreements, and money market instruments will be available through brokers and dealers and/or subscription services.
The Web site for the Fund will include a form of the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Fund's holdings, the IIV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of actively-managed exchange-traded product that will principally hold equity securities and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, 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 Exchange Rule 1080(n), Price Improvement XL (“PIXL
A notice of the proposed rule change for publication in the
Proposed new text is
(a)-(m) No change.
A member may electronically submit for execution an order it represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker-dealer, or any other entity (“PIXL Order”) against principal interest or against any other order (except as provided in sub-paragraph (n)(i)(F) below) it represents as agent (an “Initiating Order”) provided it submits the PIXL Order for electronic execution into the PIXL Auction (“Auction”) pursuant to this Rule. The contract size specified in Rule 1080(n) as applicable to PIXL Orders shall apply to Mini Options.
(i) Auction Eligibility Requirements. All options traded on the Exchange are eligible for PIXL. A member (the “Initiating Member”) may initiate an Auction provided all of the following are met:
(A) No change.
(B) No change.
(C) If the PIXL Order is a Complex Order and of a conforming ratio, as defined in Commentary.08(a)(i) and (a)(ix) to Rule 1080, the Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL order at a price that is better than the best net price (debit or credit) (i) available on the Complex Order book regardless of the Complex Order book size; and (ii) achievable from the best Phlx bids and offers for the individual options (an “improved net price”), provided in either case that such price is equal to or better than the PIXL Order's limit price. Complex Orders consisting of a ratio other than a conforming ratio will not be accepted. This sub-paragraph (C) shall apply to all Complex Orders submitted into PIXL. This sub-paragraph (C), where applied to Complex Orders where the smallest leg is less than 50 contracts in size, shall be effective for a pilot period scheduled to expire July 18, 201[4]
(D)-(G) No change.
(ii) Auction Process. Only one Auction may be conducted at a time in
(A) No change.
(B) Conclusion of Auction. The PIXL Auction shall conclude at the earlier to occur of (1) through (4) below, with the PIXL Order executing pursuant to paragraph (C)(1) through (3) below.
(1)-(4) No change.
(5) Sub-paragraphs (B)(2), (B)(3) and (B)(4) above shall be effective for a pilot period scheduled to expire July 18, 201[4]
(C) No change.
(D) An unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the PBBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute against interest outside of the Auction. In the case of a Complex PIXL Auction, an unrelated market or marketable limit Complex Order on the opposite side of the market from the Complex PIXL Order as well as orders for the individual components of the Complex Order received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will execute against interest outside of the Auction. If contracts remain from such unrelated order at the time the Auction ends, they will be considered for participation in the order allocation process described in sub-paragraph (E) below. This sub-paragraph shall be effective for a pilot period scheduled to expire on July 18, 201[4]
(E)-(J) No change.
(iii)-(vi) No change.
(vii) Initially, and for at least a Pilot Period expiring on July 18, 201[4]
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the pilot through July 18, 2015.
The Exchange adopted PIXL in October 2010 as a price-improvement mechanism on the Exchange.
An Initiating Member may initiate a PIXL Auction by submitting a PIXL Order, which is not a Complex Order, in one of three ways:
• First, the Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order specifying a single price at which it seeks to execute the PIXL Order (a “stop price”).
• Second, an Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order specifying that it is willing to automatically match as principal or as agent on behalf of an Initiating Order the price and size of all trading interest and responses to the PIXL Auction Notification (“PAN,” as described below) (“auto-match”), in which case the PIXL Order will be stopped at the National Best Bid/Offer (“NBBO”) on the Initiating Order side.
• Third, an Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order specifying that it is willing to either: (i) Stop the entire order at a single stop price and auto-match PAN responses, as described below, together with trading interest, at a price or prices that improve the stop price to a specified price above or below which the Initiating Member will not trade (a “Not Worse Than” or “NWT” price); (ii) stop the entire order at a single stop price and auto-match all PAN responses and trading interest at or better than the stop price; or (iii) stop the entire order at the NBBO on the Initiating Order side, and auto-match PAN responses and trading interest are at a price or prices that improve the stop price up to the NWT price. In all cases, if the PHLX Best Bid/Offer (“PBBO”) on the same side of the market as the PIXL Order represents a limit order on the book, the stop price must be at least one minimum price improvement increment better than the booked limit order's limit price.
In addition, an Initiating Member may initiate a PIXL Auction by submitting a Complex Order which is of a conforming ratio, as defined in Commentary .08(a)(i) and (a)(ix) to Rule 1080. When submitting a Complex Order, the Initiating Member must stop the PIXL order at a price that is better than the best net price (debit or credit) (i) available on the Complex Order book regardless of the Complex Order book size; and (ii) achievable from the best PHLX bids and offers for the individual options (an “improved net price”), provided in either case that such price is equal to or better than the PIXL Order's limit price.
After the PIXL Order is entered, a PAN is broadcast and a one-second blind Auction ensues. Anyone may respond to the PAN by sending orders or quotes. At the conclusion of the Auction, the PIXL Order will be allocated at the best price(s).
Once the Initiating Member has submitted a PIXL Order for processing, such PIXL Order may not be modified or cancelled. Under any of the above circumstances, the Initiating Member's stop price or NWT price may be improved to the benefit of the PIXL
After a PIXL Order has been submitted, a member organization submitting the order has no ability to control the timing of the execution. The execution is carried out by the Exchange's PHLX XL automated options trading system and pricing is determined solely by the other orders and quotes that are present in the Auction.
Three components of the PIXL system were approved by the Commission on a pilot basis: (1) Paragraphs (n)(i)(A)(2),
The Exchange proposes to extend the pilots through July 18, 2015.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
Specifically, the Exchange believes that PIXL, including the rules to which the pilot applies, results in increased liquidity available at improved prices, with competitive final pricing out of the Initiating Member's complete control. The Exchange believes that PIXL promotes and fosters competition and affords the opportunity for price improvement to more options contracts. The extension proposal allows additional time for the Commission to evaluate the pilot.
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 proposal extends existing pilots that apply to all Exchange members, and enables the Exchange to be competitive in respect of other option exchanges that have similar programs.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will allow the PIXL pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a temporary interruption in the pilot. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 18, 2014.
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”),
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) proposes various changes to the Customized Option Pricing Service (“COPS”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to describe various changes to COPS
COPS provides market participants with an “end-of-day”
COPS Data consists of indicative
The Exchange uses values produced by CBOE registered market-makers to produce COPS Data. Participating CBOE market-makers submit values to MDX on options series specified by MDX on a daily basis. These values are generated by the market-maker's internal pricing models. The valuations that MDX ultimately publishes are an average of multiple contributions of values from participating CBOE market-makers. For each value provided by MDX through COPS, MDX includes a corresponding indication of the number of market-maker contributors that factored into that value.
CBOE market-makers that meet the following objective qualification criteria are allowed to contribute values to MDX for purposes of producing COPS Data. Interested CBOE market-makers must be approved by the Exchange, have the ability to provide valuations to MDX in a timely manner each day after the close of trading, and sign a services agreement with CBOE. Interested CBOE market-makers must also have the ability to provide valuations on several different types of options, including (i) options on all open FLEX series traded on any exchange that offers FLEX options for trading, (ii) options on any potential new FLEX options series, (iii) OTC options that have the same degree of customization as FLEX options, and (iv) customized options where the strike price is expressed in percentage terms (the valuations provided to MDX must also be expressed in percentage terms). In addition, interested CBOE market-makers must participate in a testing phase with MDX. The values submitted by a market-maker during the testing phase and in live production must meet MDX's quality control standards designed to ensure the integrity and accuracy of COPS Data. MDX has implemented procedures including monthly performance reviews to help ensure the integrity and accuracy of COPS Data.
To help ensure that MDX receives numerous values from multiple market-makers on a consistent basis, MDX shares revenue from the sale of COPS Data with participating CBOE market-makers. The amount of revenue that MDX shares with participating market-makers does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total revenue received by MDX from the sale of COPS Data. The revenue sharing is based on the following table:
If only three market-makers participate, MDX shares 21% of total revenue with each market-maker receiving a 7% share. If four market-makers participate, MDX shares 24% of total revenue with each market-maker receiving a 6% share. If five or more market-makers participate, MDX shares 30% of total revenue divided equally among the market-makers. There are currently three participating market-makers.
There is one “grace day” per month, i.e., if a market-maker does not submit values for 100% of the series on just one day within a given month, that market-maker will not lose any portion of its revenue share for that month.
If a market-maker submits values for less than 100% of the series on any two days within a month, that market-maker will forfeit 10% of its revenue share for that month.
If a market-maker submits values for less than 100% of the series on any three days within a month, that market-maker will forfeit 25% of its revenue share for that month.
If a market-maker submits values for less than 100% of the series on any four days within a month, that market-maker will forfeit 50% of its revenue share for that month.
If a market-maker submits values for less than 100% of the series on any five days within a month, that market-maker will forfeit 75% of its revenue share for that month.
If a market-maker submits values for less than 100% of the series on any six or more days within a month, that market-maker will forfeit 100% of its revenue share for that month.
The fees that MDX charges for COPS Data are set forth on the Price List on the MDX Web site (
The Exchange proposes a number of changes to COPS for the purpose of improving COPS to potentially make it more appealing to a wider group of users. First, the Exchange proposes to provide additional data through COPS. Specifically, COPS would also provide indicative values for “exotic” options. Exotic options are options which are generally traded OTC and are more complex than standard options, usually relating to determination of payoff.
Second, the Exchange proposes to allow any CBOE Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) that meets the COPS qualification criteria to contribute values to MDX for purposes of producing COPS Data. Third, the Exchange proposes to amend the COPS qualification criteria to add new criteria. Specifically, interested CBOE TPHs must also have the ability to provide valuations on exotic options and an implied volatility value with each option value provided.
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to specify a daily deadline for COPS customers to submit requests for new options series to be priced by COPS that day. Currently, COPS customers may request pricing for options that are not already priced by COPS by submitting an email request to MDX. The request must be submitted by a specified time each day in order for the requested option to be priced by COPS that day (currently, this deadline is 11:00 a.m.
Finally, in order to attract new TPH contributors to COPS, and in light of significantly increased responsibilities such as pricing exotic options, the Exchange proposes to amend the compensation paid to COPS contributors. The Exchange proposes to temporarily change COPS contributor compensation from the revenue sharing plan described above to a fixed payment structure.
The three current contributors would be “grandfathered” into the enhanced COPS program and the new compensation structure. The two new contributor positions would be open to all TPHs (announced via regulatory circular) and filled during a trial period. Of all the TPHs that try out for the two new positions, the top two TPHs that have the highest weighted average
MDX would transition back to the original revenue share plan described above after this initial six month period (or until annual COPS revenue exceeds $1,000,000, whichever comes first), unless annual COPS revenue exceeds $2,000,000, in which case the percentage of total COPS revenue shared with contributors would increase from 30% to 32% if a new contributor is added to COPS.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers 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. The Exchange believes the proposal to provide exotic option and implied volatility values through COPS is in keeping with those principles by promoting increased transparency through the dissemination of useful data and also by clarifying its availability to market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between CBOE TPHs because it would allow any CBOE TPH that meets the COPS qualification criteria to participate in COPS (assuming continued adherence to COPS quality control standards). Expanding eligibility for COPS to all CBOE TPHs may result in more contributors, which should help improve the quality of COPS Data.
The Exchange believes the proposal to add new COPS qualification criteria is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest in that it would help ensure that only TPHs who are able to produce quality valuations for all categories of COPS Data are allowed to participate in the program.
The Exchange believes the proposal to specify a daily deadline for customers to submit requests for new options series to be priced by COPS is consistent with just and equitable principles of trade because it would provide MDX and contributors with enough time to price the new options series the same day.
The Exchange believes the proposal to grandfather the three current contributors into the enhanced COPS program and pay them a higher fixed monthly fee than new contributors for a limited period of time is not unfairly discriminatory because the current contributors have been a part of COPS since its inception and have helped MDX build the program. For example, in advance of the COPS launch in January 2013, the current contributors participated in trial runs with MDX to help ensure their values were in line with MDX's expectations. The current contributors also helped MDX work out the flow of the daily file transfer process (MDX delivers to contributors a file of options series to be priced, the contributors return the file including their option values). In addition,
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange, through MDX, to disseminate COPS Data on a voluntary basis. COPS is voluntary on the part of the Exchange, which is not required to offer such services, and voluntary on the part of prospective customers who are not required to use it. The Exchange notes there are at least a small number of market data vendors that produce option value data that is similar to COPS Data and market data users may elect to buy these other products if they choose.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission,
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.
mBeach Software, Inc. (CIK No. 1465856) is a Florida corporation located in Tel Aviv, Israel with a class of securities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). mBeach Software, Inc. is delinquent in its periodic filings with the Commission, having not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, which reported a net loss of $118,018 for the prior nine months. As of June 30, 2014, the company's stock (symbol “MBHS”) was quoted on OTC Link (previously, “Pink Sheets”) operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc., had seven market makers, and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-11(f)(3).
It appears to the Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Exchange Act, that trading in the securities of mBeach Software, Inc. is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on July 18, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 31, 2014.
By the Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of Action Subject to Intergovernmental Review Under Executive Order 12372.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is notifying the public that it intends to grant the pending applications of 41 existing Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) for refunding on January 1, 2015 subject to the availability of funds. A short description of the SBDC program follows in the supplementary information below.
The SBA is publishing this notice at least 90 days before the expected refunding date. The SBDCs and their mailing addresses are listed below in the address section. A copy of this notice also is being furnished to the respective State single points of contact designated under the Executive Order. Each SBDC application must be consistent with any area-wide small business assistance plan adopted by a State-authorized agency.
A State single point of contact and other interested State or local entities may submit written comments regarding an SBDC refunding within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice to the SBDC.
Louis Peasley, Director of Financial Oversight, Office of Small Business Development Centers, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Sixth Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
A partnership exists between SBA and an SBDC. SBDCs offer training, counseling and other business development assistance to small businesses. Each SBDC provides services under a negotiated Cooperative Agreement with the SBA. SBDCs operate on the basis of a state plan to provide assistance within a state or geographic area. The initial plan must have the written approval of the Governor. Non-Federal funds must match Federal funds. An SBDC must operate according to law, the Cooperative Agreement, SBA's regulations, the annual Program Announcement, and program guidance.
The SBDC program uses Federal funds to leverage the resources of states, academic institutions and the private sector to:
(a) Strengthen the small business community;
(b) increase economic growth;
(c) assist more small businesses; and
(d) broaden the delivery system to more small businesses.
The lead SBDC operates a statewide or regional network of SBDC service centers. An SBDC must have a full-time Director. SBDCs must use at least 80 percent of the Federal funds to provide services to small businesses. SBDCs use volunteers and other low cost resources as much as possible.
An SBDC must have a full range of business development and technical assistance services in its area of operations, depending upon local needs, SBA priorities and SBDC program objectives. Services include training and counseling to existing and prospective small business owners in management, marketing, finance, operations, planning, taxes, and any other general or technical area of assistance that supports small business growth.
The SBA district office and the SBDC must agree upon the specific mix of services. They should give particular attention to SBA's priority and special emphasis groups, including veterans, women, exporters, the disabled, and minorities.
An SBDC must meet programmatic and financial requirements imposed by statute, regulations or its Cooperative Agreement. The SBDC must:
(a) locate service centers so that they are as accessible as possible to small businesses;
(b) open all service centers at least 40 hours per week, or during the normal business hours of its state or academic Host Organization, throughout the year;
(c) develop working relationships with financial institutions, the investment community, professional associations, private consultants and small business groups; and
(d) maintain lists of private consultants at each service center.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of Action Subject to Intergovernmental Review Under Executive Order 12372.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is notifying the public that it intends to grant the pending applications of 22 existing Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) for refunding on October 1, 2014, subject to the availability of funds. A short description of the SBDC program follows in the supplementary information below.
The SBA is publishing this notice at least 90 days before the expected refunding date. The SBDCs and their mailing addresses are listed below in the address section. A copy of this notice is also being furnished to the respective State single points of contact designated under the Executive Order. Each SBDC application must be consistent with any area-wide small business assistance plan adopted by a State-authorized agency.
A State single point of contact and other interested State or local entities may submit written comments regarding an SBDC refunding within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice to the SBDC.
Louis Peasley, Director of Financial Oversight, Office of Small Business Development Centers, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Sixth Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
A partnership exists between SBA and an SBDC. SBDCs offer training, counseling and other business development assistance to small businesses. Each SBDC provides services under a negotiated Cooperative Agreement with SBA, the general management and oversight of SBA, and a state plan initially approved by the Governor. Non-Federal funds must match Federal funds. An SBDC must operate according to law, the Cooperative Agreement, SBA's regulations, the annual Program Announcement, and program guidance.
The SBDC program uses Federal funds to leverage the resources of states, academic institutions and the private sector to:
(a) Strengthen the small business community;
(b) increase economic growth;
(c) assist more small businesses; and
(d) broaden the delivery system to more small businesses.
The lead SBDC operates a statewide or regional network of SBDC service centers. An SBDC must have a full-time Director. SBDCs must use at least 80 percent of the Federal funds to provide services to small businesses. SBDCs use volunteers and other low cost resources as much as possible.
An SBDC must have a full range of business development and technical assistance services in its area of operations, depending upon local needs, SBA priorities and SBDC program objectives. Services include training and counseling to existing and prospective small business owners in management, marketing, finance, operations, planning, taxes, and any other general or technical area of assistance that supports small business growth.
The SBA district office and the SBDC must agree upon the specific mix of services. They should give particular attention to SBA's priority and special emphasis groups, including veterans, women, exporters, the disabled, and minorities.
An SBDC must meet programmatic and financial requirements imposed by statute, regulations or its Cooperative Agreement. The SBDC must:
(a) Locate service centers so that they are as accessible as possible to small businesses;
(b) open all service centers at least 40 hours per week, or during the normal business hours of its state or academic Host Organization, throughout the year;
(c) develop working relationships with financial institutions, the investment community, professional associations, private consultants and small business groups; and
(d) maintain lists of private consultants at each service center.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before September 22, 2014.
Send all comments to Linda Rusche, Director, Office of Financial Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
Linda Reilly, Chief, 504 Loan Program, 202-205-9949,
The Small Business Investment Act authorizes SBA to guarantee a debenture issued by a Certified Development Company (CDC). The proceeds from each debenture are used to fund loans to eligible small business concerns (“504 loans”). 15 U.S.C. 697(a). The Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act mandate that all guaranteed loans provided by the SBA to small business concerns (SBCs) must have a reasonable assurance of ability to repay. See 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(6) and 687(f); see also 13 CFR 120.150. The information collections described below—SBA Form 1244 and SBA Form 2450—are part of the application process for a 504 loan. SBA is proposing to make changes to Form 2450 to remove duplicative questions as well as questions that are no longer applicable to the 504 Loan Program.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
(i)
(ii) Form 2450 is the Eligibility Checklist used to document the 504 loan's eligibility based on program requirements. These forms are used by CDCs to request SBA's guarantee on each debenture.
SBA has established a streamlined loan application processing procedure known as the Abridged Submission Method (ASM). Under this process, the CDCs are required to collect and retain all exhibits to SBA Form 1244, but are only required to submit selective documents. CDCs using the non-ASM method are required to submit all documents and exhibits required for Form 1244. All CDCs must submit the Form 2450.
The burden estimates (based on the experience of the CDCs and SBA field offices) of the burden hours imposed by use of these forms, including exhibits, are as follows:
There are 260 CDCs affected by the information collection. The total number of small business concerns that will annually respond to Form 1244 is approximately 7,000 based on the average submission of applications submitted from CDCs over the past FY using both the ASM and non-ASM methods. This is a total of 7,260 respondents. Burden hours are 2.25 hours for ASM and 2.45 hours for non-ASM submissions (this number is slightly higher due to the fact that these respondents are required to submit more documentation than the ASM respondents). These estimates include the content from SBA Form 2450, which takes an estimated 15 minute for completion.
Total burden hours = 16,799.
Submission through the ASM—4,937 × 2.25 = 11,108 burden hours.
Submission through non-ASM (standard method)—2,323 × 2.45 = 5,691 burden hours.
Total burden hours = 1,815.
Submission through the ASM and non-ASM—7,260 × .25 = 1,815 burden hours.
Total Burden Hours = 18,614.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4181-DR), dated 07/14/2014.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 07/14/2014, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14058B and for economic injury is 14059B.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Wisconsin dated 07/14/2014.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
Grant.
Crawford; Iowa; Lafayette; Richland.
Clayton; Dubuque.
Jo Daviess.
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14049 C and for economic injury is 14050 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Wisconsin; Illinois; Iowa.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts dated 07/14/2014.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14051 5 and for economic injury is 14052 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Massachusetts; Connecticut.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of South Dakota dated 07/14/2014.
ECONOMIC INJURY (EIDL) LOAN APPLICATION DEADLINE DATE: 04/14/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14056 C and for economic injury is 14057 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are South Dakota; Iowa.
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 August 21, 2014.
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 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services, Office of Program Management and Operational Support, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520, who may be reached on (202) 485-6373 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.
The Affidavit Regarding a Change of Name is submitted in conjunction with an application for a U.S. passport. It is used by Passport Services to collect information for the purpose of establishing that a passport applicant has adopted a new name without formal court proceedings or by marriage and has publicly and exclusively used the adopted name over a period of time (at least five years).
No comments were received in response to the 60-day
When needed, the Affidavit Regarding a Change of Name is completed at the time a U.S. citizen applies for a U.S. passport.
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 August 21, 2014.
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 Claudia M. Coleman, HR/REE, SA-1, H-518, 2401 E Street NW., Washington, DC, who may be reached on 202.203.5126 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.
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
Submit comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) up to August 21, 2014.
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 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services, Office of Program Management and Operational Support, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520, who may be reached on (202) 485-6373 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.
The Statement of Non-Receipt of a U.S. Passport, Form DS-0086 is used by the U.S. Department of State to collect information for the purpose of issuing a replacement passport to customers who have not received the passport for which they originally applied. There were no comments received in response to the 60-day
Passport applicants who do not receive their passports are required to complete a Statement of Non-Receipt of a Passport, Form DS-86. Passport applicants may either download the form from the www.Travel.State.gov or obtain a copy from an Acceptance Facility/Passport Agency. The form must be completed, signed, and then submitted to the issuing Passport Agency for passport re-issuance.
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State pursuant to section 7041(a)(1) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014 (Div. K, Pub. L. 113-76) I hereby certify that the Government of Egypt is sustaining the strategic relationship with the United States and meeting its obligations under the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty.
This determination shall be published in the
In notice document 2014-15756 appearing on page 38354 in the issue of Monday, July 7, 2014, make the following correction:
In the second column, under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; granting of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant Daimler Trucks North America's (Daimler) application for an exemption for one Daimler driver to drive commercial motor vehicles (CMV) in the United States without possessing a commercial driver's license (CDL) issued by one of the States. Sven Ennerst is an engineering executive who will test-drive Daimler vehicles on U.S.
This exemption is effective July 22, 2014 and expires July 22, 2015.
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email:
Section 4007(a) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401, June 9, 1998) provided the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) the authority to grant exemptions from any of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) issued under chapter 313 or section 31136 of title 49, United States Code, to a person(s) seeking regulatory relief (49 U.S.C. 31136, 31315(b)). Prior to granting an exemption, the Secretary must request public comment and make a determination that the exemption is likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained in the absence of the exemption. Exemptions may be granted for a period of up to 2 years and may be renewed.
The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR 1.87(e)(1) and (f) to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49 U.S.C. chapter 313 and subchapters I and III of chapter 311, relating, respectively, to the commercial driver's license program and to commercial motor vehicle (CMV) programs and safety regulation.
In the May 25, 2012,
Daimler applied for an exemption for Mr. Sven Ennerst from 49 CFR 383.23, requiring drivers operating CMVs to have a CDL issued by one of the States. Notice of the application was published on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17227). No comments were received. A copy of the Daimler request is in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice. The exemption allows Sven Ennerst to operate CMVs to support Daimler field tests to meet future vehicle safety and environmental requirements and to promote the development of technology and advancements in vehicle safety systems and emissions reductions. He will typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for 2 consecutive days, and 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane state highways, while 90 percent will be on interstate highways. The driving will consist of no more than 200 miles per day, for a total of 400 miles during a two-day period on a quarterly basis.
Section 383.21 requires CMV drivers in the United States to have a CDL issued by a State. Ennerst is a citizen and resident of Germany. Only residents of a State can apply for a CDL. Without the exemption, Mr. Ennerst would not be able to test-drive Daimler prototype CMVs on U.S. roads.
Mr. Ennerst holds a valid German CDL and is an experienced operator of CMVs. In the application for exemption, Daimler also submitted documentation showing his safe German driving record.
According to Daimler, the requirements for a German-issued CDL ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as if these drivers had a CDL issued by one of the States. Mr. Ennerst, is very familiar with the operation of CMVs worldwide and will be accompanied at all times by a driver who holds a U.S.-issued CDL and is familiar with the routes to be traveled. FMCSA has determined that the process for obtaining a CDL in Germany is comparable to that for obtaining a CDL issued by one of the States and adequately assesses the driver's ability to safely operate CMVs in the United States.
Based upon the merits of this application, including Mr. Ennerst's extensive driving experience and safety record, and the fact that he has successfully completed the requisite training and testing to obtain a German CDL, FMCSA concluded that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, in accordance with § 381.305(a).
FMCSA grants Daimler and Sven Ennerst an exemption from the CDL requirement in 49 CFR 383.23 to allow Mr. Ennerst to drive CMVs in this country without a U.S. State-issued CDL, subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) The driver and carrier must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR parts 350-399), (2) the driver must be in possession of the exemption document and a valid German CDL, (3) the driver must be employed by and operating the CMV within the scope of his duties for Daimler, (4) Daimler must notify FMCSA within 5 business days in writing of any accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving this driver, and (5) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing if this driver is convicted of a disqualifying offense under § 383.51 or § 391.15 of the FMCSRs.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the exemption will be valid for 1 year unless revoked earlier by the FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) Mr. Ennerst fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption results in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 82 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions are effective July 22, 2014. The exemptions expire on July 22, 2016.
Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On May 22, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 82 individuals and requested comments from the public (79 FR 29484). The public comment period closed on June 23, 2014, and four comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 82 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 82 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 51 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the May 22, 2014,
FMCSA received four comments in this proceeding. The comments are discussed and considered below.
One anonymous commenter is in favor of granting the exemptions to all drivers.
Three anonymous commenters stated that people with diabetes take better care of themselves than those without diabetes due to the monitoring the condition requires.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each
Based upon its evaluation of the 82 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts Curtis D. Andersen (ND), Thomas E. Armbrust (IL), David L. Baker Jr. (IN), Michael A. Barrett (MI), John E. Barrineau, Sr. (PA), Curk A. Beals (WA), Jene W. Bell (WI), Norman Billie (UT), Howard R. Brandt (MN), Albert Bryan (TX), Daniel P. Calaman (PA), Rick L. Case (IA), Jerry G. Clise Jr. (MD), George F. Cressey, II (ME), Richard K. Cressman (ND), Bradley M. Crull (WI), Michael G. Cunningham (IN), Steven W. Dahl (ND), Archie E. Eastling (MN), Shannon D. Eck (KS), Manuel Fernandez (PA), Kevin J. Franje (IA), Chad A. Fuehrer (SD), Charles Gagnon (WA), Michael E. Goldsberry (VA), Jared P. Greene (OH), James M. Haight (NC), Gary R. Harper (IN), Wayne H. Haslam (ME), Gregg S. Hessler (NY), Kristopher J. Ilenda (ND), Jay A. Jennato (NH), Michael L. Jobe (PA), Edwin P. Jonas, II (PA), David W. Jones (MD), John J. Katcher (CO), Glenn T. Keller (PA), Michael G. Keller (CA), James H. King (TX), Jay T. Kirschmann (ND), Vernon E. LaDuke (TN), James L. Laufenberg (ND), James R. Longo (MD), Eric M. Mardesen (IA), Charles R. Maybee (NY), Earl W. Meadows (WV), James E. Meek (VA), Ralph H. Mills (MA), Matthew C. Moberly (KY), Timothy L. Monrian (MO), Alan E. Nelson (AL), Erik O. Olson (UT), Brant S. Perry (TX), Greg R. Peterson (NE), Zachary A. Petitt (TX), James W. Restuccio Jr. (NJ), Adam L. Ridenbaugh (OH), Tommy R. Riley (IL), Vincent Rodriguez (TN), Pedro Saavedra Garcia (CA), Juan A. Salinas (IL), David Salmond (UT), Phillip H. Shaw (PA), Jerry J. Shipley (KS), Glen A. Skonberg (SD), John Smeal (PA), Douglas R. Smith (KS), Howard C. Smith (GA), Jerry Spurlock Jr. (AL), Cheryl G. Stephens (DE), James F. Stewart (PA), Maria V. Stinson (NY), Martin T. Struthers (NE), Dennis C. Svec (MI), Larry L. Taff (AR), Filbert J. Torres (NM), Jennifer A. Tyson (PA), Burdette Walker (PA), Jacob D. Walter (PA), Richard E. Watkins (NY), Harold W. Wilson Jr. (SC), and Ronald D. Young (GA) from the ITDM requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under “Conditions and Requirements” above.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated May 6, 2014, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA)—on behalf of Lehigh Valley Rail Management, and Sandersville Railroad Company—petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an amended waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal hours of service laws contained at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4), which, in part, require a train employee to receive 48 hours off duty after initiating an on-duty period for 6 consecutive days. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2009-0078.
In its petition, ASLRRA seeks to amend its existing waiver to add the two railroads referenced above, which did not participate in ASLRRA's prior waiver petition. FRA granted ASLRRA's petition for a waiver extension in a letter dated February 27, 2012. The waiver allows a train employee to initiate an on-duty period each day for 6 consecutive days followed by 24 hours, rather than 48 hours, off duty.
Each railroad that seeks to be added to the waiver executed a compliance letter, attesting that it complies with all of the employee consent requirements that FRA set forth in its initial decision letter, dated March 5, 2010. Additionally, each railroad will maintain the underlying employee consent or employee representative consent documents in its files for FRA inspection.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by September 5, 2014 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a letter dated March 25, 2014, Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0034.
Specifically, NS seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 232.215,
NS states that performing the Class 3 brake test provides an opportunity to verify the safe functioning of the brakes and also to supplement the safety appliance inspection made upon arrival at the yard inbound or during assembly of the move to ADM. An equivalent level of safety is achieved through the performance of this test, as the rear car's set and release confirms the functioning of the brake system. In addition, the moves to ADM are 0.9 miles plus the length of the cut making up the move. Of additional benefit is the elimination of potentially burdensome delays due to blocked crossings and undue congestion to the community at road crossings that could occur while train crews perform a full transfer train brake test.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by August 21, 2014 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated June 10, 2014, Mr. Wayne Kirchhof, President of the Walkersville Southern Railroad (WSRR), petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 215. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0055.
Specifically, WSRR requests a waiver from the stenciling requirement found at 49 CFR 215.303, for a cabin car, Car Number 477532.
WSRR states that the cabin car is more than 50 years of age from its original construction date and, therefore, is restricted per 49 CFR 215.203(a). This car is used occasionally in passenger excursion service over 7 miles of track located entirely in Frederick County, MD, where all trains operate under restricted speed rules not exceeding 10 mph.
WSRR further states that the subject car is not, and will not be, interchanged with any other railroad. WSRR's operating territory is generally rural in nature, and the car has been inspected and found to be safe to operate.
In addition, WSRR has requested a Special Approval for this cabin car to continue in service in accordance with 49 CFR 205.203(c).
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
•
•
•
•
Communications received by September 5, 2014 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated June 10, 2014, Mr. Wayne Kirchhof, President of the Walkersville Southern Railroad (WSRR), petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 215. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0057.
Specifically, WSRR requests a waiver from the stenciling requirement found at 49 CFR 215.303, for two flat cars, identified as Car Numbers 10 and 11.
WSRR states that the flat cars are more than 50 years of age from their original construction date and, therefore, are restricted per 49 CFR 215.203(a).
WSRR further states that these two flat cars have been outfitted with seats, and are used in passenger excursion service over 7 miles of track located entirely in Frederick County, MD, where all trains operate under restricted speed rules not exceeding 10 mph.
Additionally, WSRR states that the subject cars are not, and will not be, interchanged with any other railroad. WSRR's operating territory is generally rural in nature, and the cars have been inspected and found to be safe to operate.
WSRR has requested a Special Approval for these flat cars to continue in service in accordance with 49 CFR 205.203(c).
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by September 5, 2014 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). See
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Passenger Ferry Grant Program Announcement of Project Selections.
The US. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the selection of projects with Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 and FY 2014 appropriations for the Passenger Ferry Grant Program (Ferry Program). The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) set forth a new discretionary Ferry Program as a take-down under the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program, 49 U.S.C. § 5307, that authorized a combined total of $60 million for discretionary allocations in FY 2013 and FY 2014. The across-the-board rescission enacted by Congress in the FY 2013 Continuing Resolution reduced the available amount for the program in FY 2013 to approximately $29.9 million; this amount, combined with the FY 2014 apportionment of $30 million, provided a total of approximately $59.9 million for this program. On August 21, 2013, FTA published a Notice of Funding availability (NOFA) (78 FR 51812) announcing the availability of funding for this program. These program dollars will provide financial assistance to purchase, replace, or rehabilitate ferries, terminals and related infrastructure and other eligible capital project costs.
Successful applicants should contact the appropriate FTA Regional Office for information regarding applying for the
In response to the NOFA, FTA received 31 proposals from 15 States plus Puerto Rico requesting $115.8 million in Federal funds. Project proposals were evaluated based on each applicant's responsiveness to the program evaluation criteria as detailed in the NOFA. FTA is funding 26 projects as shown in Table 1 for a total of $59.9 million. Grantees selected for competitive discretionary funding should work with their FTA Regional Office to finalize the grant application in FTA's Transportation Electronic Awards Management System (TEAM) so that funds can be obligated expeditiously. Grant applications must only include eligible activities applied for in the original project application. Funds must be used consistent with the competitive proposal and for the eligible purposes established in the NOFA and described in the FTA Circular 9030.1E. In cases where the allocation amount is less than the proposer's requested amount, grantees should work with the Regional Office to reduce scope or scale the project such that a complete phase or project is accomplished. Grantees are reminded that program requirements such as cost sharing or local match can be found in the NOFA. A discretionary project identification number has been assigned to each project for tracking purposes and must be used in the TEAM application. Selected projects are eligible for pre-award authority no earlier than June 2, 2014. Pre-award authority is also contingent upon other requirements, such as planning and environmental requirements, having been met. For more about FTA's policy on pre-award authority, please see the FTA Fiscal Year 2014 Apportionments, Allocations, and Program notice found in 77 FR 13461 (March 10, 2014). Post-award reporting requirements include submission of the Federal Financial Report and Milestone reports in TEAM as appropriate (see FTA.C.5010.1D and C9030.1E). The grantees must comply with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, FTA circulars, and other Federal requirements in carrying out the project supported by the FTA grant. FTA emphasizes that grantees must follow all third-party procurement guidance, as described in FTA.C.4220.1F. Funds allocated in this announcement must be obligated in a grant by September 30, 2019.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice.
As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before August 21, 2014.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2014-0107. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Linda Williams, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0903, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel Puelche is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2014-0107 at
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Notice of finding.
This document provides notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in 31 U.S.C. 5318A, the Director of FinCEN found on July 15, 2014, that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that FBME Bank Ltd. (“FBME” or the “Bank”), formerly known as Federal Bank of the Middle East, Ltd., defined to include all of its branches, subsidiaries, and offices, is a financial institution operating outside of the United States of primary money laundering concern.
The finding referred to in this notice was effective as of July 15, 2014.
FinCEN, (800) 767-2825.
On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA PATRIOT Act”), Public Law 107-56. Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act amends the anti-money laundering (“AML”) provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332, to promote the prevention, detection, and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Regulations implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter X. The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (the “Secretary”) to administer the BSA and its implementing regulations has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Section 311”), codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A, grants the Director of FinCEN the authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a foreign jurisdiction, financial institution, class of transaction, or type of account is of “primary money laundering concern,” to require domestic financial institutions and financial agencies to take certain “special measures” to address the primary money laundering concern.
FBME was established in 1982 in Cyprus as the Federal Bank of the Middle East, Ltd., a subsidiary of the private Lebanese bank, Federal Bank of Lebanon. Both FBME and the Federal Bank of Lebanon are owned by Ayoub-Farid M. Saab and Fadi M. Saab. In 1986, FBME changed its country of incorporation to the Cayman Islands, and its banking presence in Cyprus was re-registered as a branch of the Cayman Islands entity. In 2003, FBME left the Cayman Islands due to problems with capital adequacy regulations and re-established itself in Tanzania by acquiring Delphis Bank, a small Tanzanian financial institution with three bank branches. At the same time, FBME's Cypriot operations became a branch of FBME Tanzania Ltd. In 2005, FBME formally changed its name from Federal Bank of the Middle East, Ltd. to FBME Bank Ltd.
Since 2003, FBME has been headquartered in Tanzania. FBME headquarters is widely regarded as the largest bank in Tanzania based on its $2 billion asset size, but it has only four branches. While FBME is presently headquartered in Tanzania, FBME transacts over 90% of its global banking business and holds over 90% of its assets in its Cyprus branch. FBME has always maintained a significant presence in Cyprus. FBME has stated, however, that it is not in direct competition with local retail banks in Cyprus for several reasons, including that it does not issue checks, has no retail counters, and its Cypriot customers are limited to mainly staff, contractors, and professionals providing services to FBME.
The Central Bank of Cyprus (“CBC”), which supervises and regulates all Cypriot banks, including branches of foreign financial institutions such as FBME, has found FBME's compliance with Cypriot banking laws and AML regulations deficient on at least two occasions. As evidenced by its failure to comply with the Cypriot AML law, FBME's weak AML controls and customer due diligence resulted in a fine by the CBC in 2008. In addition, in 2013, FBME took active steps to evade oversight by the Cypriot regulatory authorities. In November 2013, the CBC stated that FBME may be subject to sanctions and a fine of up to 240 million euro for alleged violations of capital controls.
FBME facilitated a substantial volume of money laundering through the Bank for many years. FBME is used by its customers to facilitate money laundering, terrorist financing, transnational organized crime, fraud, sanctions evasion, and other illicit activity internationally and through the U.S. financial system. FBME has systemic failures in its AML controls that attract high-risk shell companies, that is, companies formed for the sole purpose of holding property or funds and that do not engage in any legitimate business activity. FBME performs a significant volume of transactions and activities that have little or no transparency and often no apparent legitimate business purpose.
Through relationships developed by FBME's management since at least 2006, as well its large shell company customer base, FBME facilitates the activities of international terrorist financiers, organized crime figures, and money launderers. For example, since at least early 2011, the head of an international narcotics trafficking and money laundering network has used shell companies' accounts at FBME to engage in financial activity. In late 2012, the head of the same international narcotics trafficking and money laundering network continued to express interest in conducting financial transactions through accounts with FBME in Cyprus. Separately, in 2008, an FBME customer received a deposit of hundreds of thousands of dollars from a financier for Lebanese Hezbollah. FBME also facilitates financial activity for transnational organized crime. As of 2008, a financial advisor for a major transnational organized crime figure who banked entirely at FBME in Cyprus maintained a relationship with the owners of FBME.
FBME facilitated transactions for entities that perpetrate fraud and cybercrime against victims from around the world, including in the United States. For example, in 2009, FBME facilitated the transfer of over $100,000
FBME's offshore banking business allows sanctioned entities to circumvent sanctions imposed by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). IEEPA authorizes the President to declare the existence of an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States originating outside the United States. It further authorizes the President, after such a declaration, to impose sanctions, block transactions, and freeze assets to respond to the threat. FBME facilitates U.S. sanctions evasion through its extensive customer base of shell companies. For example, at least one FBME customer is a front company for a U.S.-sanctioned Syrian entity, the Scientific Studies and Research Center (“SSRC”), which has been designated as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. The SSRC front company used its FBME account to process transactions through the U.S. financial system. This SSRC front company also shared a Tortola, British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) address with at least 111 other shell companies, including at least one other additional FBME customer that is subject to international sanctions.
FBME solicits and is recognized by its high-risk customers for its ease of use. FBME advertises the Bank to its potential customer base as willing to facilitate the evasion of AML regulations. Separately, FBME is recognized for the ease of its account creation. In September 2013, FBME's offshore bank account services were featured prominently on a Web site that facilitates the formation of offshore entities. FBME is also popular with online gamblers, particularly U.S. gamblers that seek to engage in unlawful internet gambling. One Web site that encourages the opening of offshore bank accounts to gamble online notes that FBME in Cyprus is “[a]nother Europe-based bank [we've] found particularly easy to deal with.”
In October 2011, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed civil forfeiture complaints against approximately $70.8 million in real and personal property alleged to be the proceeds of foreign corruption offenses perpetrated by the President of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Obiang's son and his associates and laundered through the United States. Subsequently, between December 2011 and July 2012, the Treasury of Equatorial Guinea wired over $47 million to several Cypriot banks and entities in a pattern of transactions that was identified as being consistent with the allegations in the DOJ complaint. This included $7.2 million wired to a British shell company using an FBME account.
FBME accesses the U.S. financial system through both direct and indirect correspondent accounts. In 2009, one U.S. financial institution terminated its banking relationship with FMBE based on money laundering concerns. The volume of suspicious wire activity conducted by FBME customers through the U.S. financial system, however, remains significant. In just the year from April 2013 through April 2014, FBME conducted at least $387 million in wire transfers through the U.S. financial system that exhibited indicators of high-risk money laundering typologies, including widespread shell company activity, short-term “surge” wire activity, structuring, and high-risk business customers.
FBME has a significant number of shell company customers nominally based in Cyprus and in other high-risk jurisdictions. Wire transfers related to suspected shell company activities accounted for hundreds of millions of dollars of FBME's financial activity between 2006 and 2014. For example, FBME was involved in at least 4,500 suspicious wire transfers through U.S. correspondent accounts that totaled at least $875 million between November 2006 and March 2013. The FBME customers involved in these wire transfers exhibited shell company attributes, and other financial institutions involved in the transfers reported that they were unable to verify the identities of FBME's customers. A lack of transparency for such significant wire activity involving FBME's customers makes it extremely difficult for U.S. and other financial institutions involved in these transactions to verify the
FBME customers, including its many shell company customers, have frequently used FBME's Cyprus address to conduct collectively tens of millions of dollars of transactions. From July 2007 to February 2013, at least 71 entities used FBME's Cyprus address to conduct transactions through the U.S. financial system. Although there may be rare occasions when use of the bank's address as a bank customer's address of record is legitimate, such a practice is highly unusual and indicative of the bank's potential complicity in its customers' illicit activities. This is particularly true if a party to such a transaction is located in a high-risk or sanctioned jurisdiction. Obscuring the true address of the customer inhibits compliance checks by counterparty or intermediary financial institutions.
Legitimate activity at FBME's Cyprus branch is difficult to assess because of the limited amount of information that is available regarding Cypriot branches of foreign banks, such as FBME. FBME claims to have a relatively limited number of customers in Cyprus, yet it also states that it transacts over 90% of its global banking business, and holds over 90% of its assets, in its Cyprus branch. As discussed in this Notice of Finding, FBME functions largely as an offshore bank catering to a significant number of shell entities that are nominally located in Cyprus and other high-risk jurisdictions.
FinCEN's July 22, 2014 proposed imposition of the fifth special measure would guard against the international money laundering and other financial crime risks described above directly by restricting the ability of FBME to access the U.S. financial system to process transactions, and indirectly by public notification to the international financial community of the risks posed by dealing with FBME.
Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee July 22, 2014, Public Meeting.
Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for July 22, 2014.
Date: July 22, 2014
Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT
Location: This meeting will occur
Subject: Discussion of a potential 2015 24-Karat Gold Ultra-High Relief Coin and Silver Medal.
Interested persons should call the CCAC HOTLINE at (202) 354-7502 for the latest update on meeting time and room location.
In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 5135, the CCAC:
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals.
Advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made.
Makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
William Norton, United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7200.
Any member of the public interested in submitting matters for the CCAC's consideration is invited to submit them by fax to the following number: 202-756-6525.
31 U.S.C. 5135(b)(8)(C).