Food and Nutrition Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Indian Health Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopter. This AD requires revising the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) to include the appropriate operating limitations for performing Class D external load-combination operations. This AD was prompted by an inaccurate RFM provision, which was approved without appropriate limitations for this model helicopter for carrying Class D external rotorcraft-load combinations, including human external cargo (HEC). The actions are intended to require appropriate operating limitations to allow operators to perform Class D external load-combination operations, including HEC, in this model helicopter that now meets the Category A performance standard.
This AD is effective September 8, 2014.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop S581A, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone (203) 383-4866, email address
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
John Coffey, Flight Test Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-7173; email:
On December 10, 2009, at 74 FR 65496, the
On September 13, 2012, at 77 FR 56581, the
After our SNPRM (77 FR 56581, September 13, 2012) was published, we received comments from one commenter.
Sikorsky generally concurs with the corrective action but requests that Paragraph (d)(3)(i) of the SNPRM (77 FR 56581, September 13, 2012), which requires removing a note from the RFM, be deleted from the AD. Sikorsky commented that removing the note is not appropriate with respect to applying the 150 pound penalty for the hoist. Sikorsky states that the 150 pound penalty applies to the drag of the hoist being installed on the aircraft and, if one would first determine the maximum gross weight by the chart and then apply the penalty, they would always be limited to 150 pounds below the maximum gross weight of the helicopter. Sikorsky states the note is required so pilots do not erroneously apply a 150 pound penalty to their weight when they are maximum gross weight limited instead of performance limited. As the note only applies when the aircraft is performance limited, Sikorsky requests that it not be removed.
We agree that the correct instructions need to be inserted in the Required Actions section, but disagree with Sikorsky's request. Not removing the note would result in keeping the incorrect instructions from the original Limitations section. But we are including a requirement to add the following note to the Weight Limits section of the RFM to address Sikorsky's comments and to provide accurate instructions: “NOTE: If conditions permit, the pilot may go to the right of the 26,500 pound line on Figure 1-2 to determine the maximum gross weight and then subtract a 150 pound hoist decrement. The maximum gross weight
We have reviewed the relevant information, considered the comment received, and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed with the changes described previously. We also changed the formatting of this AD to meet current publication requirements. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the SNPRM (77 FR 56581, September 13, 2012), and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
We estimate that this AD affects 65 helicopters in the U.S. registry. The costs for inserting a correction to the RFM are expected to be minimal.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-92A helicopters, certificated in any category.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as an inaccurate Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) provision, which was approved without appropriate limitations for this model helicopter for carrying Class D external rotorcraft-load combinations, including Human External Cargo (HEC), when this model helicopter was not certificated to Category A one-engine inoperative (OEI) performance standards, including fly away capabilities after an engine failure, which is required for carrying HEC.
This AD becomes effective September 8, 2014.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
Within 90 days, revise the Operating Limitations section of Sikorsky Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) SA S92A-RFM-003, Part 1, Section I, by inserting a copy of this AD into the RFM or by making pen and ink changes, as follows:
(1) In the “Types of Operation” section, beneath Hoist, add the following: The hoist equipment certification installation approval does not constitute approval to conduct hoist operations. Operational approval for hoist operations must be granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. No cabin seats may be installed in front of station 317 when conducting Human External Cargo hoist operations, which requires Category A performance capabilities.
(2) In the “Flight Limits” section, add the following: “HOIST” When conducting Human External Cargo operations, which require category `A' performance capabilities, the minimum hover height is 20 feet AGL and the maximum hover height is 80 feet AGL. “HOIST” The collective axis must remain uncoupled when conducting Human External Cargo, which requires category `A' performance capabilities, for the period of time that the person is off the ground or water and not in the aircraft. This can be accomplished by either uncoupling the collective axis or by the pilot depressing the collective trim switch during the pertinent portion of the maneuver.
(3) In the “Weight Limits” section:
(i) Remove the following:
(ii) Add the following:
(iii) Add the following and insert Figure 1 to Paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this AD: “HOIST” Maximum gross weight for Human External Cargo, which requires category `A' performance capabilities, is limited to the gross weight determined in accordance with the following Figure 1 to Paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this AD for your altitude and temperature with the air-conditioner, anti-ice, and bleed air turned off.
Figure 1 to Paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this AD becomes Figure 1-2A when inserted in the “Weight Limits” section of your RFM.
Incorporation of the changes contained in Sikorsky RFM SA S92A-RFM-003, Part 1, Revision No. 12, approved March 21, 2005, before the effective date of this AD is considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (e) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: John Coffey, Flight Test Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone (781) 238-7173, fax (781) 238-7170; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop S581A, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT, telephone (203) 383-4866, email address
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2510 Flight Compartment Equipment.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule; technical amendment.
In this rule, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by removing certain entries from the supplement that identifies those items subject to the EAR that are not listed elsewhere in the Commerce Control List (CCL), but which the Department of Commerce, with the concurrence of the Departments of Defense and State, has determined should be controlled for export for foreign policy reasons or because the items provide a significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States. Within one calendar year from the date that such items are listed in the supplement, BIS must publish a rule reclassifying the items under an entry on the CCL. Otherwise, such items automatically become designated as EAR99 items, unless BIS publishes a rule amending the supplement to extend the period in which the items will be listed therein. In accordance with this requirement, this rule removes references to biosensor systems and related “software” and “technology” from the supplement, because these items automatically became designated as EAR99 items on March 28, 2014, and the references to them in the supplement are now obsolete.
This rule is effective August 4, 2014.
Scott Hubinger, Senior Chemist and General Engineer, Chemical and Biological Controls Division, Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance by phone 202-482-5223 or by email at
BIS established the ECCN 0Y521 series in a final rule published April 13, 2012 (72 FR 22191) (hereinafter “April 13 rule”) to identify items that warrant control on the Commerce Control List (CCL) but are not yet identified in an existing ECCN. Items are added to the ECCN 0Y521 series by the Department of Commerce, with the concurrence of the Departments of Defense and State, upon a determination that an item should be controlled because it provides at least a significant military or intelligence advantage to the United States or because foreign policy reasons justify such control. The ECCN 0Y521 series is a temporary holding classification with a limitation that while an item is temporarily classified under ECCN 0Y521, the U.S. Government works to adopt a control through the relevant multilateral regime(s), to determine an appropriate longer-term control over the item, or that the item does not warrant control on the CCL.
Under the procedures established in the April 13 rule and codified at § 742.6(a)(7)(iii) of the EAR, items classified under ECCN 0Y521 remain so-classified for one year from the date a final rule identifying the item is published in the
On March 28, 2013 (78 FR 18814), BIS imposed 0Y521 license requirements on biosensor systems and related “software” and “technology” for export and reexport to all destinations, except Canada. Under the procedures established in the April 13 rule and as described in Supplement No. 5 to Part 774, the effective date of the initial classification was the date of that rule's publication, March 28, 2013, and the date the items would be designated EAR99, unless reclassified in another ECCN or the 0Y521 classification was reissued, was one year later, March 28, 2014. In the interim, BIS, on behalf of the U.S. Government, submitted a proposal to the Australia Group (a multilateral regime of which the United States is a member) for control of the items for nonproliferation reasons. The Australia Group decided that it would not impose controls on the items, and the U.S. Government did not seek further consideration of multilateral controls, nor did BIS re-classify the items under a different ECCN or reissue the 0Y521 classification. In accordance with § 742.6(a)(7)(iii) of the EAR, as of March 28, 2014, the 0Y521 classification of the biosensor systems and related “software” and “technology” expired, meaning the items were no longer classified in the 0Y521 series and became designated EAR99. By removing the items from the list of items classified in the 0Y521 series in Supplement No. 5 to Part, this rule removes text that
Further, BIS received two comments in response to the March 28, 2013 interim final rule. One commenter stated that designating the Biosensor System No. 1 0A521 without license exception options other than License Exception GOV section 740.11(b)(2)(ii) may result in regulating the item more restrictively than it would under the ITAR and may result in “chilling effects toward academic research and thereby diminish innovation.” Another commenter raised concerns that the scope of what is covered by the No.1 0E521 “Technology” might be overly broad without a reference to the General Technology Note and that BIS should provide guidance on how to interpret the scope. The change of status of the biosensor systems and related “software” and “technology” to EAR99 renders the comments moot.
Therefore, in this rule, BIS amends the EAR to update certain entries in Supplement No. 5 to Part 774— Items Classified Under Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521 and 0E521—according to the procedure set forth in the April 13 rule that established the 0Y521 series. Specifically, in this rule, BIS removes references to biosensor systems and related “software” and “technology” under ECCNs 0A521 No. 1, 0D521 No. 1 and 0E521 No. 1, respectively, from Supplement No. 5 to Part 774 of the EAR to conform with the current legal status of those items under the EAR and rid the Supplement of obsolete references. The items are EAR99 and the 0Y521 series license requirements do not apply. This is a technical amendment that only updates Supplement No. 5 to Part 774 of the EAR. It does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition under the EAR.
Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp., 783 (2002)), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and extended most recently by the Notice of August 8, 2013, 78 FR 49107 (August 12, 2013), has continued the EAR 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, distribute 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 final 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 shall any person 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 under E.O. 13132.
4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. This rule only updates Supplement No. 5 to Part 774 to the EAR by removing references to certain items to make the Supplement conform to the current legal status of those items under the EAR. These revisions are merely technical and reflect what already is in effect under the EAR in accordance with established procedure, and the procedure itself was proposed to the public and the subject of public comment. This rule clarifies information, which serves to avoid confusing readers about the items' EAR99 status. It does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. Because neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor any other law requires that notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, Part 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
Department of State.
Final rule.
The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to update the defense trade policy regarding the Central African Republic to reflect the most recent resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council.
Mr. C. Edward Peartree, Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, U.S. Department of State, telephone (202) 663-2792, or email
On April 10, 2014, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted resolution 2149, which called for the UN Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic (BINUCA) to be subsumed into the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA). The Department of State is amending ITAR § 126.1(u) to implement this change.
The Department of State is of the opinion that controlling the import and export of defense articles and services is a foreign affairs function of the United States Government and that rules implementing this function are exempt from sections 553 (rulemaking) and 554 (adjudications) of the Administrative Procedure Act. Since the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 553, it is the view of the Department that the provisions of section 553(d) do not apply to this rulemaking. Therefore, this rule is effective upon publication. The Department also finds that, given the national security issues surrounding U.S. policy towards the Central African Republic, there is good cause for the effective date of this rule to be the date of publication, as provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Since the Department is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, there is no requirement for an analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will 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 year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule within the definition of 5 U.S.C. 804.
This rulemaking 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 Executive Order 13132, the Department has determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.
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, distributed impacts, and equity). These executive orders stress the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department has determined that the benefits of this rulemaking outweigh any cost to the public, which the Department believes will be minimal. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
The Department of State reviewed this rulemaking in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department of State determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.
This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Arms and munitions, Exports.
For the reasons set forth above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter M, part 126 is amended as follows:
Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42, and 71, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 2791, and 2797); 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205; 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; Sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375; Sec. 7089, Pub. L. 111-117; Pub. L. 111-266; Sections 7045 and 7046, Pub. L. 112-74; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129.
(u) * * *
(1) Defense articles intended solely for the support of or use by the International Support Mission to the Central African Republic (MISCA); the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA); the African Union Regional Task Force (AU-RTF); and the French forces and European Union operation deployed in the Central African Republic;
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) by eliminating the Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473 (Low Volume (LV)), Parts I and II. Federally licensed firearms dealers used this form as an alternate record for the receipt and disposition of firearms. Because licensees rarely use Form 4473 (LV), ATF has determined that continued use of this form is unwarranted and it should be eliminated. Licensees will be required to use the standard Form 4473 for all dispositions and maintain a record of the acquisition and disposition of firearms in accordance with the regulations.
This rule is effective October 3, 2014.
Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.
The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“the Act”), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44. Among other things, the Act authorizes the Attorney General to establish license and recordkeeping requirements. The Attorney General has delegated authority to administer and enforce the Act to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. 28 CFR 0.130(a). Regulations that implement the provisions of the Act are contained in 27 CFR Part 478.
Section 478.125(e) requires that each federally licensed firearms dealer enter into a record each receipt and disposition of a firearm. Licensed dealers must maintain the record in bound form under the format prescribed in the regulations. Regarding the purchase or other acquisition of a firearm by a licensed dealer, the record must show the date of receipt, the name and address or the name and license number of the person from whom it was received, the name of the manufacturer and importer (if any), the model, serial number, type, and the caliber or gauge of the firearm. Licensed dealers must also record certain information regarding the sale or other disposition of a firearm, e.g., the date of the sale or other disposition of the firearm, the name and address of the person to whom the firearm is transferred, or the name and license number of the person to whom the firearm is transferred if such person is a licensee.
Section 478.124a, which became effective August 1, 1988, provides for alternate records for the receipt and disposition of firearms by licensed dealers. This section generally provides that a licensed dealer acquiring firearms and contemplating the disposition of not more than 50 firearms within a succeeding 12-month period to licensees or nonlicensees could maintain a record of the acquisition and disposition of such firearms on a firearms transaction record, Form 4473 (LV) Part I, Firearms Transaction Record Part I—Low Volume—Over-The-Counter, or Form 4473 (LV) Part II, Firearms Transaction Record Part II Low Volume—Intrastate Non-Over-The-Counter, in lieu of the records prescribed by § 478.125(e). A licensed dealer who maintains alternate records pursuant to § 478.124a, but whose firearms dispositions exceeded 50 firearms within a 12-month period, is required to make and maintain the acquisition and disposition records required by § 478.125(e) with respect to each firearm exceeding 50.
The standard Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record, is the form commonly used by firearms licensees to record distributions of firearms to nonlicensed individuals. This form is supplemented by the licensee's acquisition and disposition record. The Form 4473 (LV) combined the acquisition and disposition record into the form for use by low volume licensees (
On August 5, 2010, ATF published in the
The NPRM also noted that if the proposed rule was adopted, licensees would be required to use the standard ATF Form 4473 for all dispositions and maintain a record of the acquisition and disposition of firearms in accordance with the provisions of § 478.125. The comment period for the NPRM closed on November 3, 2010.
Seven comments were received in response to the Department's proposal to eliminate Form 4473 (LV). Of those, three offered either general or specific support for the Department's proposal. One of the commenters stated that all nonessential paperwork and recordkeeping should be eliminated. One commenter stated that the Form 4473 (LV) was confusing and “borderline obsolete” without offering any further explanation. One commenter stated that having multiple systems of recording acquisitions and dispositions unnecessarily complicated the recordkeeping process, and that requiring all licensees to use a single system of records (the standard Form 4473 and bound book) would reduce confusion and improve recordkeeping accuracy. This commenter went on to state that a single recordkeeping system would make enforcement of firearms regulations simpler. All three commenters concurred with the proposed elimination of Form 4473 (LV).
Four commenters objected to the Department's proposal. One of the objecting commenters stated that Form 4473 (LV) was useful. The remaining three commenters misunderstood the proposed amendment and assumed that the Department was proposing to eliminate the Firearms Transaction Record entirely. As stated in the NPRM, the Department was only proposing to eliminate Form 4473 (LV). The standard Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record, was not proposed for elimination. With respect to the objecting commenter who found Form 4473 (LV) useful, the Department notes that the proposed elimination of that form was not based upon a determination that it served no purpose. Rather, because it was used so infrequently ATF concluded that the
Accordingly, this final rule adopts without change the proposed amendment eliminating Form 4473 (LV). Upon the effective date of this final rule, licensees will be required to use the standard Form 4473 for all dispositions and maintain a record of the acquisition and disposition of firearms in accordance with the regulations in 27 CFR Part 478. These recordkeeping requirements apply to the disposition of firearms to all nonlicensed persons.
This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), The Principles of Regulation, and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The Department of Justice has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. However, this rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, nor will it adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
Because ATF Form 4473 (LV), Parts I and II, have rarely been used by federal firearms licensees, the rule will have a negligible effect on the economy.
The rule will 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the Attorney General has determined that the rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Because ATF Form 4473 (LV), Parts I and II, have rarely been used by federal firearms licensees, the rule will have a negligible effect on small businesses.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
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 were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Copies of the notice of proposed rulemaking, all comments received in response to the NPRM, and this final rule will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reading Room, Room 1E-062, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-8740.
The author of this document is Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and ammunition, Authority delegations, Customs duties and inspection, Domestic violence, Exports, Imports, Law enforcement personnel, Military personnel, Nonimmigrant aliens, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures, and Transportation.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR Part 478 is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921-931; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
(e)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the San Diego Bayfair special local regulations on Friday, September 12, 2014 through Sunday, September 14, 2014. This recurring marine event occurs on the navigable waters of Mission Bay in San Diego, California. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the high speed boat race participants, crew, spectators, safety vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
This rule is effective from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Friday, September 12, 2014 through Sunday, September 14, 2014.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278-7261, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in Mission Bay for the San Diego Bayfair as listed in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 12 from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the regulated area encompassing all navigable waters of Mission Bay to include Fiesta Island, the east side of Vacation Isle, and Crown Point Shores, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the regulated area may request permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in patrol and notification of this regulation.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 100.1101. In addition to this notice in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce one special local regulation for a regatta in the Sector Long Island Sound area of responsibility on October 5, 2014. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the regulated area without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative.
The regulations for the marine event listed in the Table to 33 CFR 100.100(1.4) will be enforced on October 5, 2014 from 5:30 a.m. through 5:30 p.m.
If you have questions on this notice, call or email Petty Officer Ian Fallon, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound; telephone 203-468-4565, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation listed in 33 CFR 100.100(1.4) on the specified date and times as indicated below. The final rule establishing this special local regulation was published in the
Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.100, the regatta listed above is established as a special local regulation. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within the regulated area unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Interim final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending the portion of its Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) dealing with mental disorders and its adjudication regulations that define the term “psychosis.” The
Written comments may be submitted through
Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Medical Officer, VASRD Regulations Staff (211C), Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders. DSM-IV, the version that is referenced in VA's current regulations, was initially published in 1994, with minor changes published in 2000 as the DSM-IV-TR. DSM-5, which replaces DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR, was published in May 2013.
The DSM is referenced in VA's adjudication regulations and VASRD to ensure that claims for disability benefits for mental disorders are adjudicated in a consistent and objective manner. Additionally, reference to the DSM is included so that VA adjudicators apply the same principles and criteria that are used by both VA and non-VA health care providers. 61 FR 52695, Oct. 8, 1996.
In order to keep VA regulations, including the VASRD, current for immediate use in accordance with DSM-5, 38 CFR 3.384, 4.125, 4.126, 4.127, and 4.130 must be updated. This update will require VA rating personnel to use the diagnostic nomenclature contained in DSM-5 when adjudicating claims for mental disorders. This update to incorporate the current DSM will not affect evaluations assigned to mental disorders as it does not change the disability evaluation criteria in the VASRD.
Currently, § 3.384 reads, “For purposes of this part, the term `psychosis' means any of the following disorders listed in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision, of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV-TR).” Reference to DSM-IV-TR is outdated in light of the publication of the most recent fifth edition of the DSM and is, by this rulemaking, replaced with reference to DSM-5. Additionally, the reference to Shared Psychotic Disorder as a distinct diagnosis in § 3.384(h) is removed as the DSM-5 now classifies it as a part of Delusional Disorder. Also included in current § 3.384 are the following listed disorders: Psychotic Disorder Due to General Medical Condition; Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified; and Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder. To reflect the current nomenclature of the DSM-5, VA is updating the names of these disorders to Psychotic Disorder Due to Another Medical Condition, Other Specified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder, and Substance/Medication-Induced Psychotic Disorder, respectively.
Section 4.125(a) currently reads, “If the diagnosis of a mental disorder does not conform to DSM-IV or is not supported by the findings on the examination report, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner to substantiate the diagnosis.” Now that DSM-5 has been published, continued VASRD reference to DSM-IV will lead to inaccurate Compensation and Pension diagnoses and inefficient processing of related benefits claims. Additionally, mandating use of an outdated version of the DSM would not be consistent with VA's goal of using the most up-to-date medical information to describe veterans' rated disorders. Therefore, VA is removing the reference to DSM-IV and replacing it with reference to DSM-5.
Currently, § 4.126(c) reads, “Delirium, dementia, and amnestic and other cognitive disorders shall be evaluated under the general rating formula for mental disorders; neurologic deficits or other impairments stemming from the same etiology (e.g., a head injury) shall be evaluated separately and combined with the evaluation for delirium, dementia, or amnestic or other cognitive disorder (see § 4.25).” DSM-5 renames the “Delirium, Dementia, and Amnestic and Other Cognitive Disorders” category as “Neurocognitive Disorders.” Therefore, VA is deleting the reference to “Delirium, dementia, and amnestic and other cognitive disorders” as a disease category in § 4.126(c) and replacing it with “Neurocognitive Disorders” to be consistent with the terminology in DSM-5.
Currently, § 4.127 is titled “Mental retardation and personality disorders.” It reads, “Mental retardation and personality disorders are not diseases or injuries for compensation purposes, and, except as provided in § 3.310(a) of this chapter, disability resulting from them may not be service-connected.
Currently, § 4.130 reads, “The nomenclature employed in this portion of the rating schedule is based upon the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-IV).” As explained above, continued reference to the DSM-IV will lead to inaccurate Compensation and Pension diagnoses and inefficient processing of related benefits claims. Additionally, mandating the use of an outdated version of the DSM would not be consistent with VA's goal of using the most up-to-date medical information to describe veterans' rated disorders. Therefore, VA is deleting the reference to DSM-IV in § 4.130 and replacing it with a reference to DSM-5.
Currently, § 4.130 lists 38 diagnostic codes that are divided under eight organizational headers: Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders; Delirium, Dementia, and Amnestic and Other Cognitive Disorders; Anxiety Disorders; Dissociative Disorders; Somatoform Disorders; Mood Disorders; Chronic Adjustment Disorder; and Eating Disorders. These headers are based on the chapters in the DSM-IV and reflect classification of mental disorders in DSM-IV. The headers are not part of the actual rating criteria that pertain to how a mental disability is evaluated under the VASRD.
VA is changing § 4.130 terminology to conform to DSM-5. Accordingly, VA is deleting the organizational headers within the VASRD. This change adheres to the classification of mental disorders in DSM-5 and allows for accurate classification of mental disorders under the VASRD. For example, in the DSM-5, the Anxiety Disorders chapter no longer includes obsessive-compulsive disorder, which is in a new chapter “Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders,” or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is in the new chapter “Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorders.” This change is technical and does not amend the criteria currently used to evaluate mental disorders under the VASRD.
In addition to deletion of these organizational categories, VA is adding a note to § 4.130. This note instructs rating specialists to evaluate mental disorders according to the general rating formula for mental disorders and to evaluate eating disorders according to the rating formula for eating disorders. This note is necessary due to the DSM-5 deletion of organizational categories. There is no change made to VA's criteria or method for evaluating mental and eating disorders. The note will read as follows: “Note: Ratings under diagnostic codes 9201 to 9440 will be evaluated using the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders. Ratings under diagnostic codes 9520 and 9521 will be evaluated using the General Rating Formula for Eating Disorders.”
Of the 38 diagnostic codes in § 4.130, 25 require updating to reflect the current terminology contained in the DSM-5. The changes do not affect the evaluation of these mental disorders. For reference purposes, the following table lists all affected diagnostic codes under amended § 4.130 and includes the nomenclature under DSM-IV and the new nomenclature under DSM-5:
The changes in the table will also be reflected in identical amendments to Appendix A—Table of Amendments and Effective Dates Since 1946, Appendix B—Numerical Index of Disabilities, and Appendix C—Alphabetical Index of Disabilities, all contained in 38 CFR Part 4. In addition, diagnostic code 9412 in Appendix B—Numerical Index of Disabilities has been corrected to read “Panic disorder and/or agoraphobia.” This change is a correction as the previous listing in Appendix B omitted “and/or agoraphobia” from the listed diagnosis.
The Director of the Federal Register approves the incorporation by reference of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) (2013) for the purposes of 38 CFR 4.125(a) in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from the American Psychiatric Association, 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209-3901. You may inspect a copy at the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420 or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. Although §§ 3.384 and 4.130 also mention DSM-5, incorporation by reference is not required because those sections merely refer to the DSM-5 as a source and not as a requirement. In contrast, § 4.125 requires claims adjudicators to use the DSM-5.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds that there is good cause to dispense with the opportunity for prior notice and comment and good cause to publish this rule with an immediate effective date. The Secretary finds that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to delay this regulation for the purpose of soliciting prior public comment.
It is impracticable to provide opportunity for prior notice and comment for this rulemaking because a delay in implementation will require the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to continue to diagnose mental disorders under two versions of the DSM until this regulation is effective, one for clinical purposes (under DSM-5) and one for compensation purposes (under DSM-IV). In order to maintain the highest and most modern level of care for veterans, and as required by the American Psychiatric Association, VHA clinicians must use the DSM-5-based clinical guidelines to appropriately diagnose and treat veterans with mental disorders. This use of the DSM-5 not only provides veterans with the most up-to-date care for mental disorders, but also ensures that non-VA health care providers who employ the DSM-5 are able to understand, interpret, and continue the care documented in VA treatment records.
Similarly, the Veterans Benefits Administration's (VBA) failure to employ DSM-5 will place VASRD diagnostic terminology and classifications of mental disorders at odds with the DSM-5-based diagnostic criteria and terminology now standard in the psychiatric community. Continued reliance on the DSM-IV would also potentially place VBA at odds with its own regulations, which require “accurate and fully descriptive medical examinations” in order to apply the VASRD. 38 CFR 4.1. Failure to adopt the most current medical standards for the diagnosis of mental disorders, as contained in the DSM-5, would thus result in an inability to apply the VASRD, as DSM-IV-based examinations are now outdated and therefore inaccurate.
It is therefore imperative that VBA adopt the DSM-5 as the diagnostic standard for disability compensation purposes. As described above, prior notice and comment period for this rulemaking will result in negative consequences for both the VHA treatment and VBA evaluation of mental health disorders. Specifically, without this immediate change, VHA medical professionals would be required to diagnose and record their clinical findings using two standards. Under commonly accepted American Psychiatric Association and medical guidelines, the DSM-5, the current authoritative standard, must be used for the purposes of clinical diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. However, under the existing requirement to diagnose mental disorders under DSM-IV when performing Compensation and Pension examinations, these same VHA clinicians would be required to record their clinical findings using the obsolete and now-irrelevant DSM-IV. This would put VHA physicians at odds with their professional responsibilities as members of the medical community and providers of veterans' care. Moreover, asking VHA to continue providing medical evidence based on DSM-IV ignores the numerous advances in mental health science reflected in the DSM-5.
VA notes that it is unnecessary to provide opportunity for prior notice and comment for this rulemaking because it is inevitable that VBA will adopt the DSM-5 for diagnostic purposes. With its foundations based upon the most current medical science as determined by experts in the field of mental health, the new and current DSM-5 terminology and classification of mental disorders must be applied to the adjudication process without undue delay. In this context, VA recognizes that applying the new and current DSM-5-based updates to the VASRD immediately upon publication of this rule will enable the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make available to all veterans who are diagnosed with mental health disorders, including those who suffer from PTSD, timely access to benefits based on current and accurate clinical diagnostic criteria already adopted by the psychiatric community. Taking this step will avoid disruption in providing accurate disability benefits to veterans for mental health disorders in a timely manner.
Upon publication of the DSM-5, the American Psychiatric Association and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services instructed health care providers to begin using the DSM-5 immediately. VHA clinicians followed thereafter and began utilizing the DSM-5 in treatment of mental disorders on November 1, 2013. However, the American Psychiatric Association also noted that there will be a period of time during which insurers and other agencies, to include VA, will need to
Furthermore, it is inevitable that VBA will eventually rely on the DSM-5-based terminology and classification of mental disorders to describe diagnosed mental disorders. Use of the DSM-5 as a standard for the diagnosis of mental disorders is not a decision that rests with VA, VHA, or VBA. VHA clinicians, as well as all mental health providers, have a professional duty as licensed medical practitioners to use the most current medical guidelines, in this case the DSM-5. In addition, IOM has encouraged VBA to review the VASRD to ensure that it relies on current medical science. With successive editions over the past 60 years, DSM has become the standard reference for clinical practice in the mental health field. Its fifth edition, DSM-5, presents the most current classification of mental disorders with associated criteria designed to facilitate more reliable diagnosis of these disorders. VBA must eventually rely on the DSM-5 in order for VHA physicians to comply with their professional obligations and to ensure adherence to guidance from the IOM.
The change to the references from DSM-IV to DSM-5 in VBA's adjudication regulations does not present a change in how mental disorders are evaluated under the VASRD, nor are any disorders removed from the VASRD. The only foreseeable substantive public comments would be limited to the contents of the DSM-5 itself, something over which VBA has no control or input. VBA has reviewed the contents of the DSM-5 to ensure that, while some disabilities have been renamed, re-categorized, or consolidated into another diagnosis, all mental disorders currently listed in the VASRD are accounted for. The changes made to diagnostic nomenclature, however, are beyond the scope and expertise of VBA, and any comments suggesting changes to how disabilities are diagnosed could not be answered by VBA. In cases of periodic updates of clinical guidelines and medical terminology used by the medical community, such as DSM-5, VBA has no authority to comment, challenge, or change the content, terminology, or nomenclature based on public comment. VBA's use of the DSM-5 is limited to conforming to the most current medical standards and practices in diagnosing mental disabilities. While an interim final rulemaking forgoes prior notice and comment, VBA will still accept and consider all significant comments received in response to the publication of this rulemaking and can make changes through future rulemakings if necessary.
As the understandings of mental disorders and their treatments have evolved, clinical professionals have developed strong, objective, and consistent scientific validators of individual disorders. As a result, the DSM-5 has moved to a non-axial documentation of diagnoses, based on dimensional concepts in the diagnosis of mental disorders. The DSM-IV incorporated a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale, which was used to measure the individual's overall level of functioning on a scale of 1 to 100. The American Psychiatric Association has determined that the GAF score has limited usefulness in the assessment of the level of disability. Noted problems include lack of conceptual clarity and doubtful value of GAF psychometrics in clinical practice. Currently, VA's mental health examinations performed under DSM-IV include the GAF score in evaluating PTSD and all other disorders, but the score is only marginally applicable to PTSD and other disorders because of its emphasis on the symptoms of mood disorder and schizophrenia and its limited range of symptom content.
During VA's review of the DSM-5, questions were raised as to the impact of DSM-5 changes in PTSD diagnostic criteria and, therefore, the number of veterans eligible to receive disability compensation for this mental disorder. Specifically, there was concern that a change in the diagnostic criteria for PTSD in the DSM-5 would result in fewer diagnoses, given that the DSM-5 includes more explicit definitions for stressors. The new diagnostic criteria for PTSD no longer include the subjective reaction to the traumatic event (Criterion A2), such as experiencing fear, helplessness, or horror, but the revised stressor criterion (Criterion A) includes a more explicit definition for stressors as exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury or sexual violation. According to DSM-5, the exposure must result from at least one of the following scenarios, in which the individual: Directly experiences the traumatic event; witnesses the traumatic event in person; learns that the traumatic event occurred to a close family member or close friend (with actual or threatened death being either violent or accidental); or experiences first-hand repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event (not through media, pictures, television, or movies unless work-related).
The DSM-5 also includes four diagnostic clusters for PTSD, instead of the three clusters under the DSM-IV. These clusters are described as re-experiencing, avoidance, negative alterations in cognition and mood, and arousal. The number of symptoms that must be identified to support a diagnosis depends on the cluster in which the symptoms fall. Most importantly, the DSM-5 only requires that a disturbance continue for more than one month and eliminates the distinction between acute and chronic PTSD; this will likely result in more veterans meeting the diagnostic criteria for PTSD.
Although DSM-5 does present minor changes in the manner in which PTSD is diagnosed—i.e., it includes more explicit definitions for stressors for purposes of clinical diagnosis, it is important to note that such changes do not impact VA's adjudication regulations, which provide evidentiary criteria for establishing the existence of an in-service stressor, in certain circumstances. For example, 38 CFR 3.304(f)(3) provides the relaxed evidentiary criteria for establishing a stressor based on fear of hostile military or terrorist activity under which an examiner determined that the stressor criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD under the DSM-5 have been satisfied. 75 FR 39843, July 13, 2010. VA also provides for full development of potential sources of stressor evidence in claims based on military sexual trauma under 38 CFR 3.304(f)(5). In addition, it is important to note that the DSM-5 now specifically lists sexual violation/assault as a traumatic event to satisfy the stressor criteria. Also, once a diagnosis is established, DSM-5 does not change how the existing VASRD evaluation criteria are applied to diagnosed mental disorders to determine an appropriate disability rating.
To the extent that VA and non-VA physicians will no longer use GAF scores in their examinations, such discontinuance will only alter the form in which physicians make and report
Finally, it is contrary to the public interest to provide opportunity for prior notice and comment for this rulemaking because a delay in VBA's transition to the DSM-5 will negatively impact the current claims backlog. For example, if mental health conditions continue to be adjudicated based on DSM-IV nomenclature while VHA treats mental conditions based on DSM-5 nomenclature, VHA records will not be relevant for the purposes of adjudicating claims for mental disabilities. This outcome will require additional development by VBA leading to increased processing times. Therefore, immediate implementation of the DSM-5 in VBA's regulations will ensure rating decisions reflect current diagnostic standards and promote consistency between VHA and VBA.
The regulations under 38 CFR Parts 3 and 4 require that all pertinent evidence of record be considered when evaluating a veteran's disability for compensation purposes. The mental health regulations of the VASRD currently require that all mental conditions be diagnosed in accordance with the standards set under DSM-IV. However, VHA currently uses the DSM-5 criteria for the purposes of diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. As such, DSM-5 VA treatment records are not legally sufficient for VA disability evaluations under VASRD's current reference to DSM-IV. Ready availability of VHA treatment records expedites VBA adjudicators' accurate evaluation of mental health disorders, particularly when considering claims for increased benefits.
This discrepancy between the standards for diagnosis and treatment and disability evaluation of mental disorders will ultimately add to the current backlog of disability claims. Without the ability to adjudicate claims based on existing medical evidence, VA will have no choice but to require disability examinations for mental disorders utilizing the criteria set forth in DSM-IV to ensure compliance with current regulations. This will place an additional and unnecessary strain on VHA and VBA resources. This will result in claim processing delays and frustrate VA's efforts to achieve its stated agency priority goal of eliminating the claims backlog.
Historically, in response to the previous update from DSM-III to DSM-IV, VA employed a notice of proposed rulemaking prior to finalizing changes to 38 CFR 4.125. DSM-IV was published in May 1994 and VA's notice of proposed rulemaking to incorporate the newest version of the DSM was published in the
In stark contrast, the current rule only updates nomenclature in the VASRD and other regulations to be consistent with DSM-5; evaluation criteria under § 4.130 remain unchanged. Given that the current rulemaking does not change evaluation criteria and given the need to ensure veterans receive timely and accurate disability compensation, VA is making these changes through an interim final rule. VA stresses that it will consider and address significant comments received within 60 days of the date this interim final rule is published in the
As previously noted, the American Psychiatric Association released the DSM-5 for clinical use in May 2013. At that time, clinicians from VHA and medical officers from VBA, as part of a workgroup, reviewed the DSM-5 for changes in diagnostic criteria, disability nomenclature, and any other pertinent shifts from the previous version. Based upon their review of the DSM-5, the changes from the DSM-IV were then reviewed by VBA personnel with a focus on the disability compensation claims process. VBA determined that the DSM-5 required that changes be made to the VASRD nomenclature and certain adjudication regulations. VBA undertook an extensive development process to ensure that all potential issues were considered and adequately addressed in the regulations. While this process took considerable time, it allowed VBA to anticipate and address potential problems with rulemaking prior to publication, ultimately saving time.
For the foregoing reasons, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest to delay this rulemaking for the purpose of soliciting advance public comment or to have a delayed effective date. Accordingly, VA is issuing this rule as an interim final rule with an immediate effective date. We will consider and address significant comments that are received within 60 days of the date this interim final rule is published in the
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this interim final rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This interim final rule will not affect any small entities. Only certain VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This interim final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This interim final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this rule are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veteran Affairs, approved this document on July 24, 2014, for publication.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health Care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam.
Disability benefits, Incorporation by reference, Pensions, Veterans.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR parts 3 and 4 as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
For purposes of this part, the term “psychosis” means any of the following disorders listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) (see § 4.125 for availability information):
(a) Brief Psychotic Disorder;
(b) Delusional Disorder;
(c) Psychotic Disorder Due to Another Medical Condition;
(d) Other Specified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder;
(e) Schizoaffective Disorder;
(f) Schizophrenia;
(g) Schizophreniform Disorder; and
(h) Substance/Medication-Induced Psychotic Disorder.
38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.
(a) If the diagnosis of a mental disorder does not conform to DSM-5 or is not supported by the findings on the examination report, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner to substantiate the diagnosis. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), American Psychiatric Association (2013), is incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Department of Veterans Affairs must publish notice of change in the
(c) Neurocognitive disorders shall be evaluated under the general rating
Intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) and personality disorders are not diseases or injuries for compensation purposes, and, except as provided in § 3.310(a) of this chapter, disability resulting from them may not be service-connected. However, disability resulting from a mental disorder that is superimposed upon intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) or a personality disorder may be service-connected.
The nomenclature employed in this portion of the rating schedule is based upon the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) (see § 4.125 for availability information). Rating agencies must be thoroughly familiar with this manual to properly implement the directives in § 4.125 through § 4.129 and to apply the general rating formula for mental disorders in § 4.130. The schedule for rating for mental disorders is set forth as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals from Alaska to address the interstate transport provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 fine particulate matter (PM
This final rule is effective on September 3, 2014.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0609. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Keith Rose at: (206) 553-1949,
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Information is organized as follows:
On March 29, 2011, and July 9, 2012, Alaska submitted SIP revisions to the EPA demonstrating that the Alaska SIP meets the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM
The EPA is approving the SIP submittals from Alaska on March 29, 2011, and July 9, 2012, to address the interstate transport provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 3, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Particulate matter, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) as it applies to the volatile organic compound (VOC) sources in the offset lithographic printing source category. We are approving revisions to the regulations for this source category as they apply in the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW), El Paso and Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) areas. These revisions are based on the recommendations for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) in the Control Technique Guideline (CTG) issued in 2006 entitled, “Lithographic Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials.” We are also approving the corresponding RACT analysis for this category for both the HGB and DFW 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA is approving these revisions pursuant the federal Clean Air Act (the Act, CAA) and consistent with the EPA's guidance.
This final rule is effective on September 3, 2014.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0332. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Ms. Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), telephone: (214) 665-2164, email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
The background for today's final rule is discussed in our March 12, 2014 proposal to approve revisions to the Texas SIP (79 FR 13963). In that action, we proposed to approve one submittal in full, and portions of two separate submittals: A Texas SIP revision submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in April, 2010, which updates the regulations that apply to offset lithographic printing based on the 2006 CTG for this category, and the portions of two other Texas SIP revisions submitted by the TCEQ in April, 2010, containing a RACT analysis for this source category for the DFW and the HGB areas. The TCEQ SIP submittals we proposed to approve March 12, 2014, and which we are approving in this final action are:
(a) VOC CTG Update: CTG Category Offset Lithographic Rulemaking, adopted on March 10, 2010 and submitted April 5, 2010, providing rule revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, Subchapter E, Division 4, “Offset Lithographic Printing” which apply to offset lithographic printing lines located in the Dallas-Fort Worth (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant counties), El Paso, and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties) areas. This submittal addresses recommendations for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) in the Control Technique Guideline (CTG) issued in 2006 entitled, “Lithographic Printing Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials” for the DFW and HGB areas, and also updates the rules for this source category for DFW, El Paso, and HGB.
(b) a portion of the 2010 HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, the RACT Analysis for the Offset Lithographic CTG Category, adopted March 10, 2010 and submitted April 6, 2010, and
(c) a portion of the 2010 DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP Revision for
Our March 12, 2014 proposal provides a detailed description of the revisions and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions, together with a discussion of the opportunity to comment. The public comment period for these actions closed on April 11, 2014. See the Technical Support Document in the docket for this rulemaking and our proposal at 79 FR 13963 for more information. We did not receive any comments regarding our proposal. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.
The EPA is approving Texas' 2010 SIP revisions for the VOC CTG source category Offset Lithographic Printing rules. We are approving revisions to the following sections within 30 TAC Chapter 115: 115.440, 115.441, 115.442, 115.443, 115.445, 115.446, and 115.449. In addition, the EPA is finding that for this CTG category Texas has RACT-level controls in place for the HGB and DFW Areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with sections 110, 172(c) and 182 of the federal Clean Air Act and consistent with the EPA's guidance.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 3, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Nebraska. This action will amend the SIP to include revisions to Nebraska's Air Quality Regulations “Definitions”, “Construction Permits—When Required”, and “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality” to make the state regulations consistent with the Federal regulations for the fine Particulate Matter (PM
This direct final rule will be effective October 3, 2014, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 3, 2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0468, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
Greg Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7391, or by email at
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:
EPA is approving revisions into the SIP to include amendments to Title 129 of the Nebraska Air Quality Regulations as they apply to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality. We are approving rule revisions to Chapter 1, “Definitions”; Chapter 17, “Construction Permits—When Required”; and Chapter 19, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality”. The revisions make the state regulations consistent with Federal regulations for the PM
The following definitions are revised to match the Federal regulation: Baseline area; major source baseline date; minor source baseline date; regulated NSR pollutant; regulated pollutant for fee purposes; significant; and significant emissions unit.
Revisions provide clarification that only pollutants specifically listed in state statute require a construction permit application fee and adds emission levels for PM
This action is also consistent with the state's request to not include the SIP provisions relating the Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMCs). On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated and remanded the provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2) concerning implementation of the PM
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
EPA is approving the state's request to revise the SIP to include amendments to the Nebraska air quality rules as they apply to the PSD of air quality. The rule is amended to correspond with the final Federal regulation necessary for the PM
We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. EPA does not anticipate adverse comment because the revisions to the existing rules are routine and consistent with the Federal regulations, thereby, strengthening the SIP. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 3, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Air quality, Prevention of significant deterioration, Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending 40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
(l) The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality approved a revision to NDEQ Title 129, Chapter 1 on December 1, 2011, which became effective April 1, 2012. This revision was submitted on February 13, 2013. We are approving this program revision effective October 3, 2014.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Interim final rule.
With this action, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in accordance with a final rule recently published by the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and
This rule is effective on August 4, 2014. Comments must be received by October 3, 2014. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 4, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0920-AA57,” by any of the following methods:
•
•
A. Scott Laney, Research Epidemiologist, Division of Respiratory Disease Studies, NIOSH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1095 Willowdale Road, MS HG900.2, Morgantown, WV 26505-2888; (304) 285-5754 (this is not a toll-free number);
Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written views, arguments, recommendations, and data. Comments are invited on any topic related to this rulemaking.
All mining work generates fine particles of dust in the air. Coal miners who inhale excessive dust are known to develop a group of diseases of the lungs and airways, including silicosis, and Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis (CWP), and the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Coal Workers' Health Surveillance Program (CWHSP), also authorized by the Mine Act, was established to detect CWP and prevent its progression in individual miners, while at the same time providing information for evaluation of temporal and geographic trends in CWP. The Mine Act grants the HHS Secretary general authority to issue regulations as is deemed appropriate to carry out provisions of the Act and specifically directs that medical examinations for coal miners shall be given in accordance with specifications prescribed by the Secretary (30 U.S.C. 843(a), 957), and grants NIOSH the authority to conduct activities in the field of coal mine health on behalf of the Secretary (30 U.S.C. 951(b)).
To inform each miner of his or her health status, the Act requires that coal mine operators provide each miner who begins work at a coal mine for the first time a chest roentgenogram (hereafter chest radiograph or X-ray) through an approved facility as soon as possible after employment starts. Three years later a miner must be offered a second chest radiograph. If this second examination reveals evidence of CWP, the miner is entitled to a third chest radiograph 2 years after the second. Further, all miners working in a coal mine must be offered a chest radiograph approximately every 5 years. All chest radiographs are to be given in accordance with specifications prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (30 U.S.C. 843(a)).
Under NIOSH supervision, a summary report based on the readings of the periodic chest radiograph is sent to each participating coal miner, who then has the opportunity to take action to reduce further dust exposure if early dust-induced lung disease is detected. Miners with evidence of CWP have specific rights under 30 CFR Part 90
On May 1, 2014, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in the Department of Labor published a final rule revising existing health and safety standards in 30 CFR Part 72 to improve health protections for coal miners, including the expansion of requirements for medical surveillance [79 FR 24814]. Section 72.100(a) of the MSHA final
As discussed above, § 203 of the Mine Act directs the HHS Secretary to prescribe time intervals and specifications for the provision of chest X-rays, and standards for the reading, classification, and submission of the films [30 U.S.C. 843(a)]. The Secretary is also authorized to supplement the required X-rays with additional tests as deemed necessary to protect the health and safety of U.S. coal miners.
Rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires a public notice and comment period and consideration of the submitted comments prior to promulgation of a final rule (5 U.S.C. 553). However, the APA provides for exceptions to its notice and comment procedures when an agency finds that there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures on the basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In accordance with the provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), HHS finds good cause to waive the use of prior notice and comment procedures for this interim final rule (IFR) and to make this action effective immediately.
This IFR amends 42 CFR Part 37 to allow coal miners who work in surface mines to participate in the CWHSP and to expand the Program to include spirometry testing to detect decreased lung function among both underground and surface coal miners. HHS has determined that it is impracticable to use prior notice and comment procedures for this IFR because the effective date of the final rule published by MSHA on May 1, 2014, requiring that NIOSH establish standards to provide spirometry testing, occupational history, and symptom assessment for all underground and surface coal miners, is August 1, 2014. NIOSH is committed to expanding the existing health surveillance program to provide spirometry testing to all coal miners as soon as possible, and believes that it would be contrary to the public interest to delay those individuals' eligibility for inclusion in the program beyond the August 1, 2014 effective date. Thus, HHS is waiving the prior notice and comment procedures in the interest of protecting the health of all coal miners and allowing them to participate in the CWHSP as soon as possible.
Stakeholders were given opportunities to participate in MSHA's proposed rulemaking during seven public hearings held between December 2010 and February 2011. The public comment period for the proposed rule was extended three times since the proposed rule was published on October 19, 2010. MSHA received public comments on the provision related to NIOSH, 30 CFR 72.100, and summarized them in the preamble to the final rule (79 FR 24814, 24927-24929). Commenters were overall supportive of the provision, and MSHA was responsive to those comments that expressed concern or were critical of the measure.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), HHS finds good cause to make this IFR effective immediately. As stated above, in order to protect the health of miners in both underground and surface coal mines, it is necessary that HHS act quickly to amend the existing standards in 42 CFR Part 37 to include surface miners and to establish criteria for the provision of spirometry testing. While amendments to Part 37 are effective on the date of publication of this IFR, they are interim and will be finalized following the receipt of any substantive public comments. (See Section I. Public Participation, above.)
This interim final rule expands the existing Coal Workers' Health Surveillance Program to provide chest radiographic examinations to miners who work in surface coal mines and establishes new requirements for spirometry testing for all coal miners under existing Part 37 of 42 CFR—Specifications for Medical Examinations of Underground Coal Miners. The title of the Part is amended to read Specifications for Medical Examinations of Coal Miners.
The following is a section-by-section summary which describes and explains the amended provisions of Part 37. The public is invited to provide comment on any aspect of the interim final rule. The amended regulatory text is provided in the last section of this notice.
Existing § 37.1 provides the scope of the provisions in Subpart—Chest Radiographic Examinations, and is amended to clarify the purpose of this subpart. Under this subpart, coal mine operators are required to provide X-ray examinations to each current and new coal miner, using medical facilities approved by NIOSH according to the standards established in this subpart.
Existing § 37.2 contains definitions for terms that appear throughout this subpart and the new Subparts (Subpart—Spirometry Examinations and Subpart—General Requirements). In this section, the definition of “miner” is amended to remove language excluding surface coal miners from coverage under this part. “NIOSH” is amended to update the address of the Division of Respiratory Disease Studies and to reflect that programmatic responsibility is expanded to include medical examinations other than chest radiographs, and to clarify that the program also includes medical surveillance activities. The definition of “operator” is amended to mirror the definition in the Mine Act, and to reflect the inclusion of surface coal miners in the medical examination and surveillance program.
Existing § 37.3 requires mine operators to provide miners an opportunity to receive a chest radiograph. This section is amended to remove the word “underground” and remove obsolete dates and examples. The section is also amended to specify that evidence of decreased lung function demonstrated by a spirometry exam conducted pursuant to § 37.92(b)(2) may trigger a third chest radiograph.
Existing § 37.4 requires that mine operators submit to NIOSH a plan for chest radiographic examinations, including the beginning and ending dates of the 6-month period for voluntary examinations, and the name and location of the approved X-ray facility or facilities. A form for the documentation of the plan is available on the CWHSP Web site at
Existing § 37.5 outlines the process undertaken by the Secretary of HHS to approve or deny approval of an operator's plan for chest radiographs. This section is removed from this subpart and moved to new § 37.101; specific amendments are discussed below.
Existing § 37.6 details the conditions under which the HHS Secretary will determine whether to conduct a chest radiographic examination. This section is amended to change the section number to § 37.4 and to replace outdated text with current terminology.
Existing § 37.7 specifies that any miner who exhibits evidence of the development of CWP may transfer from his or her position to another position in the mine with a lower concentration of respirable dust, as compliant with the recently-updated 30 CFR 90.3. This section is removed from this subpart and moved to new § 37.102; specific amendments are discussed below.
Existing § 37.8 allows that the miner may pay for an X-ray exam himself or herself, and NIOSH will provide the classification and report as if the exam was conducted pursuant to a mine operator's plan. This section is removed from this subpart and moved to new § 37.103; specific amendments are discussed below.
Existing § 37.40 outlines general provisions for chest X-rays. This section is amended to update the terminology.
Existing § 37.50 establishes procedures for the classification of film X-rays. It is amended slightly to update terminology.
Existing § 37.51 establishes procedures for the classification of digital X-rays. It is amended slightly to update terminology.
Existing § 37.52 establishes the A and B Reader approval programs. This section is amended to update terminology.
Existing § 37.53 establishes that radiographs will be independently classified by an A Reader and B Reader, or two B Readers, whose classifications must be in agreement as defined in § 37.53(b); if sufficient agreement is lacking, NIOSH shall obtain a third classification. The section is amended to clarify that the section addresses radiographic classifications rather than interpretations, and to update terminology.
Existing § 37.60 establishes the protocol for submitting radiographs to NIOSH. This section is amended to update terminology.
Existing § 37.70(a) establishes that a miner may request that NIOSH reevaluate a CWP interpretation that the miner believes is in error. The section heading and paragraph (a) are amended to replace the words “interpretation” and “interpretations” with “classification” and “classifications.” Paragraph (b) is amended to strike an obsolete reference to standards established in 1978.
This subpart is added to Part 37 and establishes standards for spirometry testing for all coal miners, working in both underground and surface mines. The new MSHA rule reduces permissible exposure and increases requirements for dust monitoring, however MSHA acknowledges that in spite of these changes, both surface and underground coal miners remain exposed to hazardous levels of respirable dust that can result in serious and fatal lung diseases. To facilitate early detection of lung injury and thereby provide an additional level of secondary health protection to miners, MSHA now requires that mine operators offer a periodic spirometry examination and symptom assessment, to document respiratory symptoms and lung function, in addition to the previous requirement for providing chest radiographic examinations and obtaining occupational histories.
New § 37.90 provides the scope of the provisions in Subpart—Spirometry Examinations, and is amended to clarify the purpose of this subpart. Under this subpart, coal mine operators are required to provide spirometry examinations to each current and new coal miner, using medical facilities approved by NIOSH according to the standards established in this subpart.
New § 37.91 defines terms used in this subpart. The following new terms are added in this rulemaking: “ATS,” “ERS,” “facility,” “FET,” “FEV1,” “FEV6,” “FVC,” “PEF,” and “spirometry examination.”
New § 37.92 requires coal mine operators to provide all miners an opportunity to receive a spirometry examination. Paragraph (a) of this section specifies the timing and the new content for the miners' ongoing voluntary periodic health examination, as required under the revised MSHA rule. The examination now includes a respiratory assessment and spirometry testing in addition to the previously-required chest radiograph and occupational history. Underground coal
Paragraph (b) of this section specifies the timing and content of the respiratory assessment for newly hired miners. To record and provide accurate and timely recognition of important lung functional losses that have been documented to occur during the early years of mining, an initial test is specified within each new miner's first 30 days of employment and a second test after three years of work. If an accelerated loss of function is recognized after three years, then a third test after two additional years is offered to the miner, to determine whether the rate of decline has stabilized. These early examinations are intended to record any early changes in symptoms and spirometry and also provide a more stable baseline for assessing trends in lung function over the miner's subsequent career. The mandatory examinations specified in paragraph (b) are targeted to miners who begin work at a coal mine for the first time. The first spirometry test for experienced miners will be provided when they participate in the next scheduled voluntary examination (as provided in paragraph (a) of this section). For underground coal mines, examinations will be provided according to the already-established 5 year cycle. For surface mines that are new to surveillance, initial voluntary examinations will be provided over the first 5 years after implementation of expanded surveillance under the IFR at times established by NIOSH when mine plans are approved. This staged approach is necessary to effectively manage services to the more than 90,000 existing U.S. coal miners.
Paragraph (c) explains that NIOSH will notify the miner when he or she is due to receive a second or third examination, and clarifies that a miner must provide written authorization for NIOSH to notify the coal operator of when a third examination is due. However, even if the miner does not complete the examination, the availability of the examination will constitute operator compliance with the plan. This procedure parallels the long established approach to offering third chest radiographs to new miners.
Paragraph (d) states that the availability of spirometry testing must be indicated in the operator's plan required by § 37.100.
New § 37.93 establishes standards by which NIOSH will approve facilities that conduct spirometry tests, including ensuring that spirometry results are of adequate quality, and specifying programmatic approaches to quality assurance and addressing deficiencies. High quality spirometry is essential for the test results to provide information that can be useful in protecting miners' lung health. Professional organizations have recognized that to optimize the utility of test results, close attention must be paid to a number of important factors. These factors include the type and performance of the testing equipment, the specific training and experience of the test providers, specific testing procedures, programmatic attention to test quality, and the specific approaches to data management and interpretation of results. The approval of facilities that are authorized to provide spirometry under this subpart provides a mechanism to document the specific services offered and the approaches taken by each facility to address these important technical factors.
Paragraph (b) describes the factors considered important in assuring quality spirometry testing for miners covered by this program. Pursuant to the standards established in the 2005 American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) consensus statement, Standardisation of Spirometry, which is incorporated by reference, testing instruments must be capable of demonstrating calibration, accuracy, and freedom from leaks as required on a daily basis, and results documented. Spirometers must provide an ongoing automatic assessment of test quality during testing, to permit immediate feedback to the technologist and miner. Results of each miner's tests will be provided to NIOSH within 14 calendar days, which will facilitate timely feedback with suggestions for quality improvement. NIOSH may periodically conduct audits to evaluate the quality of spirometry produced by the facility. Records pertaining to the provisions in this section are maintained by NIOSH under CDC/ATSDR Privacy Act System of Records Notice 0920-0149, Morbidity Studies in Coal Mining, Metal and Non-Metal Mining and General Industry. As specified in § 37.96(e), personally identifiable information in the possession of NIOSH will be released only with the written consent of the miner or, if the miner is deceased, the written consent of the miner's next of kin or legal representative.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) state that if a facility is found to be noncompliant with the regulations in this subpart or if a quality assurance audit finds the facility to be under-performing, the facility will be notified. Facility approvals can be revoked if facilities show deficiencies that are not rectified in a timely manner, within 60 days of notification.
Paragraph (e) requires the confidentiality of protected information.
New § 37.94 requires that a respiratory assessment form must be completed for each miner upon examination. The form is required in order to provide recording of respiratory symptoms and certain other information relevant to miner lung health using a valid, concise, and consistent format.
New § 37.95 establishes standards for the performance of spirometry tests. As discussed in § 37.93, if validated and standardized approaches are not taken, there can be no assurance of providing accurate and consistent test results.
Paragraph (a) of this section requires that persons administering the spirometry testing demonstrate completion of NIOSH-approved spirometry training, and maintain their knowledge by periodically completing an approved refresher course. NIOSH approves sponsors to provide spirometry training courses. A listing of current courses is maintained on the NIOSH Web site (
Paragraph (b) of this section requires that testing performed under this subpart utilize equipment complying with standards published in the 2005 ATS/ERS Standardisation of Spirometry for size of display, precision, and accuracy as verified by an independent testing laboratory. Requirements for validation checks are established in the ATS Standardization of Spirometry: 1994 Update, which is incorporated by reference. These requirements are met by many of the spirometers that are currently marketed. Although not required, spirometers may also export results electronically if they meet an available industry standard for the file specification, or if the data file content,
Paragraph (c) of this section specifies certain required procedures during performance of testing, including testing procedures delineated in the 2005 ATS/ERS Standardisation of Spirometry and the 2010 Standardisation of Lung Function Testing, authors' replies to readers' comments, which are incorporated by reference. If the spirometer model does not support an approved approach to exporting data files, then certain numerical results must be entered into an electronic Spirometry Results Form (Form CDC/NIOSH (M)2.17) and transmitted to NIOSH, accompanied by images of the three spirometry flow volume and volume time curves reported using a secure internet transfer site.
New § 37.96 establishes requirements for the interpretation of spirometry test results, as well as specifications for the content, deletion, and transmission of test reports. This section also addresses the notification of miners of the test results and their confidentiality. Paragraph (a) of this section requires qualified health care professionals at the facilities to interpret results using a standardized approach, described in the 2005 ATS/ERS Interpretative Strategies for Lung Function Tests, and the 2014 Official ATS Standards: Spirometry in the Occupational Setting, which are incorporated by reference.
Paragraph (b) specifies the content of spirometry test reports and the deletion of files and forms associated with the examination. The requirement for deletion of these files and forms is included to help protect the confidentiality of this personal information.
Paragraph (c) requires that findings are communicated to the miner or the miner's designated physician.
Paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section further specify the responsibilities of approved facilities to assure the confidentiality of all personal identifying information associated with testing performed under this subpart, to transfer all completed forms and spirometry results to NIOSH, and after NIOSH has indicated successful receipt of the data, to delete the records, to the extent feasible. Requirements for the transmission of spirometry data files are specified in the 2005 ATS/ERS Standardisation of Spirometry, which is incorporated by reference. NIOSH will send complete reports of spirometry examinations to the miner, along with any recommendations for follow-up.
New § 37.97 identifies standards incorporated by reference throughout this subpart.
This new subpart establishes general requirements for all surface and underground coal mine operators.
New § 37.100 requires that all coal mine operators submit a plan for providing miners with X-ray and spirometry exams, occupational histories, and respiratory assessment.
Paragraph (a)(1) of this section specifies that on or after August 1, 2014, a person becoming a coal mine operator, for example by purchasing an existing mine or developing a new mine, or a coal mine operator without an approved plan must submit a plan within 60 days that provides for chest radiographs and occupational histories.
Paragraph (a)(2) states that all operators with approved examination plans providing only for chest radiographs and occupational histories, will be notified by MSHA when they are required to submit an amended examination plan that includes spirometry and respiratory assessments. Such plans must be submitted to NIOSH within 60 days of that MSHA notification. New plans submitted from this time forward will provide covered workers with chest radiographs, spirometry tests, respiratory assessments, and occupational histories as specified in the IFR.
Paragraph (b) lists the required components of the operator's plan, including the identification of the medical facilities that will conduct the spirometry and X-ray exams, and the approximate dates and times during which the test will be provided. The plan must also provide assurances that operators will not solicit medical results or findings from miners; will instruct facilities about management of data as specified; and that examinations will be made at no charge to the miner.
Paragraph (c) of this section specifies that operators may provide for alternate medical testing facilities and personnel.
Paragraph (d) specifies that a change of operators does not affect the existing plan.
Paragraph (e) specifies that the operator must advise NIOSH of any change in its plan and that the change is subject to the same review and approval as the original plan.
Paragraph (f) specifies requirements for notifying employees of proposed mine plans or proposed changes to mine plans.
Paragraph (g) notes requirements for periodic resubmission of plans.
New § 37.101 establishes that the operator's plan will be approved by NIOSH if it is found to meet the requirements in this subpart. Where an approval is denied, NIOSH will give notice in writing to the operator, who may amend the plan.
New § 37.102 establishes the evidentiary threshold required for a miner who is thought to be developing pneumoconiosis related to coal mine dust exposure to request transfer to a less dusty environment in the mine.
New § 37.103 states that any miner who wishes to obtain an X-ray or spirometry exam at his or her own expense may do so. NIOSH will provide an interpretation and report as if the results were submitted under an operator's plan.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This interim final rule is not being treated as a “significant” action under E.O. 12866. It amends existing regulations in 42 CFR Part 37 to add new requirements on mine operators to provide symptom assessment and spirometry testing for the surveillance of decreased lung function to all coal miners, and to extend existing requirements to provide chest X-rays and occupational histories for underground coal miners to surface coal mine operators. The amendments to Part 37 described in this action are made
The rule does not interfere with State, local, or tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
The potential impact on small businesses has been analyzed by MSHA, in the Regulatory Economic Analysis published in support of that agency's May 1, 2014 final rule (see
The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
These forms were previously approved by OMB for data collected under the National Coal Workers' X-Ray Surveillance Program (CWXSP)—Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (42CFR37) (OMB Control No. 0920-0020, exp. May 31, 2017), although the addition of surface coal miners to the CWHSP increases the burden.
The expansion of the CWHSP in accordance with this rulemaking will result in the participation of additional coal miner operators, coal miners, and physicians. The provisions in this interim final rule that contain data collection requirements are:
There is no additional recordkeeping burden associated with the quality assurance programs referenced in § 37.43 Approval of radiographic facilities that use film, § 37.44 Approval of radiographic facilities that use digital radiography systems, and § 37.93 Approval of spirometry facilities, because these provisions reflect standard industry practice and do not impose any new recordkeeping requirements.
HHS estimates that the paperwork burden associated with this rulemaking will be 16,358 hours.
As required by Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” and will not unduly burden the Federal court system. Chest radiograph classifications that result in a finding of pneumoconiosis may be an element in claim processing and adjudication conducted by DOL's Black Lung Compensation Program. This interim final rule affects radiographs submitted to DOL for the purpose of reviewing and administering those claims. This rule has been reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities.
The Department has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The rule does not “have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
In accordance with Executive Order 13045, HHS has evaluated the environmental health and safety effects of this rule on children. HHS has determined that the rule would have no effect on children.
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, HHS has evaluated the effects of this rule on energy supply, distribution or use, and has determined that the rule will not have a significant adverse effect.
Under Public Law 111-274 (October 13, 2010), executive Departments and Agencies are required to use plain language in documents that explain to the public how to comply with a requirement the Federal Government administers or enforces. HHS has attempted to use plain language in promulgating the interim final rule consistent with the Federal Plain Writing Act guidelines.
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis, Incorporation by reference, Lung diseases, Mine safety and health, Occupational safety and health, Part 90 miner, Part 90 transfer rights, Pneumoconiosis, Respiratory and pulmonary diseases, Silicosis, Spirometry, Surface coal mining, Underground coal mining, X-rays.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 42 CFR part 37 as follows:
Sec. 203, 83 Stat. 763 (30 U.S.C. 843), unless otherwise noted.
Under this subpart, coal mine operators are required to provide radiographic examinations to each current and new coal miner, using medical facilities approved by NIOSH in accordance with standards established in this subpart.
* * *
(a)
(1) NIOSH will notify the operator of each coal mine of a period within which the operator may provide examinations to each miner employed at its coal mine. The period must begin no sooner than October 15, 2012, and end no later than a date specified by NIOSH separately for each coal mine. Within the period specified by NIOSH for each mine, the operator may select a 6-month period within which to provide examinations in accordance with a plan approved under § 37.101.
(2) For all voluntary examinations, NIOSH will notify the operator of each coal mine when sufficient time has elapsed since the end of the previous 6-month period of examinations. NIOSH will specify to the operator of each mine a period within which the operator may provide examinations to its miners employed at its coal mine. The period must begin no sooner than 3.5 years and end no later than 4.5 years subsequent to the ending date of the previous 6-month period specified for a coal mine either by the operator on an approved plan or by NIOSH if the operator did not submit an approved plan. Within the period specified by NIOSH for each mine, the operator may select a 6-month period within which to provide examinations in accordance with a plan approved under § 37.101.
NIOSH finds that examinations were previously provided to miners employed at mine Y in a 6-month period from July 1, 2013, to December 31, 2013. NIOSH notifies the operator at least 3 months before July 1, 2017 (3.5 years after December 31, 2013) that the operator may select and designate on its plan the next 6-month period within which to offer examinations to its miners employed at mine Y. The 6-month period must be scheduled between July 1, 2017, and July 1, 2018 (between 3.5 and 4.5 years after December 31, 2013).
(3) Within either the next or future period(s) specified by NIOSH to the operator for each of its coal mines, the operator of the coal mine may select a different 6-month period for each of its mines within which to offer examinations. In the event the operator does not submit an approved plan, NIOSH will specify a 6-month period to the operator within which miners must have the opportunity for examinations.
(b)
(1) An initial chest radiograph, as soon as possible, but in no event later than 30 days after commencement of employment or within 30 days of approval of a plan to provide chest radiographs. An initial chest radiograph
(2) A second chest radiograph, in accordance with this subpart, 3 years following the initial examination if the miner is still engaged in coal mining. A second radiograph given to a miner according to former regulations under this subpart prior to August 1, 2014 will be considered as fulfilling this requirement.
(3) A third chest radiograph 2 years following the second chest radiograph if the miner is still engaged in coal mining and if the second radiograph shows evidence of category 1 (1/0, 1/1, 1/2), category 2 (2/1, 2/2, 2/3), category 3 (3/2, 3/3, 3/+) simple pneumoconioses, or complicated pneumoconioses (ILO Classification) or if the second spirometry examination specified in § 37.92(b)(2) shows evidence of decreased lung function to the extent specified in § 37.92(b)(3).
(c)
(d)
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart, Subpart—Chest Radiographic Examinations, with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. * * *
Under this subpart, coal mine operators are required to provide spirometry examinations to each current and new coal miner, using medical facilities approved by NIOSH in accordance with standards established in this subpart.
Definitions provided in § 37.2 will have the same meaning in this subpart. Any term defined in the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and not defined in § 37.2 or this section will have the meaning given it in the Act. As used in this subpart:
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(d)
(a) Facilities seeking approval to provide the spirometry examinations specified under this subpart must have the ability to provide spirometry of high technical quality. Thus, NIOSH-approved facilities must meet the requirements specified in this subpart for the following activities: Training technicians to perform the tests; conducting spirometry tests using equipment and procedures that meet required specifications; collecting the respiratory assessment form; transmitting data to NIOSH; and communicating with miners as required for scheduling, testing, and notification of results. Facilities seeking approval may apply to NIOSH using the Spirometry Facility Certification Document (Form CDC/NIOSH (M)2.14), available at
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(d)
(e)
As part of the spirometry examination and concurrent with it, personnel at the facility must complete a Respiratory Assessment form (Form CDC/NIOSH (M)2.13), available at
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) The technician must be able to view real-time testing display screens as specified in the 2005 ATS/ERS Standardisation of Spirometry, p. 322 (incorporated by reference, see § 37.97).
(ii) A miner will be tested in the standing position, but may be seated if he or she experiences lightheadedness or other signs or symptoms that raise a safety concern relating to the standing position during the spirometry test.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(2) NIOSH will notify the submitting facility when to permanently delete or, if this is not technologically feasible for the spirometry system used, render permanently inaccessible all files and forms associated with a miner's spirometry examination from its electronic and physical files.
(c)
(2) NIOSH will notify the miner of his or her spirometry examination results and the results of a comparison between current and previously submitted spirometry examinations and will advise the miner to contact a health care professional as appropriate based on the results.
(d)
(e)
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart, Subpart—Spirometry Examinations, with the approval of the Director of the
(b) American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, American Thoracic Society (ATS), 25 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004. Phone: (800) 635-7181, extension 8065. Email:
(1) Standardization of Spirometry; 1994 Update. Official Statement of the ATS, adopted November 11, 1994. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 152(3):1107-1136, September 1995, into § 37.95(b). This ATS Official Statement is also available at
(2) Official American Thoracic Society Technical Standards: Spirometry in the Occupational Setting (“ATS Technical Standards: Spirometry in the Occupational Setting”). Redlich CA, Tarlo SM, Hankinson JL, Townsend MC, Eschenbacher WL, Von Essen SG, Sigsgaard T, and Weissman DN. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 189(8):983-994, April 15, 2014, into §§ 37.92(b) and 37.96(a).
(3) Spirometric Reference Values from a Sample of the General U.S. Population. Hankinson JL, Odencrantz JR, Fedan KB. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 159(1):179-187, January 1999, into § 37.92(b).
(c) European Respiratory Journal, 442 Glossop Road, Sheffield, S10 2PX, UK. Phone: 44 114 267 28 60; Fax: 44 114 266 50 64. Email:
(1) Standardisation of Spirometry (“2005 ATS/ERS Standardisation of Spirometry”). ATS/ERS Task Force: Standardization of Lung Function Testing. Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, Crapo R, Enright P, van der Grinten CPM, Gustafsson P, Jensen R, Johnson DC, MacIntyre N, McKay R, Navajas D, Pedersen OF, Pellegrino R, Viegi G, and Wanger J. European Respiratory Journal 26(2):319-338, August 2005, into §§ 37.93(b); 37.95(b) and (c); and 37.96(d). The ATS/ERS Standardisation of Spirometry is also available on the ATS Web site at
(2) Interpretative Strategies for Lung Function Tests (“ATS/ERS Interpretative Strategies for Lung Function Tests”). ATS/ERS Task Force: Standardisation of Lung Function Testing. Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Brusasco V, Crapo RO, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, van der Grinten CPM, Gustafsson P, Hankinson J, Jensen R, Johnson DC, MacIntyre N, McKay R, Miller MR, Navajas D, Pedersen OF, and Wanger J. European Respiratory Journal 26(5):948-968, November 2005, into § 37.96(a). The ATS/ERS Standardisation of Lung Function Testing is also available on the ATS Web site at
(3) Standardisation of Lung Function Testing, the Authors' Replies to Readers' Comments (“Standardisation of Lung Function Testing, Replies to Readers”). Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, Burgos F, Casaburi R, Coates A, Enright P, van der Grinten C, Gustafsson P, Jensen R, MacIntyre N, McKay RT, Pedersen OF, Pellegrino R, Viegi G, and Wanger J. European Respiratory Journal 36(6):1496-1498, December 2010, into § 37.95(c). The Standardisation of Lung Function Testing, Replies to Readers is also available on the ATS Web site at
(a) Each coal mine operator must submit and receive NIOSH approval of a plan for the provision of chest radiographs, occupational histories, spirometry examinations, and respiratory assessments of miners, using the appropriate forms provided by NIOSH.
(1) During the transition from August 1, 2014 until the time when spirometry facilities are approved by NIOSH, any person becoming a coal mine operator on or after August 1, 2014, or any coal mine operator without an approved plan as of that date must submit a plan within 60 days that provides for chest radiographs and occupational histories.
(2) Coal mine operators with previously approved plans for only chest radiographs and occupational histories, or with plans developed pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, will be notified by MSHA when the plans must be amended to include spirometry examinations and respiratory assessments. Amendments must be submitted to NIOSH within 60 days of MSHA's notification.
(b) The coal mine operator's plan must include:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the operator(s) submitting the plan;
(2) The name, MSHA identification number for respirable dust measurements, and address of the mine included in the plan;
(3) The proposed beginning and ending date of the 6-month period(s) for voluntary radiography and spirometry examinations (see § 37.3(a) and § 37.92(a)), the estimated number of miners to be given or offered examinations during the 6-month period under the plan, and a roster specifying the names and current home mailing addresses of each miner covered by the plan;
(4) The name and location of the approved X-ray and spirometry facility or facilities, and the approximate date(s) and time(s) of day during which the radiographs and spirometry tests will be given to miners to enable a determination of whether the examinations will be conducted at a convenient time and place;
(5) If a mobile medical examination facility is proposed to provide some or all of the surveillance tests specified in paragraph § 37.100(a), the plan shall provide that each miner be given adequate notice of the opportunity to have the examination and that no miner shall have to wait for an examination more than 1 hour before or after his or her work shift. In addition, the plan shall include:
(i) The number of change houses at the mine.
(ii) One or more alternate non-mobile approved medical examination facilities for the reexamination of miners and for the mandatory examination of miners when necessary [see §§ 37.3(b) and 37.92(b)], or an assurance that the mobile facility will return to the location(s) specified in the plan as frequently as necessary to provide for medical surveillance examinations in accordance with these regulations.
(iii) The name and location of each change house at which examinations will be given. For mines with more than one change house, the examinations shall be given at each change house or at a change house located at a convenient place for each miner.
(6) Assurances that:
(i) The operator will not solicit a physician's spirometric, radiographic or other findings concerning any miner employed by the operator,
(ii) Instructions have been given to the person(s) giving the examinations that duplicate spirograms or copies of spirograms (including copies of electronic files) and radiographs or copies of radiographs (including, for digital radiographs, copies of electronic files) will not be made, and to the extent that it is technically feasible all related electronic files must be permanently deleted from the facility records or rendered permanently inaccessible following the confirmed transfer of such data to NIOSH, and that (except as may be necessary for the purpose of this part) the physician's spirometric, radiographic and other findings, as well as the occupational history and respiratory assessment information obtained from a miner will not be disclosed in a manner that would permit identification of the individual with their information, and
(iii) The spirometry and radiographic examinations will be made at no charge to the miner.
(c) Operators may provide for alternate spirometry or radiography facilities in plans submitted for approval.
(d) The change of operators of any mine operating under a plan approved pursuant to § 37.101(a) shall not affect the plan of the operator which has transferred responsibility for the mine. Every plan shall be subject to revision in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) The operator must advise NIOSH of any change in its plan. Each change in an approved plan is subject to the same review and approval as the originally approved plan.
(f) The operator must promptly display in a visible location on the bulletin board at the mine its proposed plan or proposed change in plan when it is submitted to NIOSH. The proposed plan or change in plan must remain posted in a visible location on the bulletin board until NIOSH either grants or denies approval of it at which time the approved plan or denial of approval must be permanently posted. In the case of an operator who does not have a bulletin board, such as an operator that is a contractor, the operator must otherwise notify its employees of the examination arrangements. Upon request, the contractor must show NIOSH written evidence that its employees have been notified.
(g) Upon notification from NIOSH that sufficient time has elapsed since the previous period of examinations, the operator will resubmit its plan for each of its coal mines to NIOSH for approval for the next period of examinations (see §§ 37.3(a)(2) and 37.92(a)). The plan must include the proposed beginning and ending dates of the next period of examinations and all information required by paragraph (b) of this section.
(a) If, after review of any plan submitted pursuant to this subpart, NIOSH determines that the action to be taken under the plan by the operator meets the specifications of this subpart and will effectively achieve its purpose, NIOSH will approve the plan and notify
(b) Where NIOSH has reason to believe that it will deny approval of a plan NIOSH will, prior to the denial, give notice in writing to the operator(s) of an opportunity to amend the plan. The notice must specify the ground(s) upon which approval is proposed to be denied.
(c) If a plan is denied approval, NIOSH will advise the operator(s) in writing of the reasons for the denial.
(a) Any miner who, in the judgment of NIOSH, has evidence of the development of pneumoconiosis, must be afforded the option of transferring from his or her position to another position in an area of the mine where the concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere is in compliance with the MSHA requirements in Part 90 of title 30, Code of Federal Regulations. A classification of one or more of the miner's chest radiographs as showing category 1 (1/0, 1/1, 1/2), category 2 (2/1, 2/2, 2/3), or category 3 (3/2, 3/3, 3/+) simple pneumoconioses, or complicated pneumoconiosis (ILO Classification) will be accepted as such evidence. NIOSH will, at its discretion, also accept other medical examinations provided to NIOSH for review, such as computed tomography scans of the chest or lung biopsies, as evidence of the development of pneumoconiosis.
(b) Any transfer under this section shall be in accordance with the procedures specified in 30 CFR part 90.
Any miner who wishes to obtain a medical examination at the miner's own expense at an approved spirometry or radiography facility and to have the complete examination submitted to NIOSH may do so, provided that the examination is made no sooner than 6 months after the most recent examination of the miner submitted to NIOSH. NIOSH will provide interpretation and radiographic classification and reporting of the results of examinations made at the miner's expense in the same manner as if they were submitted under an operator's plan. Any change in the miner's transfer rights under the Act that may result from this examination will be subject to the terms of § 37.102.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.
The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final rule.
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.
The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 4001
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Final rule.
This final rule implements section 212 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 by changing the compliance date for the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) for diagnosis coding, including the Official ICD-10-CM Guidelines for Coding and Reporting, and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS) for inpatient hospital procedure coding, including the Official ICD-10-PCS Guidelines for Coding and Reporting, from October 1, 2014 to October 1, 2015. It also requires the continued use of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification, Volumes 1 and 2 (diagnoses), and 3 (procedures) (ICD-9-CM), including the Official ICD-9-CM Guidelines for Coding and Reporting, through September 30, 2015.
These regulations are effective on September 3, 2014.
Prior to the enactment of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. 113-93) on April 1, 2014, the health care industry was actively preparing to transition to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) for diagnosis coding and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS) for inpatient hospital procedure coding (herein collectively referred to as ICD-10) on October 1, 2014. Many in the health care industry had invested time and resources in system upgrades, testing, training, and undertaking the necessary changes to workflow processes. However, PAMA required the Secretary to adopt ICD-10 no sooner than October 1, 2015.
This final rule establishes October 1, 2015, as the new ICD-10 compliance date. This final rule also requires the continued use of the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification, Volumes 1 and 2 (diagnoses), and 3 (procedures), including the Official ICD-9-CM Guidelines for Coding and Reporting (herein collectively referred to as ICD-9-CM), through September 30, 2015.
This final rule establishes October 1, 2015 as the compliance date for ICD-10. It also requires the continued use of ICD-9-CM through September 30, 2015.
Section 212 of PAMA, titled “Delay in Transition from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10 Code Sets” is the legal authority for the regulatory action.
As noted previously, this final rule changes the compliance date for ICD-10 from October 1, 2014 to October 1, 2015 and requires covered entities to continue using ICD-9-CM through September 30, 2015.
In the September 5, 2012
We use the same rationale and methodology in our analysis of costs and benefits in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of this final rule, and conclude that a delay of 1-year, as opposed to a longer delay, will be the least costly and most fiscally responsible way to implement the requirements of section 212 of PAMA. We estimate the cost of a 1-year delay to HIPAA covered entities will be $1.1 to $6.8 billion.
In the January 16, 2009
In late 2011 and early 2012, three issues emerged that led the Secretary to reconsider the compliance date for ICD-10: (1) The industry transition to ASC X12 Version 5010 did not proceed as effectively as expected; (2) providers became concerned that other statutory initiatives were stretching their resources; and (3) there was a lack of readiness for the ICD-10 transition, as indicated by industry surveys and polls. As a result, HHS published the 2012 ICD-10 Delay final rule in which the compliance date for ICD-10 was delayed from October 1, 2013 to October 1, 2014.
Section 212 of PAMA provides that the Secretary may not adopt ICD-10 under HIPAA prior to October 1, 2015. We interpret this provision as requiring the Secretary to delay the October 1, 2014 implementation of ICD-10, and we believe the provision gives the Secretary discretion to choose a new compliance date of October 1, 2015, or later. We are establishing October 1, 2015 as the new compliance date.
All segments of the health care industry have invested significant time and resources in financing, training, and implementing necessary changes to systems, workflow processes, and clinical documentation practices in order to prepare for ICD-10. The American Academy of Professional Coders (AAPC) provides training and education to medical coders, physicians and their practice management staff. In a June 2014 survey
Additionally, we believe it is important to require implementation of ICD-10 as soon as the law permits because it will allow the industry to begin reaping the benefits of ICD-10 as soon as possible. ICD-10 provides greater specificity of diagnosis-related groups; improves quality measurement and reporting capabilities; improves tracking of illnesses; and reflects greater accuracy of reimbursement for medical services. ICD-10's granularity will improve data capture and analytics of public health surveillance and reporting, national quality reporting, research and data analysis, and provide detailed data to inform health care delivery and health policy decisions.
ICD-10 reflects the advances in medicine and medical technology that U.S. physician specialty groups called for as they provided extensive input into the development of the ICD-10-CM code-set to capture more precise codes for the conditions they treat. ICD-10 includes significant improvements over ICD-9-CM in coding primary care encounters, external causes of injury, mental disorders, and preventive health. For example, ICD-10 reflects improved diagnosis of chronic illness and identifies underlying causes, complications of disease, and conditions that contribute to the complexity of a disease, and captures the severity and stage of diseases such as chronic kidney disease, dementia, and asthma.
Finally, a 1-year delay, as opposed to a longer delay, is the least expensive option for the industry. As estimated in the 2012 ICD-10 Delay final rule
In order to implement section 212 of PAMA, we are changing the compliance date for ICD-10 from October 1, 2014 to October 1, 2015 in 45 CFR 162.1002(c) by changing “October 1, 2014” to “October 1, 2015” to read, “[f]or the period on and after October 1, 2015.”
Our regulations at 45 CFR 162.1002(b) currently require compliance with ICD-9-CM through September 30, 2014. We are changing our regulations to require the continued use of ICD-9-CM through September 30, 2015. Accordingly, we are revising 45 CFR 162.1002(b) by
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), we are required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
The October 1, 2014 compliance date for ICD-10 was established in the 2012 ICD-10 Delay final rule. Section 212 of PAMA was enacted on April 1, 2014, six months prior to the October 1, 2014 ICD-10 compliance date, at a critical time when most health care entities had already configured and tested systems and business processes, and devoted staff and financial resources in preparation for compliance on October 1, 2014. IT systems were changed to align with new payment policies and rules, staff was trained on new workflow processes, and trading partner agreements were updated to begin using ICD-10 on October 1, 2014.
After section 212 of PAMA was enacted, many industry stakeholders asked the Secretary to clarify which ICD version could or must be used and when. Many interpreted section 212 of PAMA as requiring a delay of ICD-10 to October 1, 2015, while others interpreted the law as allowing the Secretary to postpone implementation of ICD-10 for longer than a year. Other industry stakeholders suggested that section 212 of PAMA permitted covered entities to use either ICD-9-CM or ICD-10 on October 1, 2014. These widely different interpretations reflected the industry's uncertainty about when it would be required to use specific versions of the ICD coding system, and we recognized a growing apprehension among stakeholders in light of this uncertainty.
There are also a number of important business and implementation decisions that industry stakeholders have to make now. For example, budgeting, project management, and systems planning for the continued use of ICD-9-CM on October 1, 2014 and for the delayed implementation of ICD-10 on October 1, 2015, must begin as soon as possible for all covered entities. Both large and small providers and health plans generally develop budgets and allot resources for transitions far in advance and particularly for those transitions that impact IT systems, business policies, and processes. Most covered entities have allocated funds, assigned human resources, and have employed contractors to assist with or manage various aspects of the transition to ICD-10 based on an October 1, 2014 compliance date. These resources, trading partner agreements, vendor systems, and maintenance contracts will have to be reconsidered and reallocated within a very short period of time to accommodate the delay. Many covered entities have also begun to train their staff for ICD-10 implementation and must decide immediately whether to continue this training. The absence of a firm implementation date impedes decision-making for budgetary development, projecting planning, and systems preparation. If covered entities are unable to make these decisions timely, some may choose to slow or even suspend ICD-10 preparations.
Covered entities will also have to accomplish systems and business process changes in a relatively short period of time. Many providers have programmed their IT systems to submit ICD-10 codes on October 1, 2014, and have implemented changes in business processes to accommodate these changes. Most health plans have programmed their claims processing systems to accept and process ICD-10 codes on October 1, 2014. These systems will have to be reconfigured to process ICD-9-CM coded claims for an additional year while also preparing to process ICD-10 coded claims on and after October 1, 2015. It is imperative that covered entities know the new compliance dates now so they can begin immediately to take the necessary steps to comply.
A seamless industry transition to a required code set is necessary in order to avoid payment disruptions. If covered entities are not prepared to accept and process ICD-9-CM codes on October 1, 2014, there could be significant disruptions in health care payments. The inability of health plans to successfully process claims directly impacts the timeliness of provider reimbursements for services rendered. Many providers, especially small and rural providers, rely on the timeliness of payments in order to continue to do business. A risk to a provider's economic well-being is a risk to patient care.
In order to minimize industry disruption, it is important for the Secretary to announce the new compliance dates as soon as possible. Even with the extra few months this final rule affords, time is short. If we were to engage in full notice and comment rulemaking, covered entities would be left with uncertainty until a final rule could be published, which would be unlikely to happen prior to October 1, 2014. And even if the process could be expedited, a final rule would be issued too close to October 1, 2014 to give most covered entities sufficient time to comply with the requirements of the rule. Accordingly, we find there is good cause to waive the normal notice and comment rulemaking procedures, as they are impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it does not require a review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
As stated previously, section 212 of PAMA specifies that “[t]he Secretary of Health and Human Services may not, prior to October 1, 2015, adopt ICD-10 code sets as the standard for code sets under section 1173(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(c)) and section 162.1002 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations.” This final rule establishes a new ICD-10 compliance date of October 1, 2015. It also requires the continued use of ICD-9-CM through September 30, 2015.
We have examined the impacts of this final rule as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993, as further amended), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million in 1995 dollars or more in any one year). We estimate that this rule is “economically significant” as measured by the $100 million threshold, and hence also a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. Accordingly, we have prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that presents the costs and benefits of this rule.
In determining the costs of this final rule, we needed to establish, as a baseline, what costs would likely be incurred absent this final rule, and then compare this baseline to the costs of the ICD-10 delay announced in this final rule. The costs estimated in this RIA include costs to industry and government entities for an October 1, 2015 compliance date. For the RIA in this final rule we have also relied largely on the estimates in the RIA of the 2012 ICD-10 Delay final rule because that rule also estimated the cost of a 1-year delay in the compliance date for ICD-10.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any one year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This final rule contains a mandate that would likely impose spending costs on the healthcare industry of more than $141 million. Therefore, in this RIA we illustrate the costs of the 1-year delay in compliance date for ICD-10.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a final rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State laws, or otherwise has Federalism implications. We do not anticipate that the 1-year delay in the compliance date for ICD-10 will have a significant impact on State and local governments, preempt State laws, or otherwise have Federalism implications.
ICD codes are used in nearly every sector of the health care industry. All HIPAA covered entities will be affected by a delay in the compliance date of ICD-10. Covered entities include all health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers that transmit health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction for which the Secretary has adopted a standard.
While covered entities are required to transition to ICD-10, many other entities not covered by HIPAA also use ICD codes for a variety of purposes because their operational and business needs often intersect with those of covered entities. For practical and business purposes, we expect these non-covered entities will voluntarily transition to ICD-10. Entities that are not considered covered entities, but that may be affected by the transition to ICD-10, include: Workers' compensation programs and automobile and personal liability insurers, hardware and software vendors for health care practice management systems and electronic health record systems, researchers, public health organizations, educational institutions, and coding entities.
This RIA estimates the costs of a delay of compliance with ICD-10. In this RIA we are analyzing only the impact of a delay, not the impact of ICD-10 implementation, which we addressed in the 2008 ICD-10 proposed rule (73 FR 49476) and the January 2009 ICD-10 final rule (74 FR 3328). For purposes of this analysis, we reference estimates made in the RIA of the 2012 ICD-10 Delay final rule because it also delayed compliance with ICD-10 by 1 year.
While we assume that a delay of the implementation of ICD-10 will affect a broad range of health care providers, as illustrated in Table 1, we only examine the costs and benefits of a delay on two types of health care providers: Hospitals and small providers. We do not analyze the impact on other providers, including, but not limited to, nursing and residential care facilities, dentists, or durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers, though we understand that there is likely to be an impact on most of these providers. As was the case for our impact analysis in the 2008 ICD-10 proposed rule, there continues to be very little publicly available data on the use of electronic data interchange (EDI) among dentists, DME suppliers, nursing homes, and residential care facilities. The lack of data for these types of health care providers has been noted in other studies on administrative simplification.
We do not include an analysis of costs or benefits to health care clearinghouses and transaction vendors in this RIA. Transaction vendors are entities that process claims or payments for entities such as health plans. Not all transaction vendors meet the HIPAA definition of a health care clearinghouse, which constitute a subset of transaction vendors. Payment vendors also would be a type of transaction vendor—a transaction vendor that “associates” or “re-associates” health care claim payments with the payments' remittance advice for either a health plan or provider. For our purposes, transaction vendors do not include developers or retailers of computer software or entities that are involved in installing, programming or maintaining computer software. However, we did not calculate costs and benefits to health care clearinghouses and transaction vendors in this RIA because, as in our previous impact analyses in the August 2008 ICD-10 proposed rule and the 2012 ICD-10 Delay final rule, we assume that any associated costs and benefits will be passed on to the health plans or providers and will be included in the costs and benefits we apply to health plans and providers.
Although self-insured group health plans meet the HIPAA definition of “health plan,” we did not include them in this impact analysis. While self-insured group health plans will be required to implement ICD-10, we assume that, with a few exceptions, such plans do not send or receive HIPAA electronic transactions because
We do delineate a cost to TPAs in this RIA. Although TPAs do not meet the definition of “health plans,” and therefore are not required by HIPAA to use code sets such as ICD-10, as a practical matter they will need to make the transition in order to continue to conduct electronic transactions on behalf of self-insured group health plans. The impact of a delay of the compliance date of ICD-10 on TPAs will be similar to the commercial insurer cost/benefit impact profile as TPAs serve a similar function and will have to implement and test their systems in the same manner as health plans. Therefore, when we refer to “commercial health plans” in this RIA, we are including TPAs in the category of “small health plans” in the RIA.
In the 2012 ICD-10 Delay final rule (77 FR 22991) and in this RIA, we do not include the costs for software vendors, including software vendors for practice management and EHR systems, as they ultimately pass their costs to their clients.
Health plans are a varied group in terms of size, and the cost of a delay is calculated using a range that reflects this variance. In terms of costs, commercial health plans are far along in their ICD-10 implementation and have devoted funds, resources, and staff to the effort. When PAMA was enacted, the majority of commercial health plans were in the external testing phase of their ICD-10 implementation plans.
Continued training, testing, and retention of personnel, and contracts are expected to be the primary costs associated with a 1-year delay for commercial health plans. Commercial health plans will perform additional work in preparing their systems to process ICD-9 coded claims for an additional year while also converting their systems to process ICD-10 coded claims on and after October 1, 2015. We estimate the costs of the delay for commercial health plans and third party administrators to be between $547 million and $2,786 million.
We believe many government health programs were prepared to be ICD-10 compliant on October 1, 2014, and, like commercial payers, will incur costs from a 1-year delay. As an example, components affected by a 1-year delay at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), in particular, Medicare Fee-for-Service (herein referred to as Medicare), estimate that there will be additional costs. Like other government payers, Medicare has programmed its claims processing systems to accept and process ICD-10 codes on October 1, 2014. These systems will have to be reconfigured to process ICD-9-CM-coded claims for an additional year while also preparing to process ICD-10-coded claims on and after October 1, 2015. Therefore, costs include expenditures like extending contracts and reprogramming work for the ICD-9-CM systems and ICD-10 systems while continuing to test ICD-10 in the new 2015 systems environment. Other additional costs include an increased need for outreach and education claims processing manual updates, technical assistance, and training.
It was estimated in the 2012 final rule that a 1-year delay of ICD-10 compliance would be reflected by additional work at an estimated total cost of $5 to $10 million for the Medicare program. Because the Medicare program was so far along in its ICD 10 implementation when PAMA was enacted, we now estimate that the cost of a 1 year delay will be $21 to $32 million for the Medicare program spread across FYs 2014 and 2015.
State Medicaid Agencies (SMAs) completed a cost impact assessment for a 1-year delay in April of 2014. SMAs face similar costs as commercial health plans as a result of the 1-year delay of ICD-10. SMAs will incur costs due to contractual obligations which may require modifications, extensions, or procurements. Other costs to SMAs include the need to test ICD-10 codes in the new 2015 systems environment, which will be needed even by SMAs that have successfully tested to date. SMA resources will need to be maintained at full pre-implementation and go-live levels through 2015 in order to prepare for the October 1, 2015 implementation. These will likely affect planning and implementation of other IT initiatives for SMAs, potentially resulting in additional costs and delays for those initiatives. SMAs report the total cost for both state and federal of a 1-year delay for all SMAs is $169 to $182 million.
We expect that many hospitals and large provider organizations have already spent funds in preparation for the ICD-10 transition. As with health plans, a delay of the compliance date will add to their costs because large providers must maintain personnel staffing levels, make significant system changes; renegotiate the contracts necessary to extend preparations an extra year, and retest systems in the new 2015 systems environment. Likewise, large providers must maintain technological resources for an extra year.
According to our estimates in the 2012 ICD-10 delay final rule, the cost of a 1-year delay to hospitals and large physician practices will be $409 million to $3.7 billion.
There are some surveys that estimate the associated costs for providers transitioning to ICD-10, and we referenced some of these studies in the 2012 ICD-10 Delay proposed rule (77 FR 22997). In that proposed rule, we did not estimate the cost to small providers of the 1-year delay because these costs were negligible.
Given the lack of statistically valid data regarding the resources small providers have expended, as well as their state of readiness for an October 1, 2014 compliance date as compared to an October 1, 2015 compliance date, we do not estimate the cost or benefits to small providers in this RIA. However, based on other relevant areas of the health care industry, we assume that the change in compliance date will negatively impact some percentage of small providers in terms of cost. Nonetheless, the 1-year delay may also give relief to small providers that were not prepared by affording them another year in which to spread costs and resources.
Except for estimates of the impact on Medicare and State Medicaid agencies, we are using the cost estimates from the 2012 ICD-10 Delay final rule to
We summarize the range of low and high estimates of a 1-year delay of the compliance date for ICD-10 in Table 1.
Section 212 of PAMA states that “the Secretary of Health and Human Services may not, prior to October 1, 2015, adopt ICD-10 code sets as the standard for code sets under section 1173(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(c)) and section 162.1002 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations.” We interpret the statute as mandating a delay of the compliance date of ICD-10, and permitting the Secretary discretion to select the length of the delay, as long as implementation is required no sooner than October 1, 2015. This final rule adopts a compliance date of October 1, 2015.
We considered a number of delays of different durations before establishing October 1, 2015 as the compliance date for ICD-10. However, we concluded that a delay beyond 1 year would be significantly more costly and have a damaging impact on industry. For example, extending the delay beyond 1 year could render current ICD-10 system updates and releases obsolete, which would diminish the investments stakeholders have already made to prepare for the ICD-10 transition. All segments of the health care industry have invested significant time and resources in financing, training, and implementing necessary changes to systems, workflow processes, and clinical documentation practices. Stakeholders would need to restart their system preparation and would not be able to leverage past system investments.
As estimated in the 2012 ICD-10 Delay final rule
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to describe and analyze the impact of the final rule on small entities unless the Secretary can certify that the regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. According to the Small Business Administration's size standards, a small entity is defined as follows according to health care categories: Office of Physicians are defined as small entities if they have revenues of $11 million or less; most other health care providers (dentists, chiropractors, optometrists, mental health specialists) are small entities if they have revenues of $7.5 million or less; hospitals are small entities if they have revenues of $38.5 million or less. (For details, see the SBA's Web site at
As in the 2012 Delay final rule, we continue to assume for purposes of the RFA, that all physician practices are small entities. We conclude that a 1-year delay in implementation of the ICD-10 will affect a “substantial number” of small entities. However, we assert in this final rule, that the 1-year delay of the compliance date of ICD-10 will be more beneficial to small entities than it will be burdensome. The benefits are derived from the additional time that small entities will have for ICD-10 implementation. Therefore, we certify that the provisions in this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The total costs of a 1-year delay of the compliance date will likely be incurred over a 12-month period. However, due to the range of impacted entities, including educational institutions, those 12 months may span different dates and different budget periods. Given the diverse approaches to budgeting in the industry, there is no precise way of calculating how much of the cost and cost avoidance falls outside of the October 1, 2014 to October 1, 2015 timeframe. For simplicity's sake, we calculate costs of a delay of the compliance date for ICD-10 as occurring in calendar year 2015.
As required by OMB Circular A-4,
Administrative practice and procedures, Electronic transactions, Health facilities, Health insurance, Hospitals, Incorporation by reference, Medicaid, Medicare, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 45 CFR Part 162 as follows:
Secs. 1171 through 1180 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-1320d-9), as added by sec. 262 of Pub. L. 104-191, 110 Stat 2021-2031, sec. 105 of Pub. L. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881-992, and sec. 264 of Pub. L. 104-191, 110 Stat 2033-2034 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 (note)), secs. 1104 and 10109 of Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat 146-154 and 915-917.
(b) A job briefing for on-track safety shall be deemed complete only after the roadway worker has acknowledged understanding of the on-track safety procedures and instructions presented.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that inboard and outboard hydraulic lines of the brakes were found connected to the incorrect ports on the swivel assembly of the main landing gear (MLG). This proposed AD would require modifying the MLG by installing a new bracket on the left and right lower aft-wing planks. We are proposing this AD to prevent incorrect installation of the brake hydraulic lines, which could cause the brakes and the anti-skid system to operate incorrectly, and cause catastrophic failure of the airplane during a high-speed rejected takeoff.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 18, 2014.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7303; fax (516) 794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-10, dated February 12, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:
Cases of inboard and outboard hydraulic brake lines connected to the incorrect port of the swivel assembly on the main landing gear were found in service, including a runway overrun event. Cross-connected brake hydraulic lines can cause the brakes and/or the anti-skid system to operate incorrectly. During a high speed rejected take-off, inability for the brakes to operate correctly could be catastrophic.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the modification to prevent inadvertent cross-connection of the inboard and outboard hydraulic brake lines.
The required action in this AD includes installing a new bracket on the left and right lower aft-wing planks of the MLG. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 601R-32-110, dated December 19, 2013. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 526 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $375 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $465,510, or $885 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 18, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 and subsequent.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by a by a report indicating that inboard and outboard hydraulic lines of the brakes were found connected to the incorrect ports on the swivel assembly of the main landing gear (MLG). We are issuing this AD to prevent incorrect installation of the brake hydraulic lines, which could cause the brakes and the anti-skid system to operate incorrectly, and cause catastrophic failure of the airplane during a high-speed rejected take-off.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, but no later than 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the MLG by installing a new bracket on the left and right lower aft-wing planks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instruction of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-32-110, dated December 19, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-10, dated February 12, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of two cases of heavy (hard to move) aileron control caused by aileron cables stuck in a clump of ice in the wheel bay. This proposed AD would require installing drain tubes on the center wing rear spar. We are proposing this AD to prevent accumulated water near or on the aileron control cables, which could freeze and result in reduced control of the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 18, 2014.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0140, dated July 12, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Two cases have been reported of heavy aileron control caused by aileron cables stuck in a clump of ice in the wheel bay. Investigation results revealed that, in case of water accumulation on the top of the center wing torsion box inside the cabin (zones 171 and 172), the water drains through the existing drain holes/gaps in the web plates on top of the center wing rear spar. The water could then accumulate in the area where the aileron control cables are situated. With the freezing temperatures normally encountered during flight, ice accretion could occur near or even on the aileron control cables.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced control of the aeroplane.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the installation of drain tubes on the center wing rear spar.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-51-021, dated April 23, 2013, including the following attachments:
• Fokker Parts List Local SB10051021-XU-B, Revision A, Sequence 1, dated April 4, 2013;
• Fokker Parts List Supply SB10051021-XU-B, Revision A, Sequence 1, dated April 10, 2013;
• Fokker Parts List Local SB10051021-XU-A, Revision B, Sequence 1, dated April 10, 2013;
• Fokker Parts List Supply SB10051021-XU-A, Revision B, Sequence 1, dated April 10, 2013; and
• Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM F100-160, dated April 23, 2013.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Fokker B.V. Service's EASA DOA.
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,380 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $8,240, or $2,060 per product.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 18, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51, Standard Practices/Structures.
This AD was prompted by a report of two cases of heavy (difficult to move) aileron control caused by aileron cables stuck in a clump of ice in the wheel bay. We are issuing this AD to prevent accumulated water near or on the aileron control cables, which could freeze and result in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, install water drain tubes on the center wing rear spar, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-51-021, dated April 23, 2013, including the attachments identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD.
(1) Fokker Parts List Local SB10051021-XU-B, Revision A, Sequence 1, dated April 4, 2013.
(2) Fokker Parts List Supply SB10051021-XU-B, Revision A, Sequence 1, dated April 10, 2013.
(3) Fokker Parts List Local SB10051021-XU-A, Revision B, Sequence 1, dated April 10, 2013.
(4) Fokker Parts List Supply SB10051021-XU-A, Revision B, Sequence 1, dated April 10, 2013.
(5) Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM F100-160, dated April 23, 2013.
(h) Other FAA AD Provisions
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013-0140, dated July 12, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31 (0)88-6280-111; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the forward lugs of the flap hinge box might not conform to engineering drawings, which could result in premature fatigue cracking. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to include new airworthiness limitations tasks; and measuring the forward lug edge distance of each flap hinge box, and inspecting for cracking and damage (i.e., deformation or bearing failure) of the forward lug edge of each flap hinge box, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct non-conforming flap hinge box forward lugs, which could result in failure of the lugs and detachment of the flap hinge box and consequent detachment of the flap surface.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 18, 2014.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7331; fax 516-794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-01, dated January 3, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
The aeroplane manufacturer has determined that the flap hinge box forward lugs edge distance may not conform to the engineering drawings. Non-conforming flap hinge box forward lugs may result in premature fatigue cracking.
Failure of the lugs could lead to the detachment of the flap hinge box and consequently the detachment of the flap surface. The loss of a flap surface could adversely affect the continued safe operation of the aeroplane.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of new Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC) Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) tasks, and the measurement [and inspection for cracking and damage] of the forward lug edge distance of each flap hinge-box and rectification as required.
Corrective actions include repairing damage and cracking. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Bombardier has issued the following service information. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 600-0762, dated September 26, 2013 (for Model CL-600-1A11 airplanes).
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0631, dated September 26, 2013 (for Models CL-600-2A12 and CL-600-2B16 airplanes).
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 604-57-007, dated September 26, 2013 (for Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes).
• Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-57-005, dated September 26, 2013 (for Model CL-600-2B16 airplanes).
• Canadair Challenger Temporary Revision 5-157, dated July 8, 2013, to Canadair Challenger Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, PSP 605.
• Canadair Challenger Temporary Revision 5-158, dated July 8, 2013, to Canadair Challenger Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, PSP 605.
• Canadair Challenger Temporary Revision 5-262, dated July 8, 2013, to Canadian Challenger Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual PSP 601.
• Canadair Challenger Temporary Revision 5-275, dated July 8, 2013, to Canadian Challenger Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual PSP 601A.
• Canadair Challenger Temporary Revision 5-276, dated July 8, 2013, to Canadian Challenger Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual PSP 601A.
• Tasks 57-50-00-121 and 57-52-01-102 of Section 5-10-30 of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier CL-605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 8, dated July 8, 2013.
• Tasks 57-50-00-121 and 57-52-01-102 of Section 5-10-30 of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier CL-604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks Manual, Revision 20, dated July 8, 2013.
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.
This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (k) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure.
Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.
The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the phrase “its delegated agent” to include a design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: “The proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated Airbus service bulletin.”
This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).
The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.
This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 105 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 45 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $401,625, or $3,825 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the cost of parts or on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 18, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes, serial numbers 1004 through 1085 inclusive.
(2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes, serial numbers 3001 through 3066 inclusive.
(3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R Variants) airplanes, serial numbers 5001 through 5194 inclusive.
(4) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants) airplanes; serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive, and 5701 through 5953 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the flap hinge box forward lugs edge distance might not conform to engineering drawings, which could result in premature fatigue cracking. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct non-conforming flap hinge box forward lugs, which could result in failure of the lugs and detachment of the flap hinge box and consequent detachment of the flap surface.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the applicable airworthiness limitation (AWL) tasks as specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. The initial compliance time for doing the task is at the applicable times specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
For the incorporation of tasks specified in the temporary revisions (TRs) specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD that are a part of the maintenance or inspection program revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, such incorporation may be done by inserting a copy of the applicable TRs specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD into the applicable “time limits/maintenance checks” (TLMC) manuals specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. When the applicable TRs specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD have been included in general revisions of the applicable TLMC manual specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, the general revisions may be inserted in the applicable TLMC manual specified in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.
At the applicable times specified in table 2 to paragraphs (h) and (i)(1) of this AD, measure the forward lug edge distance of all flap hinge boxes, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraphs (h) and (i)(1) of this AD; and do a general visual inspection for cracking and damage (i.e., deformation or bearing failure) of the forward lug edge of all flap hinge boxes.
(1) If, during the measurement required by paragraph (h) of this AD, the lug edge distance is equal to or greater than the limit specified in the applicable service bulletin specified in table 2 to paragraphs (h) and (i)(1) of this AD, no further action is required by this paragraph.
(2) If, during the measurement required by paragraph (h) of this AD, the lug edge distance is below the limit specified in the applicable service bulletin specified in table 3 to paragraphs (h) and (i)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.
(3) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any cracking or damage is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.
After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-01, dated January 3, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The CMAQ program provides funding to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for areas that were out of compliance but have now met the standards (maintenance areas). The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) requires priority use of CMAQ funds in areas that are designated nonattainment or maintenance for fine particulate matter (PM
Although the MAP-21 language for the CMAQ funds that must be obligated for PM
Comments must be received on or before October 3, 2014. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at
Ms. Cecilia Ho, Office of Natural Environment, HEPN, 202-366-9862, or Ms. Janet Myers, Office of the Chief Counsel, 202-366-2019, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System at:
This regulation seeks to establish a proposed weighting factor of 5, to be used in determining the weighted population of a PM
Section 1113(b)(6) of MAP-21 amends 23 U.S.C. 149 by adding subsection (k)(1) that requires priority use of CMAQ funds in areas that are designated nonattainment or maintenance for the PM
Although this MAP-21 language states that the PM
Section 790.107(d). Weighting Factors for Determining Weighted Populations. Subsection (d) would incorporate the weighting factor chosen by FHWA for PM
This rulemaking proposes to set forth requirements for the CMAQ Program, which would not change overall levels of State apportionments. Regardless of the weighting factor for PM
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914) established the CMAQ Program. The program provides funding to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401
The CMAQ Program supports two important DOT goals: Improving air quality and relieving congestion. This program helps States and metropolitan areas meet their CAA obligations in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Additionally, MAP-21 puts an increased focus on addressing PM
The PM
The health effects of PM
Section 1113(b)(6) of MAP-21 amends 23 U.S.C. 149 by adding subsection (k)(1) that requires priority use of CMAQ funds in areas that are designated nonattainment or maintenance for the PM
For any State that has a nonattainment or maintenance area for fine particulate matter, an amount equal to 25 percent of the funds apportioned to each State under section 104(b)(4) for a nonattainment or maintenance area that are based all or in part on the weighted population of such area in fine particulate matter nonattainment shall be obligated to projects that reduce such fine particular matter emissions in such area, including diesel retrofits.
Although this MAP-21 language states that the PM
Giving a higher or lower weighting factor to PM
Under ISTEA, TEA-21, and SAFETEA-LU, funding apportionments
For the PM
The FHWA will continue to use the weighted population formula, which was used in prior statutes, under MAP-21. To determine the amount of the PM
To calculate the weighted population of an area under 23 U.S.C. 149(k)(1), FHWA will use updated populations based on the most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau for each county, or part of a county, that is designated nonattainment or maintenance for ozone, CO, or PM
For FY 2013 and 2014, FHWA implemented the MAP-21 changes by an administrative determination to use a weighting factor of 1.2 for PM
The weighting factor for PM
Following is a discussion of each of the Sections in the proposed rule:
Section 790.101 Purpose. This section sets forth the purpose of the proposed regulation, explaining that it is intended to establish a weight for PM
Section 790.103 Applicability. This section clarifies that this proposed regulation would apply to all States that have a PM
Section 790.105 Definitions. This section establishes that definitions contained in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) are applicable to this part. It also defines some additional terms that would be used in the proposed regulation. It includes a definition for Criteria Pollutant, Maintenance Area, National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Nonattainment Area, and Weighted Populations.
Section 790.107. Weighting Factors for Determining Weighted Populations. Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section would present the weighting factors for ozone and CO that are incorporated into the calculation of State apportionments of CMAQ funding under MAP-21 and are used as part of the weighted population formula for the calculation of the PM
Subsection (d) would incorporate the weighting factor chosen by FHWA for PM
The FHWA is proposing to set a weighting factor of 5 for PM
Based upon FHWA's review of the serious health impacts of PM
The FHWA's analyses indicate that setting the weighting factor at 5, as compared to the 1.2 used for FY 2013 and 2014, only produces a modest difference in the amount of funding required to be set aside for PM
All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered by FHWA and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
The FHWA has determined preliminarily that this action would be a significant rulemaking action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and would be significant within the meaning of the DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. This action is considered significant based upon FHWA's review of the serious health impacts of PM
However, this rulemaking is not considered economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 because this action would only have a limited impact on funding levels and affect a small measure of change in the existing CMAQ program. This rulemaking proposes to set forth requirements for the CMAQ Program, which would not change overall levels of State apportionments. Regardless of
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 60l-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed action on small entities and has determined that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule addresses requirements for the use of CMAQ funds in certain States for implementing the CMAQ Program. As such, it affects only States, and States are not included in the definition of a small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply, and I hereby certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $143.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Additionally, the definition of “Federal Mandate” in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility.
This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the FHWA has preliminarily determined that this proposed action would not warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this proposed action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this proposal does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.
The agency has analyzed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it will not have any significant effect on the quality of the environment and meets the criteria for a categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12630,
Executive Order 12898,
The FHWA has evaluated this proposed rule under the Executive Order, the DOT Order, and the FHWA Order. The agency has determined that the proposed rule, if finalized, would not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority or low income populations. This action proposes to establish the weight applied in calculating the PM
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045,
The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175 and believes that the proposed action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal laws. The proposed rulemaking addresses the weighting factor for the PM
We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211,
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to add part 790 to title 23, subchapter H, Code of Federal Regulations, to read as follows:
23 U.S.C. 149; 49 CFR 1.85.
The purpose of this part is to establish the weighting factors, as directed by 23 U.S.C. 149(k)(1), for the calculation of weighted population to determine the 25 percent of the funds apportioned under section 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(4) for any State that has a PM
This part applies to all States that have a PM
Unless otherwise specified in this part, the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) are applicable to this part. As used in this part:
(a) For purposes of 23 U.S.C. 149(k)(1), for an ozone nonattainment and maintenance area, the weighting factors determined are as follows:
(1) Marginal nonattainment area, the weighting factor is 1.0.
(2) Moderate nonattainment area, the weighting factor is 1.1.
(3) Serious nonattainment area, the weighting factor is 1.2.
(4) Severe nonattainment area, the weighting factor is 1.3.
(5) Extreme nonattainment area, the weighting factor is 1.4.
(6) Maintenance area, the weighting factor is 1.0.
(b) For purposes of 23 U.S.C. 149(k)(1), for a carbon monoxide nonattainment and maintenance area, the weighting factor is 1.0.
(c) For purposes of 23 U.S.C. 149(k)(1), for areas that are designated nonattainment or maintenance for ozone and carbon monoxide, the weighting factor is 1.2 multiplied by the applicable ozone factor as defined in paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) For purposes of 23 U.S.C. 149(k)(1), for a PM
(e) For purposes of 23 U.S.C. 149(k)(1), for areas that are designated nonattainment or maintenance for ozone and nonattainment for PM
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), after consulting with staff from various federal supervisory authorities, is proposing rules under the Bank Secrecy Act to clarify and strengthen customer due diligence requirements for: Banks; brokers or dealers in securities; mutual funds; and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities. The proposed rules would contain explicit customer due diligence requirements and would include a new regulatory requirement to identify beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to certain exemptions.
Written comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) must be received on or before October 3, 2014.
Comments may be submitted, identified by Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1506-AB25, by any of the following methods:
•
•
FinCEN Resource Center at 1-800-767-2825 or 1-703-905-3591 (not a toll free number) and select option 3 for regulatory questions. Email inquiries can be sent to
FinCEN exercises regulatory functions primarily under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (PATRIOT Act) and other legislation, which legislative framework is commonly referred to as the “Bank Secrecy Act” (BSA).
The Secretary has delegated to the Director of FinCEN the authority to implement, administer and enforce compliance with the BSA and associated regulations.
FinCEN, in consultation with the staffs of the federal functional regulators and the Department of Justice, has determined that more explicit rules for covered financial institutions
Accordingly, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to amend FinCEN's existing rules so that each of these pillars is explicitly referenced in a corresponding requirement within FinCEN's program rules. The first element, identifying and verifying the identity of customers, is already included in the existing regulatory requirement to have a customer identification program (CIP). Given this fact, FinCEN is addressing the need to have explicit requirements with respect to the three remaining elements via two rule changes. First, FinCEN is addressing the need to collect beneficial owner information on the natural persons behind legal entities by proposing a new separate requirement to identify and verify the beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to certain exemptions. Second, FinCEN is proposing to add explicit CDD requirements with respect to understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships and conducting ongoing monitoring as components in each covered financial institution's core AML program requirements. Within this context, FinCEN is also updating its regulations to include explicit reference to all four of the pre-existing core requirements of an AML program, sometimes referred to as “pillars,” so that all of these requirements are visible within FinCEN's rules. As discussed in more detail below, these existing core requirements are already laid out in the BSA as minimum requirements and are substantively the same as those already included within regulations or rules issued by federal functional regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations (SROs), and therefore we believe they do not add to or otherwise change the covered financial institutions' existing obligations under these regulations or rules.
FinCEN wishes to emphasize at the outset that nothing in this proposal is intended to lower, reduce, or limit the due diligence expectations of the federal functional regulators or in any way limit their existing regulatory discretion. To clarify this point, this proposal incorporates the CDD elements on nature and purpose and ongoing monitoring into FinCEN's existing AML program requirements, which generally provide that an AML program is
The remainder of this background section provides: (a) An overview of the importance of CDD; (b) a description of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM),
Clarifying and strengthening CDD requirements for U.S. financial institutions, including an obligation to identify beneficial owners, advances the purposes of the BSA by:
• Enhancing the availability to law enforcement, as well as to the federal functional regulators and SROs, of beneficial ownership information of legal entity customers obtained by U.S. financial institutions, which assists law enforcement financial investigations and regulatory examinations and investigations;
• Increasing the ability of financial institutions, law enforcement, and the intelligence community to identify the assets and accounts of terrorist organizations, money launderers, drug kingpins, weapons of mass destruction proliferators, and other national security threats, which strengthens compliance with sanctions programs designed to undercut financing and support for such persons;
• Helping financial institutions assess and mitigate risk, and comply with all existing legal requirements, including the BSA and related authorities;
• Facilitating reporting and investigations in support of tax compliance, and advancing national commitments made to foreign counterparts in connection with the provisions commonly known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA);
• Promoting consistency in implementing and enforcing CDD regulatory expectations across and within financial sectors.
The abuse of legal entities to disguise involvement in illicit financial activity remains a longstanding vulnerability that facilitates crime, threatens national security, and jeopardizes the integrity of the financial system. Criminals have exploited the anonymity that can be provided by legal entities to engage in a variety of financial crimes, including money laundering, corruption, fraud, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion.
There are numerous examples. Law enforcement officials have found that major drug trafficking organizations use shell companies to launder drug proceeds.
Strong CDD practices that include identifying the natural persons behind a legal entity—i.e., the beneficial owners—help defend against these abuses in a variety of ways. Armed with beneficial ownership information, financial institutions can provide law enforcement with key details about the legal structures used by suspected criminals to conceal their illicit activity and assets. Moreover, requiring legal entities seeking access to financial institutions to disclose identifying information, such as the name, date of birth, and social security number of a natural person, will make such entities more transparent, and thus less attractive to criminals and those who assist them. Even if an illicit actor tries to thwart such transparency by providing false beneficial ownership information to a financial institution, law enforcement has advised FinCEN that such information can still be useful in demonstrating unlawful intent and in generating leads to identify additional evidence or co-conspirators.
As noted, criminals often abuse legal entities to evade sanctions or other targeted financial measures designed to combat terrorism and other national security threats. The success of such targeted financial measures depends, in part, on the ability of financial institutions, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies to identify a target's assets and accounts. These measures are thwarted when legal entities are abused to obfuscate ownership interests. Effective CDD helps prevent such abuses by requiring the collection of critical information, including beneficial ownership information, which may be helpful in implementing sanctions or other similar measures.
Express CDD requirements would also enable financial institutions to more effectively assess and mitigate risk. It is through CDD that financial institutions are able to develop risk profiles of their customers. Comprehensive risk profiles enable a financial institution to monitor accounts more effectively, and evaluate activity to determine whether it is unusual or suspicious, as required under suspicious activity reporting obligations.
Customer due diligence also facilitates tax reporting, investigations and compliance. For example,
Customer due diligence is universally recognized as fundamental to mitigating illicit finance risk, even though not all covered financial institutions use the specific term “customer due diligence” to describe their practices. While Treasury understands from its outreach to the private sector that financial institutions broadly accept this principle and implement CDD practices in some form under a risk-based approach, covered financial institutions have expressed disparate views about what precise activity CDD entails. At public hearings held after the comment period to the ANPRM, discussed below, financial institutions described widely divergent CDD practices, especially with respect to identifying beneficial owners outside of limited circumstances prescribed by statute.
FinCEN believes that this disparity adversely affects efforts to mitigate risk and can promote an uneven playing field across and within financial sectors. Covered financial institutions have noted that unclear CDD expectations can result in inconsistent regulatory examinations, potentially causing them to devote their limited resources to managing derivative legal risk rather than fundamental illicit finance risk. Private sector representatives have also noted that inconsistent expectations can effectively discourage best practices, because covered financial institutions with robust compliance procedures may believe that they risk losing customers to other, more lax institutions. Greater consistency across the financial system could also facilitate reliance on the CDD efforts of other financial institutions.
Providing a consolidated and clear CDD framework would help address these issues. As part of this framework, expressly stating CDD requirements in rule or regulation with respect to (i) understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships and (ii) conducting ongoing monitoring to maintain and update customer information and to identify and report suspicious transactions, will facilitate more consistent implementation, supervision and enforcement of these expectations. With respect to the beneficial ownership proposal, requiring all covered financial institutions to identify beneficial owners in the same manner and pursuant to the same definition also promotes consistency across the industry. Requiring covered financial institutions to operate under one clear CDD framework will promote a more level playing field across and within financial sectors.
FinCEN formally commenced this rulemaking process in March 2012 by issuing an ANPRM that described FinCEN's potential proposal for codifying explicit CDD requirements, including customer identification, understanding the nature and purpose of accounts, ongoing monitoring, and obtaining beneficial ownership information.
FinCEN received approximately 90 comments, mostly from banks, credit unions, securities and derivatives firms, mutual funds, casinos, and money services businesses. In general, and as described in greater detail below, these commenters primarily raised concerns about the potential costs and practical challenges associated with a categorical requirement to obtain beneficial ownership information. They also reflected some confusion with respect to FinCEN's articulation of the other components of CDD, suggesting that FinCEN was imposing new requirements rather than explicitly codifying pre-existing obligations.
To better understand and address these concerns, Treasury held five public hearings in Washington, DC, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Miami.
Clarifying and strengthening CDD is an important component of Treasury's broader three-part strategy to enhance financial transparency. Other key elements of this strategy include: (i) Increasing the transparency of U.S. legal entities through the collection of beneficial ownership information at the time of the legal entity's formation and (ii) facilitating global implementation of international standards regarding CDD and beneficial ownership of legal entities and trusts.
This proposal thus complements the Administration's ongoing work with Congress to facilitate adoption of legislation that would require the collection of beneficial ownership information at the time that legal entities are formed in the United States. This proposal also advances Treasury's ongoing work with the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (G-20), the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and other global partners, who have emphasized the importance of improving CDD practices and requiring the disclosure of beneficial ownership information at the time of company formation or transfer. Moreover, this proposal furthers the United States' Group of Eight (G-8) commitment as set forth in the United States G-8 Action Plan for Transparency of Company Ownership and Control, published on June 18, 2013.
This section describes: (i) The range of financial institutions covered by this proposal; (ii) FinCEN's continued interest in potentially extending the proposed rule to additional financial institutions in the future, and (iii) the basis for proposing explicit requirements that, in conjunction with the existing customer identification program (CIP) requirement, will create a clearer CDD framework.
As an initial matter, this proposal covers only those financial institutions subject to a CIP requirement under FinCEN regulations. At this time, such financial institutions are: (i) Banks; (ii) brokers or dealers in securities; (iii) mutual funds; and (iv) futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities.
In addition to input from covered financial institutions, FinCEN sought and received comments on the ANPRM from financial institutions not subject to CIP requirements, such as money services businesses, casinos, insurance companies, and other entities subject to FinCEN regulations. Based on these comments and discussions with the private sector, FinCEN believes that extending CDD requirements in the future to these, and potentially other types of financial institutions, may ultimately promote a more consistent, reliable, and effective AML regulatory structure across the financial system.
Several comments questioned the need for proposing a CDD rule that contained all four elements, when three of the four elements are already consistent with existing requirements or supervisory expectations. FinCEN believes that proposing clear CDD requirements is the most effective way of clarifying, consolidating, and harmonizing expectations and practices across all covered financial institutions. Expressly stating the requirements facilitates the goal that financial institutions, regulators, and law enforcement all operate under the same set of clearly articulated principles. The proposed CDD requirements are intended to set forth a clear framework of minimum expectations that can be broadly applied to varying risk scenarios across multiple financial sectors and can be tailored by financial institutions to account for the risks unique to them. For this reason, and as part of a broader global agenda supported by Treasury, many other jurisdictions have already imposed requirements similar to those proposed herein.
Furthermore, additional discussions with the private sector reaffirmed FinCEN's view that a beneficial ownership requirement is best understood in the context of broader due diligence conducted on customers. Beneficial ownership information is only one component of a broader profile that is necessary for financial institutions to develop when assessing a particular customer's risk. Beneficial ownership information is a means of building a more comprehensive risk profile; it is not an end in and of itself. Thus, in addition to proposing a specific requirement for the collection of the beneficial ownership information, FinCEN is also proposing amendments to its AML program rules to specifically reference the two components of CDD that were not elsewhere explicitly included in its regulations, i.e., understanding the nature and purpose of an account and conducting ongoing monitoring.
As described briefly above, it is FinCEN's position that CDD consists, at a minimum, of four elements:
Identifying and Verifying the Identity of Customers;
Identifying and Verifying the Identity of Beneficial Owners of Legal Entity Customers;
Understanding the Nature and Purpose of Customer Relationships; and
Conducting Ongoing Monitoring to Maintain and Update Customer Information and to Identify and Report Suspicious Transactions.
The second element of CDD requires financial institutions to identify and verify the beneficial owners of legal entity customers. In this NPRM, FinCEN proposes a new requirement that financial institutions identify the natural persons who are beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to certain exemptions. The definition of “beneficial owner” proposed herein requires that the person identified as a beneficial owner be a natural person (as opposed to another legal entity). A financial institution must satisfy this requirement by obtaining at the time a new account is opened a standard certification form (attached hereto as Appendix A) directly from the individual opening the new account on behalf of the legal entity customer.
The term “beneficial owner” has been defined differently in different contexts. In the AML context, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard setter for combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism and proliferation, defines the beneficial owner as “the natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls a customer and/or the person on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted. It also incorporates those persons who exercise ultimate effective control over a legal person or arrangement.” That definition, initially adopted in 2003, has been retained in the revised FATF standards adopted in 2012.
Financial institutions would be required to verify the identity of beneficial owners consistent with their existing CIP practices. However, FinCEN is not proposing to require that financial institutions verify that the natural persons identified on the form are in fact the beneficial owners. In other words, the requirement focuses on verifying the identity of the beneficial owners, but does not require the verification of their status as beneficial owners. This proposed requirement states
The NPRM also addresses the third and fourth elements of CDD by proposing amendments to the AML program rule that harmonize these elements of CDD with existing AML obligations. The third element of CDD requires financial institutions to understand the nature and purpose of customer relationships in order to develop a customer risk profile. This is a necessary and critical step in complying with the existing requirement to identify and report suspicious transactions as required under the BSA. The fourth element of CDD requires financial institutions to conduct ongoing monitoring. As with the third element, ongoing monitoring is a necessary part of maintaining and updating customer information and identifying and reporting suspicious transactions as required under the BSA.
The third and fourth elements are consistent with, and in fact necessary in order to comply with, the existing requirement to report suspicious activity, as this obligation inherently requires a financial institution to understand expected customer activity in order to develop a customer risk profile and to monitor customer activity so that it can identify transactions that appear unusual or suspicious. As such, the third and fourth elements are intended to explicitly state already existing expectations for the purpose of codifying the baseline standard of due diligence that is fundamental to an effective AML program.
Because these two elements are consistent with (and necessary in order to comply with) existing BSA requirements as adopted in regulations or rules issued by federal functional regulators and SROs, nothing in this proposed rule should be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with previous guidance issued by FinCEN or guidance, regulations, or supervisory expectations of the appropriate federal functional regulator or SRO with respect to these elements.
The sections below further describe each of the three CDD elements addressed in this rulemaking in detail by providing a general overview of these elements as discussed in the ANPRM, a summary of the comments received, and FinCEN's specific proposal.
With respect to this element of CDD,
While a number of private sector comments offered general support for a reasonable expansion of the beneficial ownership requirement and noted that many financial institutions already identify beneficial owners in certain circumstances beyond those explicitly required under the regulations implementing Section 312 of the PATRIOT Act, most expressed the following primary criticisms and concerns:
• The burden and costs associated with a categorical (versus a risk-based) obligation to collect beneficial ownership information may outweigh the benefits;
• An express beneficial ownership requirement should be (at least in part) risk-based to account for the wide variety of financial institutions, account types, products, and customers that comprise the financial system, and to avoid requiring financial institutions to misallocate scarce compliance resources away from high-risk customers;
• A categorical requirement should include exemptions, including for those customers currently exempt from customer identification requirements;
• Any definition of “beneficial owner” should be practical and easily understood by financial institution employees and customers;
• Financial institutions may be unable to verify the status of a beneficial owner absent an independent source of beneficial ownership information, such as a state registry; and
• FinCEN should consider the compliance challenges associated with specific account and relationship types, such as intermediated relationships and trusts.
Most of the comment letters submitted by law enforcement agencies and non-governmental organizations also focused on the beneficial ownership element of the CDD rule. In general, these letters highlighted the following benefits that such an obligation would provide:
• A beneficial ownership rule would require financial institutions to retain more useful customer information, which would significantly improve law enforcement's ability to pursue new leads with respect to legal entities under investigation;
• Beneficial ownership information would improve financial institutions' monitoring capabilities, and put them in a position to file higher quality SARs; and
• Obtaining beneficial ownership information for U.S. legal entities would enhance the United States' ability to respond to a foreign jurisdiction's request for investigative assistance. This would assist in efforts to join with foreign counterparts in global efforts to disrupt organized crime and terrorism.
As described above, Treasury has engaged in extensive outreach with the private sector and law enforcement agencies to better understand and address these issues. Such discussions were essential in further developing the initial proposals set forth in the ANPRM to better conform with existing practices and more comprehensively account for regulatory burden and sector-specific complexities. Key issues raised during the comment period included: The definition of “beneficial owner” and “legal entity customer”; exemptions and exclusions from the definition; application of the requirement to trusts, intermediated account relationships and pooled investment vehicles; verification of beneficial owners through a standard certification; updating beneficial ownership information; and reliance on other financial institutions to satisfy the requirement. Each of these issues is described in further detail below.
The ANPRM explored a definition of “beneficial owner” with two independent components, referred to as “prongs.”
Many private sector commenters stated that the definition discussed in the ANPRM was conceptually confusing and unworkable in practice. For example, some commenters questioned the feasibility of engaging in a comparative analysis of every owner for purposes of determining who “has at least as great an equity interest in the entity as any other individual.” A similar type of comparative analysis existed with respect to the control prong. Other commenters were uncertain as to whether an individual must satisfy both the ownership prong and the control prong to be considered a beneficial owner, or whether each prong was intended to be independently applied to identify separate individuals. Other challenges identified in the comments included, among other things: (i) Shifting ownership percentages; (ii) managerial changes; and (iii) the ability of financial institution personnel and customers to understand and respond to the definition.
FinCEN agrees that the definition of “beneficial owner” must be clear to employees and customers of financial institutions. To that end, and in light of the comments received, FinCEN proposes the following definition of “beneficial owner” of a legal entity customer, which, again, includes an ownership prong and a control prong:
1. Each individual, if any, who, directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or otherwise, owns 25 percent or more of the equity interests of a legal entity customer; and
2. An individual with significant responsibility to control, manage, or direct a legal entity customer, including
(A) An executive officer or senior manager (e.g., a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Managing Member, General Partner, President, Vice President, or Treasurer); or
(B) Any other individual who regularly performs similar functions.
FinCEN believes this definition provides clarity and effectiveness. In contrast to the definition suggested in the ANPRM, this definition provides greater flexibility to financial institutions and customers in responding to the control prong of the definition by permitting the identification in clause (ii) of
Commenters expressed concern that identifying beneficial owners under the ownership prong would be difficult for legal entity customers that have complex legal ownership structures. FinCEN acknowledges that identifying the individuals who own, directly or indirectly, 25 percent or more of the equity interests of a legal entity may not be straightforward in every circumstance. For instances where legal entities are held by other legal entities, determining ownership may require several intermediate analytical steps. FinCEN's expectation is that a financial institution will identify the natural person or persons who exercise control of a legal entity customer through a 25% or greater ownership interest, regardless of how many corporate parents or holding companies removed the natural person is from the legal entity customer. Consequently, the term “equity interests” should be interpreted broadly to apply to a variety of different legal structures and ownership situations. In short, “equity interests” refers to an ownership interest in a business entity. Examples of “equity interests” include shares or stock in a corporation, membership interests in a limited liability company, and other similar ownership interests in a legal entity. FinCEN has deliberately avoided use of more specific terms of art associated with the exercise of control through ownership, based on the preferences expressed by many members of industry, who have urged FinCEN to avoid creating a definition with complex legal terms that front-line employees at financial institutions, and the individuals opening accounts on behalf of legal entity customers, might have difficulty understanding and applying.
Moreover, the phrase “directly or indirectly” in the ownership prong of the definition is intended to make clear that where a legal entity customer is owned by (or controlled through) one or more other legal entities, the proposed rule requires customers to look through those other legal entities to determine which natural persons own 25 percent or more of the equity interests of the legal entity customer. FinCEN recognizes that identifying such individuals may be challenging where the legal entity customer has a complex legal structure with multiple levels of ownership, but FinCEN does not expect financial institutions—or customers—to undergo complex and exhaustive analysis to determine with legal certainty whether an individual is a beneficial owner under the definition. Instead, FinCEN expects financial institutions to be able to rely generally on the representations of the customer when answering the financial institution's questions about the individual persons behind the legal entity, including whether someone identified as a beneficial owner is in fact a beneficial owner under this definition. FinCEN believes that this approach provides greater flexibility to financial institutions and customers in complying with the proposed beneficial ownership requirement. In addition, by using the term “directly or indirectly,” FinCEN does not intend for financial institutions to assess under this prong whether individuals are acting in concert with one another to collectively own 25 percent of more of the legal entity where each of them has an independent contributing stake; FinCEN is concerned, however, with the use of
FinCEN has learned through its outreach that some financial institutions may already identify beneficial owners using a lower ownership threshold, such as 10 percent. FinCEN reiterates that the proposed CDD requirements, including the beneficial ownership requirement, are intended to set forth
Commenters also sought clarity as to how this beneficial ownership requirement would affect the application of FinCEN regulations implementing Section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The proposed requirement would apply to all legal entity customers, including legal entities that open a foreign private banking account that meets the definition in § 1010.605(m). However, the new requirements would not apply to the beneficial owner of funds or assets in a payable-through account of the type described in § 1010.610(b)(1)(iii), since the owner of such funds or assets does not have an account relationship with the covered financial institution. In such instances, compliance with the information requirements included in § 1010.610(b)(1)(iii) will suffice, and the particulars of this new requirement,
While the ANPRM sought comment on whether certain legal entity customers should be exempt from the beneficial ownership requirement, it did not include a discussion of the scope of the definition of legal entity customer, which is also relevant to the notion of the exemptions. FinCEN proposes to define legal entity customers to include corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships or other similar business entities (whether formed under the laws of a state or of the United States or a foreign jurisdiction), that open a new account after the implementing date of the regulation. FinCEN would interpret this to include all entities that are formed by a filing with the Secretary of State (or similar office), as well as general partnerships and unincorporated nonprofit associations. It does not include trusts other than those that might be created through a filing with a state (e.g., statutory business trusts).
Many commenters strongly recommended that, at a minimum, any customer exempt from identification under the CIP rules should also be exempt from the beneficial ownership requirement. The commenters noted that a contrary approach would effectively nullify the CIP exemption since a financial institution would be unable to identify a beneficial owner without first identifying the customer. Many commenters recommended that other customers should also be exempt if they are well-regulated or otherwise present a low money laundering risk. The proposed rule incorporates a number of these suggestions by exempting all types of entities that are exempt from CIP, as well as allowing for other specific exemptions.
FinCEN proposes to exempt from the beneficial ownership requirement those types of entities that are exempt from the customer identification requirements under the CIP rules.
In addition to incorporating exemptions applicable to the CIP rules, and consistent with various suggestions provided in the comment letters, FinCEN proposes that the following entities also be exempt from the beneficial ownership requirement when opening a new account because their beneficial ownership information is generally available from other credible sources:
• An issuer of a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or that is required to file reports under Section 15(d) of that Act;
• Any majority-owned domestic subsidiary of any entity whose securities are listed on a U.S. stock exchange;
• An investment company, as defined in Section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, that is registered with the SEC under that Act;
• An investment adviser, as defined in Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, that is registered with the SEC under that Act;
• An exchange or clearing agency, as defined in Section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that is registered under Section 6 or 17A of that Act;
• Any other entity registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
• A registered entity, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, or major swap participant, each as defined in section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act, that is registered with the CFTC;
• A public accounting firm registered under section 102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; and
• A charity or nonprofit entity that is described in Sections 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that has not been denied tax exempt status, and that is required to and has filed the most recently required annual information return with the Internal Revenue Service.
FinCEN notes that exempting these entities from the beneficial ownership
FinCEN also sought comment on whether and how a beneficial ownership requirement should apply to customers of financial institutions where such relationships have been established prior to the implementation date of this rule. Financial institutions noted that a requirement to “look back” to obtain beneficial ownership information from existing customers would be a substantial burden. FinCEN proposes that the beneficial ownership requirement will apply only with respect to legal entity customers that open new accounts going forward from the date of implementation. Thus, the definition of “legal entity customer” is limited to legal entities that open a new account after the implementation date. Although FinCEN is not proposing a prescriptive rule requiring financial institutions to look back and obtain beneficial ownership information for pre-existing accounts, we are aware that, as a matter of practice, financial institutions may also consider identifying beneficial owners of existing customers when updating customer information on a risk basis, as discussed more fully below.
Several comments described potential challenges in applying a beneficial ownership requirement to a customer that is a trust. There are many types of trusts. While a small proportion may fall within the scope of the proposed definition of legal entity customer (e.g., statutory trusts), most will not. Unlike the legal entity customers that are subject to the proposed beneficial ownership requirement (corporations, limited liability companies, etc.), a trust is generally a contractual arrangement between the person who provides the funds and specifies the trust terms (i.e., the settlor or grantor) and the person with control over the funds (i.e., the trustee) for the benefit of those who benefit from the trust (i.e., the beneficiaries). This arrangement does not generally require the approval by or other action of a state to become effective. FinCEN notes that in order to engage in the business of acting as a fiduciary it is necessary for a trust company to be federally- or state-chartered. As the comments noted, identifying a “beneficial owner” among the parties to such an arrangement for AML purposes, based on the proposed definition of beneficial owner, would not be practical. At this point, FinCEN is choosing not to impose this requirement. In this context we note that, although the trust is defined in the CIP rules as the financial institution's customer, the signatory on the account will necessarily be the trustee, who is required by law to control the trust assets (including financial institution accounts) and to know the beneficiaries (by name or class) and act in their best interest. Therefore, in the context of an investigation, law enforcement would be able to obtain from the financial institution a point of contact required by law to have information about relevant individuals associated with the trust.
The decision not to propose specific requirements in the context of trusts does not mean, however, that FinCEN necessarily considers trusts to pose a reduced money laundering or terrorist financing risk relative to the business entities included within the definition of “legal entity customer.” Through its outreach, FinCEN learned that, in addition to identifying and verifying the identity of the trust for purposes of CIP, financial institutions generally also identify and verify the identity of the trustee, who would necessarily have to open the account for the trust. In addition, guidance for banks provides that “in certain circumstances involving revocable trusts, the bank may need to gather information about the settlor, grantor, trustee, or other persons with the authority to direct the trustee, and who thus have authority or control over the account, in order to establish the true identity of the customer.”
The ANPRM sought comment on whether and how a beneficial ownership requirement should be applied to accounts held by intermediaries on behalf of third parties. An intermediary generally refers to a customer that maintains an account for the primary benefit of others, such as the intermediary's own underlying clients. For example, certain correspondent banking relationships may involve intermediation whereby the respondent bank of a correspondent bank acts on behalf of its own clients. Intermediation is also very common in the securities and derivatives industries. For example, a broker-dealer may establish omnibus accounts for a financial intermediary (such as an investment adviser) that, in turn, establishes sub-accounts for the intermediary's clients, whose information may or may not be disclosed to the broker-dealer. An issue raised in the comments, especially those from the securities and derivatives industries, is whether a financial institution would be required to identify the intermediary's own underlying clients or their beneficial owners. This issue is distinct from whether a financial institution must identify the beneficial owners of the intermediary (i.e., the direct customer), which would be the case unless the intermediary is exempt under one of the specific exemptions described above.
Commenters cautioned that a requirement to identify an intermediary's underlying clients or their beneficial owners could have significant detrimental consequences to the efficiency of the U.S. financial markets, because it would require financial institutions to modify longstanding practices. They suggested that, consistent with existing CIP
FinCEN is concerned about the illicit finance risks posed by underlying clients of intermediary customers because of the lack of insight a financial institution has into those clients and their activities. However, FinCEN recognizes that this risk may be more effectively managed through other means. These would include proper customer due diligence conducted by financial institutions on their direct customers who serve as intermediaries, and appropriate regulation of the intermediaries themselves.
Existing FinCEN guidance related to CIP practices is applicable in determining a financial institution's beneficial ownership obligations in these circumstances. For example, a broker-dealer that appropriately maintains an omnibus account for an intermediary, under the conditions set forth in the 2003 Omnibus Guidance for Broker-Dealers,
Notwithstanding the foregoing, consistent with other elements of CDD, a financial institution's AML program should contain risk-based policies, procedures, and controls for assessing the money laundering risk posed by underlying clients of a financial intermediary, for monitoring and mitigating that risk, and for detecting and reporting suspicious activity. While a financial intermediary's underlying clients may not be subject to the beneficial ownership requirement, a financial institution would nonetheless be obligated to monitor for and report suspicious activity associated with intermediated accounts, including activity related to underlying clients. FinCEN understands that this is consistent with current industry practice. As multiple comments noted, securities and derivatives firms generally monitor activity in intermediated accounts and follow up on an event-driven basis, with such follow-up potentially including asking questions about the underlying owners of assets after detection of possible suspicious activity.
Several comments, particularly from the securities and futures industries, also highlighted the potential challenges associated with identifying beneficial owners of non-exempt pooled investment vehicles, such as hedge funds, whose ownership structure may continuously fluctuate.
FinCEN is considering whether nonexempt pooled investment vehicles that are operated or advised by financial institutions that are proposed to be exempt, should also be exempt from this requirement. Additionally, in the event that such institutions are not exempt, FinCEN is considering whether covered financial institutions should only be required to identify beneficial owners of such non-exempt pooled investment vehicles
At the public hearings, participants discussed the efficacy of having a certification form that would standardize collection of beneficial ownership information and permit reliance on the information provided. FinCEN believes that providing such a form would promote consistent practices and regulatory expectations, significantly reduce compliance burden, and preserve the benefits of obtaining the information. A standard form would also promote a uniform customer experience across U.S. financial sectors. This was of particular concern to representatives from financial institutions with practices that exceed existing regulatory requirements, which noted that they often lose customers to institutions with less rigorous standards.
Accordingly, FinCEN proposes that a financial institution must satisfy the requirement to identify beneficial owners by obtaining, at the time a new account is opened, the standard certification form attached hereto as Appendix A. To promote consistent customer expectations and understanding, the form in Appendix A plainly describes the beneficial ownership requirement and the information sought from the individual opening the account on behalf of the legal entity customer. To facilitate reliance by financial institutions, the form also requires the individual opening the account on behalf of the legal entity customer to certify that the information provided on the form is true and accurate to the best of his or her knowledge. This certification is also helpful for law enforcement purposes in demonstrating unlawful intent in the event the individual completing the form knowingly provides false information.
The ANPRM sought comment on whether and how financial institutions could verify beneficial ownership information provided by customers. As described in the ANPRM, verification could have two meanings. One meaning would require verifying the
Many comments cautioned that a requirement to verify the
In light of these considerations, FinCEN is not proposing to require that financial institutions verify the
For verifying the identity of a beneficial owner, FinCEN proposes that financial institutions verify the identity using existing risk-based CIP practices. As such, the proposed rule provides that a financial institution must implement risk-based procedures to verify the identity of each beneficial owner according to procedures that comply with the CIP requirements to verify the identity of customers that are natural persons. Therefore, a financial institution may verify the identity of a beneficial owner using documentary or non-documentary methods, as it deems appropriate under its procedures for verifying the identity of customers that are natural persons. These procedures should enable the financial institution to form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the beneficial owner of each legal entity customer. A financial institution must also include procedures for responding to circumstances in which it cannot form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the beneficial owner, as described under the CIP rules. Because these practices are already well-established and understood at covered financial institutions, FinCEN expects that these institutions will leverage existing compliance procedures.
Many financial institutions sought clarity as to whether they would be required to update or refresh periodically the beneficial ownership information obtained under this rule. FinCEN is not proposing such a requirement but notes that, as a general matter, a financial institution should keep CDD information, including beneficial ownership information, as current as possible and update as appropriate on a risk-basis. For example, a financial institution may determine that updating beneficial ownership information is appropriate after a customer has been identified as engaging in suspicious activity or exhibits other red flags, which FinCEN believes is generally consistent with existing practice for updating other customer information.
Factors that may be relevant in considering whether and when to update beneficial ownership information could include the type of business engaged in by the legal entity customer, changes in business operations or management of which the financial institution becomes aware, indications of possible misuse of a shell company in the account history, or changes in address or signatories on the account. As some financial institutions currently update CIP information at periodic intervals based on risk or when updating other customer information as part of routine account maintenance, financial institutions may consider updating beneficial ownership information on a similar basis. Each financial institution's policies and procedures should be based on its assessment of risk and tailored to, among other things, its customer base and products and services offered. In addition, financial institutions should update beneficial ownership information in connection with ongoing monitoring, as described below in the Section III.d “Ongoing Monitoring.”
Some comments requested that FinCEN extend the reliance provisions in the CIP rules to the beneficial ownership requirement. In general, a financial institution may rely upon another financial institution to conduct
The third element of CDD requires financial institutions to understand the nature and purpose of customer relationships in order to develop a customer risk profile.
FinCEN understands that it is industry practice to gain an understanding of a customer in order to assess the risk associated with that customer to help inform when the customer's activity might be considered “suspicious.” FinCEN does not intend for this element to necessarily require modifications to existing practice or customer onboarding procedures, and does not expect financial institutions to ask each customer for a statement as to the nature and purpose of the relationship or to collect information not already collected pursuant to existing requirements. Rather, the amendment to the AML program rule that incorporates this element is intended to clarify existing expectations for financial institutions to understand the relationship for purposes of identifying transactions in which the customer would not normally be expected to engage. Identifying such transactions is a critical and necessary aspect of complying with the existing requirement to report suspicious activity and maintain an effective AML program.
FinCEN intends for this amendment to be consistent with existing rules and related guidance. For example, the requirement for financial institutions to report suspicious activity requires that they file a report on a transaction that, among other things, has “no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the sort in which the particular customer would normally be expected to engage.”
FinCEN believes that in some circumstances an understanding of the nature and purpose of a customer relationship can also be developed by inherent or self-evident information about the product or customer type, or basic information about the customer. FinCEN recognizes that inherent information about a customer relationship, such as the type of customer, the type of account opened, or the service or product offered, may be sufficient to understand the nature and purpose of the relationship. Obtaining basic information about the customer, such as annual income, net worth, domicile, or principal occupation or business, may similarly be relevant depending on the facts and circumstances.
Accordingly, FinCEN believes that financial institutions should already be satisfying this element by complying with the requirement to report suspicious activity, as this element is an essential step in the process of identifying such activity. In addition, because this is a necessary step to identifying and reporting suspicious activities, which obligation applies to all “transactions . . . conducted or attempted by, at or through” the covered financial institution, its scope should not be limited to “customers” for purposes of the CIP rules, but rather should extend more broadly to encompass all accounts established by the institution.
The fourth element of CDD requires financial institutions to conduct ongoing monitoring for the purpose of maintaining and updating customer information and identifying and reporting suspicious activity.
Some commenters expressed confusion as to whether this fourth element would impose a categorical requirement to periodically update, or “refresh,” customer information that was obtained during the account opening process, including beneficial ownership information. This element does not impose such a categorical requirement. Rather, the requirement that the financial institution “conduct ongoing monitoring to maintain and update customer information” means that, when in the course of monitoring the financial institution becomes aware of information relevant to assessing the risk posed by a customer, it is expected to update the customer's relevant information accordingly.
Because financial institutions are already implicitly required to engage in ongoing monitoring, FinCEN expects that financial institutions would satisfy the fourth element of CDD by continuing their current monitoring practices, consistent with existing guidance and regulatory expectations.
Financial institutions have requested sufficient time to implement any new CDD requirements. Specifically, to manage costs, financial institutions requested sufficient time to incorporate these requirements into cyclical updates of their systems and processes. FinCEN believes that the two CDD requirements set forth in this proposal will not in fact require covered financial institutions to perform any additional activities or operations, although it may necessitate revisions to written policies and procedures. FinCEN also recognizes that financial institutions will be required to modify existing customer onboarding processes to incorporate the beneficial ownership requirement, and therefore proposes an effective date of one year from the date the final rule is issued.
This section also requires financial institutions to verify the identity of the individuals identified as beneficial owners on the certification form. The procedures for verification are to be identical to the procedures applicable to an individual opening an account under the existing CIP rules. Accordingly, the financial institution must verify a beneficial owner's identity using the information provided on the certification form (name, date of birth, address, and social security number (for U.S. persons), etc.), according to the same documentary and non-documentary methods the financial institution may use in connection with its customer identification program (to the extent applicable to customers that are individuals), within a reasonable time after the account is opened. A financial institution must also include procedures for responding to circumstances in which it cannot form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the beneficial owner, as described under the CIP rules.
FinCEN's existing AML program requirements applicable to each type of covered financial institution are being amended to ensure alignment between existing AML requirements and CDD minimum standards. As described in Section III above, CDD consists of four fundamental components. The first component, customer identification, is already sufficiently included in the existing Customer Identification Program requirements issued jointly by FinCEN and its regulatory colleagues. The second component, identification of the beneficial ownership of legal entity customers, is proposed as a separate rule in 31 CFR 1010.230, as outlined above. The third and fourth components of CDD—understanding the nature and purpose of an account and ongoing monitoring—which have been understood as necessary facets of other regulatory requirements, are now being explicitly included in applicable AML program rules, as described in more detail below. Covered financial institutions are expected to apply these procedures on a risk-based approach with respect to the breadth of their account relationships, consistent with their obligation to identify and report suspicious activities.
FinCEN is incorporating these CDD procedures into the AML program requirements to make clear that CDD is a core element of a financial institution's policies and procedures to guard against money laundering. Furthermore, incorporating these CDD requirements into the AML program requirements, which require the AML program to also comply with the regulation of its federal functional regulator governing such programs, makes clear that a financial institution's procedures with respect to these requirements are subject to examination and enforcement by the appropriate federal functional regulator or self-regulatory organization in a manner consistent with current supervisory authorities and expectations. As such, this proposed rule is not intended to limit the federal functional regulators' supervisory role or, where applicable, its ability to oversee an SRO's effective examination and enforcement of BSA compliance.
Nothing in this proposal is intended to lower, reduce, or limit the due diligence expectations of the federal functional regulators or in any way limit their existing regulatory discretion. To clarify this point, this proposal incorporates the CDD elements on
The FinCEN AML Program rules (for banks, securities broker-dealers, mutual funds, and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers in commodities) are also being amended to ensure that FinCEN's regulations explicitly include the existing core requirements that are currently included within the AML program rules issued by the federal functional regulators or their appointed self-regulatory organizations (SROs). These existing core pillars, referenced in 31 U.S.C. 5318(h) as “minimum” requirements, include: (i) The development of internal policies, procedures and controls; (ii) the designation of a compliance officer; (iii) an ongoing employee training program; and (iv) an independent audit program to test functions. While there are slight differences in the wording of the regulatory requirements across the rules applicable to each industry, FinCEN considers them to all be the same in practice at their core. FinCEN sees utility for industry in having these rules clearly spelled out in FinCEN's own regulations and believes that there is further utility in making these rules more uniform, particularly given the number of industry actors that have constituent components subject to multiple rules. FinCEN also acknowledges, however, that the core requirements set forth by SROs, as approved by the federal functional regulator supervising them, sometimes include details deemed warranted with respect to the SROs' oversight of those industries. While such detail may not be included in FinCEN's rules, FinCEN and the supervising regulator have coordinated in the past to ensure that such rules are consistent with the purposes of the BSA. There is no intent in this rulemaking to undermine the nuances that currently exist with respect to those rules, and they can be followed in tandem with rules set forth here.
FinCEN is rewriting its existing AML program rule to include the existing core provisions already included in regulations issued by the relevant banking agencies and adding to these core provisions a fifth pillar that includes the components of CDD pertaining to understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships and ongoing monitoring, as discussed above.
FinCEN is rewriting its AML program rule for brokers or dealers in securities to the include the existing core requirements already applicable to the industry and adding to these core provisions a new pillar that includes the components of CDD pertaining to understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships and ongoing monitoring, as discussed above.
FinCEN notes that its proposed AML program rule for brokers or dealers differs from the current program rule issued by FINRA. This is chiefly because FINRA has included as a pillar within its AML program rule a requirement with respect to suspicious activity reporting. This is different from the rules issued with respect to other sectors where the SAR requirement has been treated separately. FinCEN is not proposing to incorporate, as FINRA has done, a SAR reporting requirement as a separate pillar, as the existing stand-alone SAR rule within FinCEN's regulations is sufficient. However, the decision to not include this within the pillars of the FinCEN rule is not meant to affect its treatment within the FINRA rule. FinCEN sees no practical difference in effect as a result of this difference and is proposing its amendments to the FinCEN AML program rule for brokers or dealers in securities in a manner that is consistent with its other AML program rules. FinCEN will continue to engage with the SEC and FINRA to determine whether there is a need for, and how, the FinCEN and FINRA provisions might be made more consistent with respect to this particular structural difference in the regulations.
FinCEN is maintaining its existing AML program rule for mutual funds with the addition to the core requirements of a fifth pillar that includes the components of CDD pertaining to understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships and ongoing monitoring, as discussed above.
FinCEN is rewriting its AML program rule for futures commission merchants and introducing brokers to include the existing core requirements already applicable to the industry and adding to these core provisions a fifth pillar that includes the components of CDD pertaining to understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships and ongoing monitoring, as discussed above.
FinCEN invites comments on all aspects of the NPRM, and specifically seeks comments on the following issues:
FinCEN seeks general comments on the proposed definition of beneficial owner, including the inclusion of two prongs, and whether each prong is sufficiently clear.
FinCEN seeks comment specifically on whether the term “equity interests” in the ownership prong of the proposed beneficial ownership definition will be sufficiently understood and clear to financial institutions and customers.
FinCEN seeks comment on the proposed definition of legal entity customer, and in particular whether it provides adequate clarity.
FinCEN seeks comment as to whether FinCEN should extend the proposed requirement on covered financial insitutions to collect beneficial ownership information so that it would apply retroactively with respect to legal
FinCEN seeks comment on the proposed exemptions from the definition of “legal entity customer,” including whether the exemptions are appropriate, whether other exemptions should be included, and if so, what exemptions.
FinCEN seeks comment on whether the proposed treatment of intermediated accounts in general is sufficiently clear to address any issues that may be expected to arise.
FinCEN seeks comment specifically on whether pooled investment vehicles that are not proposed to be exempt from the beneficial ownership requirement but are operated or advised by financial institutions that are proposed to be exempt, should also be exempt from the beneficial ownership requirement, and if not, whether covered financial institutions should be required to identify beneficial owners of such non-exempt pooled investment vehicles under only the control prong of the “beneficial owner” definition, as opposed to both the ownership prong and control prong.
FinCEN seeks comment on procedures used by financial institutions to collect and record information on trusts during their CDD process and whether that information is readily searchable and retrievable and accessible to law enforcement. FinCEN seeks comment from law enforcement regarding the accessibility of information regarding trusts when sought from financial institutions and the value of such information.
FinCEN seeks comment on the proposed certification form and the practical ability of financial institutions to incorporate the form into their account opening processes. Further, while FinCEN believes that requiring all legal entity customers to complete the same form is useful in promoting clarity and consistency across the financial industry, FinCEN seeks comment on whether financial institutions should be permitted to obtain the same information that the form requires (including the certification from the individual opening the account on behalf of the legal entity customer) through other means, such as an automated electronic account opening process.
FinCEN seeks comment on whether requiring financial institutions to utilize existing CIP procedures for verification of the identity of beneficial owners is sufficiently clear and is an appropriate and efficient means for achieving this objective.
FinCEN seeks comment as to whether setting a mandated timeframe for the updating of beneficial ownership information would result in better information being available on beneficial ownership than relying on financial institutions to update the information in due course, consistent with the risk-based approach.
FinCEN seeks comment as to whether requiring recordkeeping procedures identical to those required with respect to CIP recordkeeping requirements is a sufficiently clear and efficient standard in the context of beneficial ownership verification information collection.
FinCEN seeks comment on whether the proposed requirements regarding understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships and ongoing monitoring are sufficiently clear. In this regard, should FinCEN define any of the terms used in those proposed requirements to clarify that such requirements apply broadly to all account relationships maintained by covered financial institutions? Should FinCEN define the term “customer risk profile,” or is this term sufficiently understood by covered financial institutions? FinCEN also seeks comment from industry as to whether there are any covered financial institutions that have been able to meet the existing AML program requirements and SAR requirements without understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships and conducting ongoing monitoring.
FinCEN seeks industry comment as to whether industry feels that it is necessary for the language of each AML program pillar requirement to be identical across FinCEN's rules; and, whether there is a need for FinCEN's rules and those of its sister organizations to be identical, notwithstanding FinCEN's belief that the core pillars are essentially the same across various industries despite any differences in legacy regulatory text. Based on industry feedback, FinCEN will weigh the benefits of possibly finalizing the program rules so that currently existing wording differences with respect to each pillar may be reduced.
FinCEN seeks comment on whether the proposed effective date of one year from the date of the issuance of the final rule is sufficient to enable financial institutions to work any necessary changes into their systems or procedures in tandem with other cyclical updates, and thereby enable financial institutions to reduce implementation costs.
Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
FinCEN has determined that the primary cost for covered financial institutions associated with the proposed rule results from the requirement that they obtain from their non-exempt legal entity customers a certification identifying their beneficial owners. FinCEN has not been able to obtain from any source an estimate of the total number of accounts opened annually for legal entities by covered financial institutions. Based on outreach and discussions with major financial service companies, FinCEN believes that there are approximately eight million such accounts opened annually by covered financial institutions. Based on the total number of covered financial
Estimating the amount of illicit funds flow facilitated through legal entities used to mask beneficial ownership would be difficult.
FinCEN believes that with the clarity of a regulatory definition and a clear requirement to collect beneficial ownership in specific situations, industry understanding of beneficial ownership and the collection of beneficial ownership information will increase, and that the increased availability of such information to law enforcement will enhance government efforts to identify and address illicit actors operating in the financial system through legal entities. FinCEN requests comment on the benefits, and any estimates of costs savings, associated with a requirement to collect beneficial ownership information, including any economic or statistical data or third-party/independent research.
When an agency issues a rule proposal, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the agency to either provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or, in lieu of preparing an analysis, to certify that the proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rulemaking will apply to all federally regulated depository institutions and trust companies, and all brokers or dealers in securities, mutual funds, and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers, as each is defined in the BSA. Based upon current data, for the purposes of the RFA, there are approximately 5470 small federally regulated banks (comprising 80% of the total number of banks);
Although FinCEN has only limited available information to assess the average number of beneficial owners of legal entity customers for which accounts may be established after the effective date of the rule, FinCEN notes that the maximum number is five, and believes that it is reasonable to assume that the great majority of such customers who establish accounts at small institutions are more likely to have simpler ownership structures that will result in one or two beneficial owners. In addition, since all covered financial institutions have been subject to CIP rules for more than ten years, and the proposal utilizes CIP rule procedures, small institutions will be able to leverage these procedures in complying with this requirement. As a result, FinCEN believes that it is reasonable to estimate that it will require, on average, 20 minutes to perform the beneficial ownership identification, verification and recordkeeping requirements in the proposal. Furthermore, FinCEN has anecdotal evidence that in general, the customers of small institutions are primarily individuals and that they do not frequently establish accounts for
The proposed rule would also require that covered financial institutions include in their AML programs, customer due diligence procedures, including understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships and conducting ongoing monitoring of these relationships. Because these requirements are already a part of existing AML and SAR practices, they will not impose any new obligations, and therefore will have no economic impact, on any small entities.
Finally, the proposed rule would require each covered financial institution to amend its AML program to include the new requirement contained in the proposal, to train its employees regarding the new requirement, and to update its data systems to include the beneficial ownership information. FinCEN understands from its outreach that in general, most covered financial institutions, including those that are small entities, periodically update their AML programs, conduct AML training, and upgrade their IT systems. FinCEN also understands that most small institutions outsource their IT requirements and so would acquire the required updated program from a vendor. FinCEN intends to extend the implementation date for the proposed rule for one year from issuance for the purpose of enabling financial institutions to integrate these new program, training and data collection requirements into their cyclical updates with minimal additional cost.
The new recordkeeping requirement contained in this proposed rule (31 CFR 1010.230) is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
In summary, the proposed rule would require covered financial institutions to maintain records of the information used to identify and verify the identity of the names of the beneficial owners of legal entity customers.
a. Develop and maintain beneficial ownership identification procedures: 1 hour.
b. Customer identification, verification, and review and recordkeeping of the “Certification of Beneficial Owner(s)”: 20 minutes per financial institution.
The numbers presented assume that the number of account openings in 2013 is representative for an average yearly
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Comments are invited on: (i) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (iv) 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; (v) the reasonableness of the estimated number of new annual account openings for legal entities; and (vi) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates Act) requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. FinCEN has determined that this proposed rule will not result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more. Accordingly, FinCEN has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Brokers, Currency, Federal home loan banks, Foreign banking, Foreign currencies, Gambling, Investigations, Mortgages, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities, Terrorism.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Chapter X of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307.
(a)
(b)
(1) Identify the beneficial owner(s) of each legal entity customer, unless otherwise exempt pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section. To identify the beneficial owner(s), a covered financial institution must obtain at the time a new account is opened a certification in the form of Appendix A of this section from the individual opening the account on behalf of the legal entity customer; and
(2) Verify the identity of each beneficial owner identified to the covered financial institution, according to risk-based procedures to the extent reasonable and practicable. At a minimum, these procedures must be identical to the covered financial institution's Customer Identification Program procedures required for verifying the identity of customers that are individuals under § 1020.220(a)(2) of this chapter (for banks); § 1023.220(a)(2) of this chapter (for brokers or dealers in securities); § 1024.220(a)(2) of this chapter (for mutual funds); or § 1026.220(a)(2) of this chapter (for futures commission merchants or introducing brokers in commodities).
(c)
(1) Each individual, if any, who, directly or indirectly, through any contract, arrangement, understanding, relationship or otherwise, owns 25% or more of the equity interests of a legal entity customer;
(2) A single individual with significant responsibility to control, manage, or direct a legal entity customer, including
(i) An executive officer or senior manager (e.g., a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Managing Member, General Partner, President, Vice President, or Treasurer); or
(ii) Any other individual who regularly performs similar functions.
The number of individuals that satisfy the definition of “beneficial owner,” and therefore must be identified and verified pursuant to this section, may vary. Under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, depending on the factual circumstances, up to four individuals may need to be identified. Under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, only one individual must be identified. It is possible that in some circumstances the same person or persons might be identified pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. A covered financial institution may also identify additional individuals as part of its customer due diligence if it deems appropriate on the basis of risk.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(i) A financial institution regulated by a Federal functional regulator or a bank regulated by a State bank regulator;
(ii) A person described in § 1020.315(b)(2) through (5) of this chapter;
(iii) An issuer of a class of securities registered under section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or that is required to file reports under section 15(d) of that Act;
(iv) An investment company, as defined in section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, that is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under that Act;
(v) An investment adviser, as defined in section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, that is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under that Act;
(vi) An exchange or clearing agency, as defined in section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that is registered under section 6 or 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of that Act;
(vii) Any other entity registered with the Securities and Exchange
(viii) A registered entity, commodity pool operator, commodity trading advisor, retail foreign exchange dealer, swap dealer, or major swap participant, each as defined in section 1a of the Commodity Exchange Act, that is registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
(ix) A public accounting firm registered under section 102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; and
(x) A charity or nonprofit entity that is described in sections 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, has not been denied tax exempt status, and is required to and has filed the most recently due annual information return with the Internal Revenue Service.
(e)
(f)
(1)
(i) For identification, the certification form described in paragraph (b) of this section, and any other identifying information obtained by the covered financial institution; and
(ii) For verification, a description of any document relied on (noting the type, any identification number, place of issuance and; if any, date of issuance and expiration), of any non-documentary methods and the results of any measures undertaken, and of the resolution of each substantive discrepancy.
(2)
(g)
(1) Such reliance is reasonable under the circumstances;
(2) The other financial institution is subject to a rule implementing 31 U.S.C. 5318(h) and is regulated by a Federal functional regulator; and
(3) The other financial institution enters into a contract requiring it to certify annually to the covered financial institution that it has implemented its anti-money laundering program, and that it will perform (or its agent will perform) the specified requirements of the covered financial institution's procedures to comply with the requirements of this section.
To help the government fight financial crime, federal regulation requires certain financial institutions to obtain, verify, and record information about the beneficial owners of legal entity customers. Legal entities can be abused to disguise involvement in terrorist financing, money laundering, tax evasion, corruption, fraud, and other financial crimes. Requiring the disclosure of key individuals who ultimately own or control a legal entity (i.e., the beneficial owners) helps law enforcement investigate and prosecute these crimes.
This form must be completed by the person opening a new account on behalf of a legal entity with any of the following U.S. financial institutions: (i) A bank or credit union; (ii) a broker or dealer in securities; (iii) a mutual fund; (iv) a futures commission merchant; or (v) an introducing broker in commodities.
For the purposes of this form, a legal entity includes a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, and any other similar business entity formed in the United States or a foreign country.
This form requires you to provide the name, address, date of birth and social security number (or passport number or other similar information, in the case of foreign persons) for the following individuals (i.e., the beneficial owners):
(i) Each individual, if any, who owns, directly or indirectly, 25 percent or more of the equity interests of the legal entity customer (e.g., each natural person that owns 25 percent or more of the shares of a corporation);
(ii) An individual with significant responsibility for managing the legal entity customer (e.g., a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Managing Member, General Partner, President, Vice President or Treasurer).
The financial institution may also ask to see a copy of a driver's license or other identifying document for each beneficial owner listed on this form.
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307.
A financial institution regulated by a Federal functional regulator that is not subject to the regulations of a self-regulatory organization shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1) if the financial institution implements and maintains an anti-money laundering program that:
(a) Complies with the requirements of §§ 1010.610 and 1010.620 of this chapter;
(b) Includes, at a minimum:
(1) A system of internal controls to assure ongoing compliance;
(2) Independent testing for compliance to be conducted by bank personnel or by an outside party;
(3) Designation of an individual or individuals responsible for coordinating and monitoring day-to-day compliance;
(4) Training for appropriate personnel; and
(5) Appropriate risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence, to include, but not be limited to:
(i) Understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile; and
(ii) Conducting ongoing monitoring to maintain and update customer information and to identify and report suspicious transactions; and
(c) Complies with the regulation of its Federal functional regulator governing such programs.
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307.
A broker or dealer in securities shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1) if the broker-dealer implements and maintains a written anti-money laundering program approved by senior management that:
(a) Complies with the requirements of §§ 1010.610 and 1010.620 of this chapter and any applicable regulation of its Federal functional regulator governing the establishment and implementation of anti-money laundering programs;
(b) Includes, at a minimum:
(1) The establishment and implementation of policies, procedures, and internal controls reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act and the implementing regulations thereunder;
(2) Independent testing for compliance to be conducted by the broker-dealer's personnel or by a qualified outside party;
(3) Designation of an individual or individuals responsible for implementing and monitoring the operations and internal controls of the program;
(4) Ongoing training for appropriate persons; and
(5) Appropriate risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence, to include, but not be limited to:
(i) Understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile; and
(ii) Conducting ongoing monitoring to maintain and update customer information and to identify and report suspicious transactions; and
(c) Complies with the rules, regulations, or requirements of its self-regulatory organization governing such programs; provided that the rules, regulations, or requirements of the self-regulatory organization governing such programs have been made effective under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the appropriate Federal functional regulator in consultation with FinCEN.
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307.
(a) Effective July 24, 2002, each mutual fund shall develop and implement a written anti-money laundering program reasonably designed to prevent the mutual fund from being used for money laundering or the financing of terrorist activities and to achieve and monitor compliance with the applicable requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. 5311,
(b) The anti-money laundering program shall at a minimum:
(1) Establish and implement policies, procedures, and internal controls reasonably designed to prevent the mutual fund from being used for money laundering or the financing of terrorist activities and to achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act and implementing regulations thereunder;
(2) Provide for independent testing for compliance to be conducted by the mutual fund's personnel or by a qualified outside party;
(3) Designate a person or persons responsible for implementing and monitoring the operations and internal controls of the program;
(4) Provide ongoing training for appropriate personnel; and
(5) Implement appropriate risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence, to include, but not be limited to:
(i) Understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile; and
(ii) conducting ongoing monitoring to maintain and update customer information and to identify and report suspicious transactions.
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332; title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307.
A futures commission merchant and an introducing broker in commodities shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1) if the futures commission merchant or introducing broker in commodities implements and maintains a written anti-money laundering program approved by senior management that:
(a) Complies with the requirements of §§ 1010.610 and 1010.620 of this chapter and any applicable regulation of its Federal functional regulator governing the establishment and implementation of anti-money laundering programs;
(b) Includes, at a minimum:
(1) The establishment and implementation of policies, procedures, and internal controls reasonably designed to prevent the financial institution from being used for money laundering or the financing of terrorist activities and to achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act and the implementing regulations thereunder;
(2) Independent testing for compliance to be conducted by the futures commission merchant or introducing broker in commodities' personnel or by a qualified outside party;
(3) Designation of an individual or individuals responsible for implementing and monitoring the operations and internal controls of the program;
(4) Ongoing training for appropriate persons;
(5) Appropriate risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence, to include, but not be limited to:
(i) Understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile; and
(ii) Conducting ongoing monitoring to maintain and update customer information and to identify and report suspicious transactions; and
(c) Complies with the rules, regulations, or requirements of its self-regulatory organization governing such programs; provided that the rules, regulations, or requirements of the self-regulatory organization governing such programs have been made effective under the Commodity Exchange Act by the appropriate Federal functional regulator in consultation with FinCEN.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Nebraska. This proposed action will amend the SIP to include revisions to Nebraska's Air Quality Regulations “Definitions”, “Construction Permits—When Required”, and “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality” to make the state regulations consistent with the Federal regulations for the fine Particulate Matter (PM
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by September 3, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0468, by mail to Greg Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
Greg Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7391, or by email at
In the final rules section of the
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In light of a recent court decision regarding the availability of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) retailer transaction data to the public, the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is issuing this Request for Information to help inform FNS' response to the recent court decision and any future policy changes regarding the release of SNAP retailer transaction data. In moving forward, USDA is interested in providing greater transparency. However, the Department also recognizes that any movement in this arena needs to be done carefully, after considering potential consequences and the views of the variety of stakeholders. As a result, this notice requests information from any and all interested parties, with a particular focus on current and former SNAP authorized retailers, as to whether the disclosure of aggregated SNAP redemption data at the individual store level would improve the administration and enforcement of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) and whether such data is confidential business information.
Throughout the history of the Program, Section 9(c) of the Act has been interpreted as a withholding statute that includes SNAP retailer redemption information. On September 22, 1978, FNS published a final rule codifying the interpretation that Section 9(c) prohibited the use or disclosure of “information furnished by firms, including . . . their redemptions of coupons, . . . except for purposes directly connected with the administration and enforcement of Food Stamp Act and these regulations.” 43 FR. 43,272, 43,275 (Sept. 22, 1978) (currently codified at 7 CFR 278.1(q)). FNS has operated in accordance with its interpretation of the Act and FNS regulations that the Secretary did not have authority to release this information.
However, South Dakota's Argus Leader newspaper challenged this interpretation of the Act. In February of 2011, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Argus Leader requested annual SNAP retailer redemption data for all SNAP authorized retailers for the six-year period spanning from 2005 through 2010. Though the initial FNS decision to withhold this data was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, on January 28, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in favor of Argus Leader. The appeals court opinion contended that SNAP retailer redemption information did not fall within the withholding contemplated by Section 9(c) of the Act and therefore such information was not exempt from disclosure under Exemption 3 of FOIA.
The Eighth Circuit decision did not address Exemption 4 of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), which exempts “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential” from release under FOIA. FNS recognizes that, despite the decision on Section 9(c) of the Act, the Agency must also consider whether this redemption data constitutes confidential business information. To make a determination in this regard, FNS is required to solicit feedback from the submitters of the retailer transaction data.
1. Are aggregated annual SNAP redemption data at the individual store level confidential business information? If yes, please explain why the disclosure is likely to cause substantial competitive harm and fully explain all other grounds upon which you oppose the disclosure of such information. Also, please indicate whether the size of the retailer affects any identified competitive harm.
2. Are aggregated monthly SNAP redemption data at the individual store level confidential business information? If yes, please explain why the disclosure is likely to cause substantial competitive harm and fully explain all other grounds upon which you oppose the disclosure of such information. Also, please indicate whether the size of the retailer affects any identified competitive harm.
3. Should aggregated annual SNAP redemption data at the individual store level be released for transparency purposes?
• If yes, describe in detail why this data should be released for the purposes of transparency and public accountability, and specifically how this data would assist in the administration of the Food and Nutrition Act.
• If no, please provide details as to how release of this data would be counter to the administration and enforcement provisions of the Act.
• When considering the impact of the release of this data on the administration and enforcement provisions of the Act, please consider the effect, if any, on SNAP recipients.
4. Should aggregated monthly SNAP redemption data at the individual store
• If yes, describe in detail why this data should be released for the purposes of transparency and public accountability, and specifically how this data would assist in the administration of the Food and Nutrition Act.
• If no, please provide details as to how release of this data would be counter to the administration and enforcement provisions of the Act.
• When considering the impact of the release of this data on the administration and enforcement provisions of the Act, please consider the effect, if any, on SNAP recipients.
5. For each of the above questions, how would answers differ if the monthly or annual aggregated data were for a retailer's aggregated sales at all stores within a state or nationally, as opposed to per-store data? Should any other aggregations be considered?
Commenters who were SNAP-authorized retailers from 2005 through 2010 should make that fact clear in their comments.
To be assured of consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before September 8, 2014.
Comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
All comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the record and will be made available to the public at
Vicky T. Robinson, Acting Chief, Retailer Management and Issuance Branch, Food and Nutrition Service, (703) 305-2476.
At the end of fiscal year (FY) 2013, over 250,000 retailers were authorized to redeem SNAP benefits. According to the FY 2013 data, 82 percent of all benefits redeemed were redeemed at supermarkets, large grocers and superstores. Approximately 18 percent of benefits were redeemed at smaller stores, including convenience stores, small grocers and farmers' markets. Less than one percent were redeemed by authorized treatment programs, group homes, homeless meal providers, communal dining facilities and shelters as provided for in statute. A 2009 FNS study on benefit use indicates that 96.3 percent of all SNAP beneficiaries shopped at supermarkets or superstores at least once each month.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Request for Public Comments on Proposed Collection of Information.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing regulations (5 CFR part 1320), this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) proposed collection of information for the application for Non-Land Grant College of Agriculture designation. NIFA intends to submit the following information collection request to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Written comments should be submitted by October 3, 2014, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Robert Martin, Records Officer; Email:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Obtaining a Copy of the Information Collection: A copy of the information collection and related instructions may be obtained free of charge by contacting Robert Martin as directed above.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 2014.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden, (907) 586-7008 or
This request is for revision of an existing information collection.
During its February 2014 meeting, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council) requested that Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) groundfish sectors (American Fisheries Act (AFA) Catcher/processor, AFA Catcher Vessel, Amendment 80, Freezer Longline Cooperative, and Community Development Quota) report (at the June Council meeting) on the progress of voluntary, non-regulatory actions implemented and recorded in their cooperative and/or inter-cooperative agreements to minimize halibut Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) through halibut avoidance, individual accountability, and use of incentives.
During its June 2014 meeting, the Council requested additional voluntary, non-regulatory information regarding the use of halibut PSC and halibut discards in the directed halibut fishery from these same five groundfish fishing sectors on actions taken to reduce halibut mortality and to report the effectiveness of those actions in absolute reductions in halibut mortality. These reports are to be provided to the Council at the February 2015 Council meeting.
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) 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.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by Prince George's County, Maryland, grantee of FTZ 63, requesting authority to reorganize the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR Sec. 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 29, 2014.
FTZ 63 was approved by the FTZ Board on October 20, 1980 (Board Order 167, 45 FR 71639, 10/29/80). The current zone includes the following site:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be Prince George's County, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The proposed service area is adjacent to the Washington-Dulles Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone to include
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is October 3, 2014. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 20, 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 FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
On April 22, 2014, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 163, on behalf of HVPH Motor Corporation in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 163B is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 163's 923.36-acre activation limit.
On April 22, 2014, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 163, on behalf of Betteroads Asphalt Corporation in Guayanilla, Puerto Rico.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 163C is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 163's 923.36-acre activation limit.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) conducted an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring (wood flooring) from the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Joshua Morris or Austin Redington, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Multilayered wood flooring is composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneer(s)
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
A full description of the scope of the
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
On March 28, 2013, we received a timely filed no shipment certification from Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd. Because there is no evidence on the record to indicate that this company had sales of subject merchandise during the POR, and no party objected to our intent to rescind as stated in the
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). A full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions is presented in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated individual subsidy rates for the mandatory respondents, Armstrong and Lizhong, as well as for the voluntary respondent, Fine Furniture.
For the respondents not selected for individual review, we applied a subsidy rate based on an average of the subsidy rates calculated for those companies selected for individual review (
We find the net subsidy rate for the producers/exporters under review to be as follows:
Upon issuance of these final results, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of these final results.
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed companies, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to companies covered by the
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 written notification of 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.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses (certain coated paper) from Indonesia for January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012 period of review (POR).
Milton Koch, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2584.
On November 17, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the CVD order on certain coated paper from Indonesia.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the parties that requested a review withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Petitioners timely withdrew their request before the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the CVD order on certain coated paper from Indonesia for the 2012 POR. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the CVD order on certain coated paper from Indonesia covering the 2012 POR.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess CVDs on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, the CVDs shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated CVDs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of CVDs prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of CVDs occurred and the subsequent assessment of double CVDs.
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). We request timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
The Department issues and publishes this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council's (Council) Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will meet over two days to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Monday, August 25, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. and Tuesday, August 26, 2014 at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Courtyard by Marriott/Boston Logan Airport, 225 McClellan Highway, Boston, MA 02128; telephone: (617) 569-5250.
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The SSC will meet to (1) Review stock assessment information, consider information provided by the Groundfish PDT and develop ABC recommendations for Gulf of Maine haddock and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder for fishing years 2015-17; and (2) review stock assessment information, consider information provided by the Whiting PDT and develop ABC recommendations for northern and southern stocks of red hake, whiting (silver hake) and offshore hake for fishing years 2015-17. The committee may not complete all the ABC recommendations for these stocks at this meeting. The committee will address other business as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice 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 Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of a permit modification and termination of a permit.
Notice is hereby given that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, NY 12561 [Kathryn Hattala: Responsible Party], has been issued a permit modification (Permit No. 16436-01) to take to take Atlantic sturgeon (
The permit modification and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office:
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room
Malcolm Mohead, (301) 427-8401.
Permit No. 16436 was issued April 6, 2012 (77 FR 21754) to the Permit Holder to capture Atlantic sturgeon life stages in the Hudson River estuary to assess juvenile abundance, characterize the adult spawning stock, and generate population estimates. Atlantic sturgeon were authorized captured with gill nets, trammel nets, and trawls; measured, weighed, tissue sampled, fin clipped for aging, PIT tagged and Floy tagged, internally and externally acoustic tagged, anesthetized with 150 ppm MS-222, and gastric lavaged.
The permit modification (Permit No. 16436-01) now consolidates takes of shortnose sturgeon issued in Permit No 16439 with those Atlantic sturgeon authorized in Permit No. 16436. Permit No. 16439 was terminated upon issuance of the modification. The takes of both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon were increased in the modification to meet further objectives, including understanding impacts on each species from (1) construction of the Tappan Zee Bridge; (2) laying high voltage cable in the Hudson River; and (3) measuring contaminants levels in the Hudson River. New methods authorized in the modification include contaminant research sampling by performing laparoscopic liver biopsy, and anesthetizing animals with 250 mg/l MS-222 and electro-narcosis. A total of three incidental mortalities of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are now authorized annually as a result of increased research activity. The modification would be valid through the original expiration date of Permit No. 16436 on April 5, 2017.
Issuance of this permit modification, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will hold a one-day regional workshop, “Building a Community Broadband Roadmap: Lessons in Implementation,” to share information to help communities build their broadband capacity and utilization. The workshop will present best practices and lessons learned from network infrastructure build-outs and digital inclusion programs from Minnesota and surrounding states, including broadband projects funded by NTIA. It will also explore effective business and partnership models and will include access to regional policymakers, federal funders and industry providers.
The Community Broadband Workshop will be held on September 4, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Central Time.
The meeting will be held in the Hyatt Regency Minneapolis Northstar Ballroom at 1300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55403.
Karen Hanson, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4628, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0213; email:
The Community Broadband Workshop—Building a Community Broadband Roadmap: Lessons in Implementation—will include an NTIA presentation that discusses lessons learned through implementation of its broadband grants, and a panel that will explore key elements required for successful broadband projects using a mix of regional examples. Topics will include marketing/demand aggregation, outreach, coordination with government agencies, partnership strategies, construction and oversight. Another panel will examine business model options, including private networks, public/private partnerships, co-ops and municipal systems. The workshop will also include a panel discussion with federal and private funding entities that support investments in broadband infrastructure and adoption. NTIA will provide tips to communities on how to research funding options, make a compelling case to funders and leverage multiple federal and state funding streams.
The workshop will be open to the public and press. Pre-registration is required, and space is limited. Information on how to pre-register for the meeting will be available on NTIA's Web site:
The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify the NTIA contact listed above at least five (5) business days before the meeting.
Meeting updates and relevant documents will be also available on NTIA's Web site at
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Proposed policy statement; extension of comment period.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) currently discloses certain complaint data it receives regarding consumer financial products and services via its web-based, public-facing database (Consumer Complaint Database). On July 23, 2014, the Bureau published in the
The comment period for the Disclosure of Consumer Complaint Narrative Data Proposed Policy Statement published July 23, 2014, at 79 FR 42765, is extended. Responses must now be received on or before September 22, 2014.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2014-0016, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included. Comments generally will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
For general inquiries, submission process questions, or any additional information, please contact Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, 202-435-7275.
On July 17, 2014, the Bureau issued the Proposed Policy Statement. The Proposed Policy Statement was published in the
On December 8, 2011, the Bureau published in the
Also on June 22, 2012, the Bureau concurrently published in the
Notwithstanding this, the Bureau received a significant number of comments specific to narrative disclosure. Consumer, civil rights, and open government groups supported disclosure on the grounds that disclosing narratives would provide consumers with more useful information on which to base financial decisions and would allow reviewers to assess the validity of the complaints. Two privacy groups, while acknowledging privacy risk stemming from publication of “non-identifiable” data and calling for further study, supported disclosure on an opt-in basis. Trade groups and industry commenters nearly uniformly opposed disclosure of consumer complaint narratives.
The Bureau believes that the utility of the overall Consumer Complaint Database would greatly increase with the inclusion of narratives. This could lead to increased use by advocates, academics, the press, and entrepreneurs, which itself would lead to increased consumer contacts with the Bureau.
The Bureau believes that the aforementioned increase in benefits and utility would lead to an increase in consumer contacts, which would have a positive effect on Bureau operations. As a critical mass of complaint data is achieved and exceeded, the representativeness of Bureau complaint data increases. Thus, narratives would not only enhance the above consumer benefits but also the many Bureau functions that rely, in part, on complaint data to perform their respective missions including the Offices of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending, Consumer Education and Engagement, and Research, Markets, and Rulemaking.
The Bureau balances interested parties' desire to have additional time to consider the issues raised in the Proposed Policy Statement, gather data, and prepare their responses, with the need to proceed expeditiously to consider comments and determine whether to issue a final policy statement. The Bureau believes that a 60-day extension is appropriate. The comment period therefore will close on September 22, 2014.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance 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. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested 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 requirement on respondents can be properly assessed.
Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed Commission Support Grant Grantee Progress Report (GPR). All State
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the Addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, AmeriCorps State and National, Attention Carla Ganiel, Senior Program and Project Specialist, Room 9517B, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) By fax to: 202-606-3476, Attention: Carla Ganiel, Senior Program and Project Specialist.
(4) Electronically through
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Carla Ganiel, 202-606-6773, or by email at
CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, 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 expected 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).
All State Commission grantees complete the GPR, which provides information for CNCS staff to monitor grantee progress and to respond to requests from Congress and other stakeholders. The information is collected electronically through the eGrants system.
This is a new instrument that will become part of the Commission Support Application information collection request 3045-0099.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy (DOE.
Notice of orders.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE of the Department of Energy gives notice that during May 2014, it issued orders granting authority to import and export natural gas, to import and export liquefied natural gas and vacating prior authority. These orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE Web site at
They are also available for inspection and copying in the Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Oil and Gas Global Security and Supply, Docket Room 3E-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The Docket Room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a teleconference call of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB). SEAB
Friday, August 18, 2014 from 2:00 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. (ET). To receive the call-in number and passcode, please contact the Board's Deputy Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address or email listed below.
Corey Williams-Allen, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; or email:
The Board was established to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on the Department's basic and applied research, economic and national security policy, educational issues, operational issues, and other activities as directed by the Secretary.
This meeting is a public meeting of the Board.
The meeting will start at 2:00 p.m. on August 18, 2014. The tentative meeting agenda includes updates on the work of the SEAB Next Generation High Performance Computing Task Force and comments from the public. The meeting will conclude at 2:45 p.m. Agenda updates and a draft of the report will be posted on the SEAB Web site:
The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Corey Williams-Allen at the address or email address listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be received five days prior to the meeting. The Designated Federal Officer (or designee) is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.
Those not able to join the teleconference call or who have insufficient time to address the committee are invited to send a written statement to Corey Williams-Allen, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, or email to:
The minutes of the meeting will be available by contacting Mr. Williams-Allen. He may be reached at the postal address or email address above, or by visiting SEAB's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following land acquisition reports:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2014-0549 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Mail ICR Renewal for Local Goverments Reimbursement Application, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5104A, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC.
•
Lisa Boynton, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency Management, (5104A) Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2487; fax number: (202) 564-8729; email address:
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2014-0549 which is available for online viewing at
Use
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) 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. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
At this time, the Agency does not anticipate any substantial changes.
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will issue another
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 19, 2014.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by September 3, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
As part of its effort to fulfill its mission goals, AHRQ, in collaboration with the Department of Defense's (DoD) Tricare Management Activity (TMA), developed TeamSTEPPS® (aka, Team Strategies and Tools for Enhancing Performance and Patient Safety) to provide an evidence-based suite of tools and strategies for training teamwork-based patient safety to health care professionals. TeamSTEPPS includes multiple toolkits which are all tied to or are variants of the core curriculum. In addition to the core curriculum, TeamSTEPPS resources have been developed for primary care, rapid response systems, long-term care, and patients with limited English proficiency.
The main objective of the TeamSTEPPS program is to improve patient safety by training health care staff in various teamwork, communication, and patient safety concepts, tools, and techniques and ultimately helping to build national capacity for supporting teamwork-based patient safety efforts in health care organizations. Since 2007, AHRQ's National Implementation Program has produced (and continues to produce) Master Trainers who have stimulated the use and adoption of TeamSTEPPS in health care delivery systems. These individuals were trained using the TeamSTEPPS core curriculum at regional training centers across the U.S. AHRQ has also provided technical assistance and consultation on implementing TeamSTEPPS and has developed various channels of learning (e.g., user networks, various educational venues) for continued support and the improvement of teamwork in health care. Since the inception of the National Implementation Program, AHRQ has trained more than 5,000 participants to serve as TeamSTEPPS Master Trainers.
Given the success of the National Implementation Program, AHRQ launched an effort to provide TeamSTEPPS training to primary care health professionals using the
As part of this initiative, AHRQ seeks to conduct an evaluation of the TeamSTEPPS in Primary Care training program. This evaluation seeks to understand the effectiveness of the TeamSTEPPS in Primary Care training and how trained practice facilitators implement TeamSTEPPS in primary care practices.
This research has the following goals:
(1) Conduct a formative assessment of the TeamSTEPPS for Primary Care training program to determine what revisions and improvement should be made to the training and how it is delivered, and
(2) Identify how trained participants use and implement the TeamSTEPPS tools and resources in primary care settings.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, the Health Research and Education Trust (HRET) and HRET's subcontractor, IMPAQ International, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
To achieve the goals of this project, AHRQ will train primary care practice facilitators using the TeamSTEPPS in Primary Care training curriculum. Primary care practice facilitators may voluntarily sign up for this free, AHRQ sponsored training. Training will be delivered through a combination of online and in-person instruction. Online training will cover the core TeamSTEPPS tools and strategies that can be implemented in primary care. In-person instruction will cover coaching, organizational change, and implementation science. Practice facilitators, who complete the training, will be surveyed six months post-training.
The
This is a new data collection effort for the purpose of conducting an evaluation of TeamSTEPPS in Primary Care Training. The evaluation is formative in nature as AHRQ seeks information to improve the content and delivery of the training. Training will be provided through a combination of online and in-person instruction.
To conduct the evaluation, the
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to participate in the study. The
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to participate in the study. The total cost burden is estimated to be $4,348.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Continuing Education for Comparative Effectiveness Research Survey.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
Comments on this notice must be received by October 3, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is an area that has seen increased focus from research agencies and other government entities. Also known as comparative effectiveness research, PCOR is the focus of AHRQ's Effective Health Care (EHC) program, which has the mission of providing health care decision-makers (e.g., patients, healthcare providers, purchasers, and policymakers) with recent evidence-based information about the harms, benefits, and effectiveness of various treatment options by comparing medical devices, surgeries, tests, drugs, or ways to deliver health care.
The EHC program was created in response to Section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 and became the first federal program to conduct PCOR and disseminate those findings to the public. AHRQ works with researchers, academic organizations, and research centers through the EHC program on work relating to methods, training, and dissemination of products to a variety of stakeholders to help spread awareness and knowledge about PCOR. It is important for AHRQ to be able to measure the effectiveness of these products, which include training modules and publications, specifically around how they are affecting health care professionals' understanding, awareness, and use of PCOR and its related concepts. It is also important for
The Continuing Education for Comparative Effectiveness Research Project is designed to provide online continuing education materials that inform physicians and other healthcare providers about patient-centered health research from the EHC Program, specifically comparative effectiveness research reports, and other government-funded comparative clinical effectiveness research. Online multimedia continuing education modules based on the Effective Health Care Program
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Hayes Inc. (Hayes) and Hayes' subcontractors, Deloitte Consulting LLP (Deloitte), pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to support the agency's dissemination of comparative clinical effectiveness research findings. 42 U.S.C. 299b-37(a)-(c).
To achieve the goals of this project, the following data collection will be implemented:
(1) Each training module will involve one follow-up questionnaire that would be administered six months after the completion of the course for the purposes of tracking the longer-term effectiveness of the modules.
This data collection will help to meet AHRQ's objectives to:
1. Understand the extent to which these online continuing education modules based on the EHC Program comparative effectiveness research reports improve knowledge of each topic and change participants' awareness of, attitude towards, and/or confidence to apply GER in their clinical practice.
2. Track information about the dissemination efforts employed for CE/CER information specific to the modules, and the uptake of AHRQ's other EHC Program materials as a result of the project, including the Clinician and Consumer Summaries when available.
3. Determine implementation practices (e.g. changes in practice behavior or implementation of the information conveyed in the modules) that occur as a result of the learning.
4. Identify opportunities for improving the presentation and delivery of CE modules by gathering information on the participants' reactions to the modules and to the faculty presenters through the post-event evaluation assessment.
AHRQ will use the information collected through this Information Collection Request to assess the short- and long-term progress in achieving the dissemination and implementation aims of the Continuing Education project.
Exhibit 1 provides information on the estimated time to complete the data collection survey. These educational activities are enduring training modules and will be available for a 2-year period. The AHRQ Continuing Education for Comparative Effectiveness Research Survey will be administered to each individual 6 months after completing the module. On average, respondents will spend 5 minutes completing the survey. As many as 4,400 health care professionals are expected to complete the surveys, based on an average of 2,000 health care providers taking each module with a 10% response rate, or 200; 200 × 22 modules = 4,400. On average, respondents will spend 5 minutes completing the survey. The total burden is estimated to be 367 hours.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Updating and Expanding the AHRQ QI Toolkit for Hospitals.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by September 3, 2014.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
AHRQ has developed sets of Quality Indicators (QIs) that can be used to document quality and safety conditions at U.S. hospitals. Three sets of QIs are particularly relevant for hospitals and include: The Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs), the Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), and the Pediatric Quality Indicators (PDIs). The IQIs contain measures of volume, mortality, and utilization for common medical conditions and major surgical procedures. The PSIs are a set of measures to screen for potentially preventable adverse events that patients may experience during hospitalization. The PDIs measure the quality of pediatric health care, mainly focusing on preventable complications that occur as a consequence of hospitalization among pediatric patients. These QIs have been previously developed and evaluated by AHRQ, and are in use at a number of hospitals throughout the country. The QIs and supportive documentation on how to work with them are posted on AHRQ's Web site at
Despite the availability of the QIs as tools to help hospitals assess their performance, many U.S. hospitals have limited experience with the use of such measurement tools, or in using quality improvement methods to improve their performance as assessed by these measures. To this end, RAND has previously contracted with AHRQ to develop an AHRQ Quality Indicators Toolkit for Hospitals (Toolkit). This Toolkit is publicly available and is posted on AHRQ's Web site at
Since the release of the Toolkit in 2012, the QIs have been updated and expanded, best practices have advanced, and many hospitals have improved their understanding of their quality improvement needs as well as increased their familiarity with the use of the Toolkit. These factors all point to the critical need to update the Toolkit. AHRQ has funded RAND which partners with the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) to update and expand the Toolkit, and field test the updated Toolkit with hospitals as they carry out initiatives designed to improve performance on the QIs.
This research has the following goals:
(1) To assess the usability of the updated Toolkit for hospitals—with an emphasis on the Pediatric Quality Indicators (PDI)—in order to improve the Toolkit, and
(2) To examine hospitals' experiences in implementing interventions to improve their performance on the AHRQ QIs, the results of which will be used to guide successful future applications of the Toolkit.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, the RAND Corporation, under contract number HHSA290201000017I, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).
To achieve the goals of this project, the following data collections will be implemented:
(1) Pre/post-test interview protocol—consisting of both open and closed ended questions will be administered prior to implementation of the Toolkit and again post implementation. The purpose of this data collection is to obtain data on the steps the hospitals took to implement actions to improve performance on the QIs; their plans for making process changes; and their experiences in achieving changes and perceptions regarding lessons learned that could be shared with other hospitals.
(2) Update protocol—consisting of both open and closed ended questions will be administered three times during the study (quarterly during the implementation year). The purpose of this data collection is to capture longitudinal data regarding hospitals' progress in implementing changes, successes and challenges, and plans for subsequent actions. These data will include descriptive information on changes over time in the hospitals' implementation actions and how they are using the Toolkit, as well as experiential information on the perceptions of participants regarding the improvement implementation process and its effects. It also ensures the collection of information close to pertinent events, which avoids the recall bias associated with retrospective reporting of experiences.
(3) Usability testing protocol—also consisting of both open and closed ended questions will be administered once at the end of the evaluation period. The purpose of this data collection is to gather information from the hospitals on how they used each tool in the updated Toolkit, the ease of use of each tool, which tools were most helpful, suggested changes to improve each tool, and suggestions for other tools to add to the updated Toolkit. This information will be used in the revisions of the updated Toolkit following the end of the field test.
All the information obtained from the proposed data collection will be used to strengthen the updated Toolkit before finalizing and disseminating it to hospitals for their use. First, information will be collected from the six hospitals participating in the Toolkit field test about their experiences in implementing performance improvements related to the AHRQ QIs, which will be used to prepare experiential case examples for inclusion in the Toolkit as a resource for other hospitals. Second, feedback will be elicited from them about the usability of the Toolkit, which will be applied to modify and refine the Toolkit so that it is as responsive as possible to the needs and priorities of the hospitals for which it is intended.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in this information collection. Three protocols will be used to collect data from respondents in interviews that will take one hour each. The pre/post-test interview protocol will be administered twice—at the beginning and end of the field-test year. The pre-test interviews will be performed as one-hour group interviews with the six hospitals' implementation teams at the start of the year. Each hospital's implementation team is expected to consist of about five people. At the end of the year, post-test interviews that last one hour each and use the same protocol as the pre-test interviews will be conducted during site visits at the six hospitals with the implementation team. The five people of the implementation team at each hospital will be interviewed twice, both pre- and post-field test. At the post-test site visits, data will also be collected through one-hour interviews performed separately with four key stakeholder groups—physicians, nurses, clerks, and others—that are not on the implementation team. Each stakeholder group is expected to consist of about five people. These 20 people from the four stakeholder groups at each hospital will be interviewed once in a one hour post-field test. Interviewing these additional stakeholder groups will ensure that information is gathered on stakeholder variations in perceptions and experiences, of which the implementation teams might not be aware.
The quarterly update protocol will be administered quarterly to two hospital staff members from each hospital during the year (in months 3, 6, and 9). The usability testing protocol will be administered to four staff members once at the end of the evaluation period. The total burden is estimated to be 240 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in the evaluation. The total cost burden is estimated to be $7,179.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
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 October 3, 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.
Sections 1104, 1302, 3301, 3304, 3320, 3361, 3393, and 3394 of Title 5 of the United States Code authorize Federal Agencies to rate applicants for Federal jobs. Collecting applications for the CFP will allow FDA's Office of the Commissioner to easily and efficiently elicit and review information from students and health care professionals who are interested in becoming involved in FDA-wide activities. The process will reduce the time and cost of submitting written documentation to the Agency and lessen the likelihood of applications being misrouted within the Agency mail system. It will assist the Agency in promoting and protecting the public health by encouraging outside persons to share their expertise with FDA.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA based these estimates on the number of inquiries that have been received concerning the program and the number of requests for application forms over the past 5 years.
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 October 3, 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. FDA Recall Regulation—21 CFR Part 7 (OMB Control Number 0910-0249)—Extension
Section 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the FDA, with the responsibility of assuring recalls (21 U.S.C. 371, Regulations and hearings, and 21 CFR Part 7, Enforcement Policy, Subpart C, Recalls (Including Product Corrections)—Guidance on Policy, Procedures, and Industry Responsibilities) which pertain to the recall regulations and provide guidance to manufacturers on recall responsibilities. The guidelines apply to all FDA-regulated products (i.e., food, including animal feed; drugs, including animal drugs; medical devices, including in vitro diagnostic products; cosmetics; biological products intended for human use; and tobacco). These responsibilities include providing FDA with complete details of the recall including reason(s) for the removal or correction, risk evaluation, quantity produced, distribution information, the firm's recall strategy, a copy of any recall communication(s), and a contact official (§ 7.46); notifying direct accounts of the recall, providing guidance regarding further distribution, giving instructions as to what to do with the product, providing recipients with a ready means of reporting to the recalling firm (§ 7.49); and submitting periodic status reports so that FDA may assess the progress of the recall. Status report information may be determined by, among other things, evaluation return reply cards, effectiveness checks and product returns (§ 7.53); and providing the opportunity for a firm to request in writing that FDA terminate the recall (§ 7.55(b)).
A search of FDA's database was performed to determine the number of recalls that took place during fiscal years 2011 to 2013. The resulting number of total recalls (11,403) from this database search were then averaged over the 3 years, and the resulting per year average of recalls (3,801) are used in estimating the current annual reporting burden for this report. The resulting number of total terminations (11,403 from this database search were then averaged over the 3 years, and the resulting per year average of terminations (3,801 are used in estimating the current annual reporting burden for this report.
FDA estimates the total annual industry burden to collect and provide the previous information to be 627,165 burden hours.
The following is a summary of the estimated annual burden hours for recalling firms (manufacturers, processors, and distributors) to comply with the voluntary reporting requirements of FDA's recall regulations. Recognizing that there may be a vast difference in the information collection and reporting time involved in different recalls of FDA's regulated products.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Request firms voluntarily remove or correct foods and drugs (human or animal), cosmetics, medical devices, biologics, and tobacco to immediately notify the appropriate FDA District Office of such actions. The firm is to provide complete details of the recall reason, risk evaluation, quantity produced, distribution information, firms' recall strategy and a contact official as well as requires firms to notify their direct accounts of the recall and to provide recipients with a ready means of reporting to the recalling firm. Under these portions of the collection of information, the Agency estimates it will receive 3,801 responses annually based on the average number of recalls over the last 3 fiscal years. The number of responses multiplied by the number of respondents equal 3,801. The average burden hours of 25 multiplied by the total number of annual responses equal 95,025. The average burden hour person response was 30 and has decreased by 5.
Request that recalling firms provide periodic status reports so FDA can ascertain the progress of the recall. This request only applies to firms with active recalls, and is estimated to be reported every 2 to 4 weeks. This collection of information will generate approximately 3,801 responses annually, based on the average number of recalls over the last 3 fiscal years 11,403. The number of respondents multiplied by the number of responses per respondents (13) equal a total number of annual responses of 49,413. The total number of responses 49,413 with an average burden hours of 10 per response equal a total of 494,130 total hours.
Provide the firms an opportunity to request in writing that FDA end the recall. The Agency estimates it will receive 3,801 responses annually based on the average number of terminations over the past 3 fiscal years. The total annual responses of 3,801 multiplied by the average burden hours of 10 per response equal a total number of hours of 38,010.
FDA has no information which would allow it to make a calculated estimate on the hours per response burden to FDA regulated firms to conduct recalls. Variables in the type of products, the quantity and level of distribution and the various circumstances of recall notifications could cause the hours per response to vary significantly. The best guesstimate of average burden hours per response from previous information collection request reports are utilized again for the current estimates on burden hours per response.
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
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).
Indian Health Service, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Indian Health Service published a document in the
Ms. Patricia Spotted Horse, Program Analyst, Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes, Indian Health Service, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 220, Rockville, MD 20852, Telephone (301) 443-1104. (This is not a toll-free number.)
In the
• The TMG may not be used to support recurring operational programs or to replace existing public and private resources. Funding received under a recurring Public Law 93-638 contract cannot be totally supplanted or totally replaced. Exception is allowed to charge a portion or percentage of salaries of existing staff positions involved in implementing the TMG grant, if applicable. However, this percentage of TMG funding must reflect supplementation of funding for the project not supplantation of existing ISDEAA contract funds. Supplementation is “adding to a program” whereas supplantation is “taking the place of” funds. An entity cannot use the TMG funds to supplant the ISDEAA contract or recurring funding.
• Ineligible Project Activities—The inclusion of the following projects or activities in an application will render the application ineligible.
○ Planning and negotiating activities associated with the intent of a Tribe to enter the IHS Self-Governance Project. A separate grant program is administered by the IHS for this purpose. Prospective applicants interested in this program should contact Mrs. Anna Johnson, Program Analyst, Office of Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health Service, Reyes Building, 801 Thompson Avenue, Suite 240, Rockville, Maryland 20852, (301) 443-7821, and request information concerning the “Tribal Self-Governance Program Planning Cooperative Agreement Announcement” or the “Negotiation Cooperative Agreement Announcement.”
○ Projects related to water, sanitation, and waste management.
○ Projects that include direct patient care and/or equipment to provide those medical services to be used to establish or augment or continue direct patient clinical care. Medical equipment that is allowable under the Special Diabetes Grant Program is not allowable under the TMG Program.
○ Projects that include recruitment efforts for direct patient care services.
○ Projects that include long-term care or provision of any direct services.
○ Projects that include tuition, fees, or stipends for certification or training of staff to provide direct services.
○ Projects that include pre-planning, design, and planning of construction for facilities, including activities relating to program justification documents.
○ Projects that propose more than one project type. Refer to Section II, “Award Information,” specifically “Eligible TMG Project Types, Maximum Funding Levels and Project Periods” for more information. An example of a proposal with more than one project type that would be considered ineligible may include the creation of a strategic health plan (defined by TMG as a planning project type) and improving third-party billing structures (defined by TMG as a health management structure project type). Multi-year applications that include in the first year planning, evaluation, or feasibility activities with the remainder of the project years addressing management structure are also deemed ineligible.
• Other Limitations—A current TMG recipient cannot be awarded a new, renewal, or competing continuation grant for any of the following reasons:
○ The grantee will be administering two TMGs at the same time or have overlapping project/budget periods;
○ The current project is not progressing in a satisfactory manner;
○ The current project is not in compliance with program and financial reporting requirements; or
○ The applicant has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt. No award shall be made until either:
The delinquent account is paid in full; or
A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received.
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: Margaret Beckwith, International Cancer Research Databank Branch, Office of Communications and Education, 9609 Medical Center Drive, MSC 9776, Bethesda, MD 20892-9776 or call non-toll-free number 240-376-6593 or Email your request, including your address to:
There are currently 587 genetics professionals listed in the directory. Approximately 30-60 new professionals are added to the directory each year. The applicants are nurses, physicians, genetic counselors, and other professionals who provide services related to cancer genetics. The information collected on the application form includes name, professional qualifications, practice locations, and the area of specialization. The information is updated annually using a Web-based update mailer that mirrors the application form.
The NCI Cancer Genetics Services Directory is a unique resource for cancer patients and their families who are looking for information about their family risk of cancer and genetic counseling. Collecting applicant information and verifying it annually by using the NCI Cancer Genetics Services Directory Web-based Application Form and Update Mailer is important for providing this information to the public and for keeping it current.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 180.
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: Ms. Joanne Gallivan, M.S., R.D., Director, National Diabetes Education Program, OCPL, NIDDK, 31 Center Drive, MSC 2560, Bethesda, MD 20892, or call non-toll-free number 301-496-6110, or Email your request, including your address to:
The NDEP evaluation will document the extent to which the NDEP program has been implemented and how successful it has been in meeting program objectives, outlined in the NDEP Strategic Plan. The evaluation relies heavily on data gathered from existing national surveys such as National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), among others for this information. This is a continued collection of additional primary data from NDEP target audiences on some key process and impact measures that are necessary to effectively evaluate the program. The audiences targeted by the NDEP include people at risk for diabetes, people with diabetes and their families, and the public.
OMB approval is requested for changing the data collection methodology from a random-digit-dialing (RDD) telephone survey to a probability-based web-based survey as well as an update of the survey questionnaire which has not been updated since it was first developed in 2006. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 833. This represents a modest increase in the burden amount from the previously approved 749 hours to 833 hours, an additional 84 hours overall. This burden reflects an increase of 5 minutes per participant due to survey content changes and an additional 400 participants.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) announces the availability of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) Biennial Progress Report: 2012-2013. This report describes ICCVAM and ICCVAM agency activities during the period from January 2012 through December 2013 and was prepared in accordance with requirements of the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285
The report is available at
Dr. Warren S. Casey, Director, NICEATM; email:
A provision of the ICCVAM Authorization Act states that ICCVAM shall prepare “reports to be made available to the public on its progress under this Act.” The first report was to be completed within 12 months of enactment of the Act, and subsequent reports were to be biennially thereafter. The sixth report is now available, and summarizes ICCVAM activities and accomplishments for the calendar years 2012 and 2013.
• Chapter 1 provides background information on ICCVAM and its role in coordinating evaluations of alternative
• Chapter 2 describes activities of ICCVAM and the 15 ICCVAM member agencies relevant to the development and validation of alternative test methods for eye safety testing, biologics and vaccine testing, development of tests to identify potential skin sensitizers, and other areas.
• Chapter 3 describes ICCVAM outreach, communication, and collaborative activities.
The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285
NICEATM provides support for ICCVAM and conducts data analyses, workshops, independent validation studies, and other activities to assess new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved test methods and strategies applicable to the needs of U.S. Federal agencies. Additional information about NICEATM can be found at
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 Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDDK.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the research review cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council.
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 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 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.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Fogarty International Center Advisory Board.
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 the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, 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.
In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
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.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment has developed a set of infrastructure development measures in which recipients of cooperative agreements will report on various benchmarks on a semi-annual basis. The infrastructure development measures are designed to collect information at the state-level and site-level.
The infrastructure development measures are based on the programmatic requirements conveyed in TI-12-006, Cooperative Agreements for State Adolescent Treatment Enhancement and Dissemination (SAT-ED) and TI-13-014, Cooperative Agreements for State Youth Treatment Enhancement and Dissemination (SYT-ED).
The purpose of this program is to provide funding to States/Territories/Tribes to improve treatment for adolescents and transitional age youth through the development of a learning laboratory with collaborating local community-based treatment provider sites. Through the shared experience between the State/Territory/Tribe and the local community-based treatment provider sites, an evidence-based practice (EBP) will be implemented, youth and families will be provided services, and a feedback loop will be developed to enable the State/Territory/Tribe and the sites to identify barriers and test solutions through a services component operating in real time. The expected outcomes of these cooperative agreements will include needed changes to State/Territorial/Tribal policies and procedures; development of financing structures that work in the current environment; and a blueprint for States/Territories/Tribes and providers that can be used throughout the State/Territory/Tribe to widen the use of effective substance use treatment EBPs. Additionally, adolescents (ages 12 to 18), transitional age youth (ages 18 to 24), and their families/primary caregivers who are provided services through grant funds will inform the process to improve systems issues.
Estimates for response burden were calculated based on the methodology (survey data collection) being used and are based on previous experience collecting similar data and results of the pilot study. For emailed biannual surveys, burden estimates of 12.0 hours were used for Project Directors and/or Program Managers and burden estimates of 7.2 hours were used for other project staff members. It is estimated that 13 Project Directors and/or Program Managers and 26 other staff members from Cohort 1 will respond to the emailed survey biannually (i.e., twice each year) for 3 years at an estimated total burden of 2,059.2 hours for Cohort 1. It is estimated that 10 Project Directors and/or Program Managers and 20 other staff members from Cohort 2 will respond to the emailed survey biannually (i.e., twice each year) for 5 years at an estimated total burden of 2,640 hours for Cohort 2. It is estimated that 12 Project Directors and/or Program Managers and 24 other staff members from Cohort 3 will respond to the emailed survey biannually (i.e., twice each year) for 5 years at an estimated total burden of 3,168 hours for Cohort 2. The burden hours of Cohort 1 (2,059.2 hours), Cohort 2 (2,640 hours) and Cohort 3 (3,168 hours) combined comes to a total estimated burden for the emailed biannual survey of 7,867.2 hours.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by September 3, 2014 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
SAMHSA is requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the conduct of surveys of current and Alumni MFP Fellows. This survey would gather information about current and Alumni MFP Fellows that will help SAMHSA meet its responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act for gathering, analyzing, and interpreting information about government-funded programs such as the MFP.
In 1973, in response to a substantial lack of ethnic and racial minorities in the mental health professions, the Center for Minority Health at the National Institute of Mental Health established the Minority Fellowship Program (MFP). Since its move to SAMHSA in 1992, the MFP has continued to facilitate the entry of minority graduate students and psychiatric residents into mental health careers and has increased the number of psychology, psychiatry, nursing, and social work professionals trained to provide mental health and substance abuse services to minority groups. The MFP, in turn, offers sustained grants to six national behavioral health professional associations: The American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the Council on Social Work Education, and, as of August 2012, the National Board for Certified Counselors and Affiliates. Additional associations, such as the International Certification and Reciprocity Consortium and the National Association for Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, are expected to join the program later this year. Others may join in future years.
The MFP is supported by funds from all three SAMHSA centers: The Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS), the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. SAMHSA's CMHS has funded the development of the MFP surveys.
To assess the performance of the MFP, SAMHSA is requesting OMB approval for the conducting of a survey of current and Alumni MFP Fellows. This survey would gather information about current and Alumni MFP Fellows that will help SAMHSA meet its responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act for gathering, analyzing, and interpreting information about government-funded programs such as the MFP.
This package requests approval of two survey instruments (to be sent to approximately 1.300 Current and Alumni Fellows with an expected response rate of 788 respondents). Two online (Internet based) surveys (with the option for a hard copy mailed through the U.S. Postal Service) will be used with the following stakeholders in the MFP:
1.
2.
None of the data collected in the surveys will be redundant with any existing reporting requirements or data sources. Survey data will be obtained to assess the following measures:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The total annual burden estimate for conducting the surveys is shown below:
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice; 60-day notice and request for comments; revision of a previously approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0039; FEMA Form 078-0-2A, National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation Student/Trainee; FEMA Form 078-0-2, National Fire Academy Long-Term Evaluation Supervisors.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the long-term evaluation forms used to evaluate all National Fire Academy resident training.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 2014.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Dawn Long, Statistician, (301) 447-1488, for additional information. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 212-4701 or email address:
The NFA is mandated under the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-498) to provide training and education to the Nation's fire service and emergency service personnel. The state of-the-art programs offered by the NFA serve as models of excellence and State and local fire service agencies rely heavily on the curriculum to train their personnel. To maintain the quality of these training programs, it is critical that courses be evaluated after students have had the opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills gained from their training.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 2014.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Contact Charlene Myrthil, Director, FEMA Records Management Division, at (202) 646-3935 for further information. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 212-4701 or email address:
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Washington (FEMA-3371-EM), dated July 23, 2014, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 23, 2014, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:
I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of Washington resulting from wildfires beginning on July 9, 2014, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael J. Hall, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.
The following areas of the State of Washington have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:
The counties of Chelan and Okanogan and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-4182-DR), dated July 21, 2014, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 21, 2014, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Minnesota resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of June 11 to July 11, 2014, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Warren J. Riley, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Minnesota have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Chippewa, Freeborn, Jackson, Murray, Nobles, Pipestone, Renville, and Rock Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Minnesota are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4184-DR), dated July 24, 2014, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 24, 2014, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Iowa resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of June 14-23, 2014, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael L. Parker, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Iowa have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Allamakee, Buchanan, Buena Vista, Butler, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Clay, Dickinson, Emmet, Fayette, Franklin, Hancock, Humboldt, Ida, Kossuth, Lyon, Osceola, Palo Alto, Plymouth, Pocahontas, Sac, Sioux, Winnebago, Winneshiek, Woodbury, and Wright Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Iowa are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4183-DR), dated July 24, 2014, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated July 24, 2014, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Nebraska resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of June 14-21, 2014, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T.
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Christian Van Alstyne, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Nebraska have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Cedar, Cuming, Dakota, Dixon, Franklin, Furnas, Harlan, Kearney, Phelps, Stanton, Thurston, and Wayne Counties for Public Assistance.
All counties within the State of Nebraska are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
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 October 3, 2014.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0029 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0042. 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)
(6)
If you need a copy of the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please visit the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of Robinson International USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Robinson International USA, Inc. has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of November 26, 2013.
Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Robinson International USA, Inc., 4400 South Wayside Drive, Suite #106, Houston, TX 77207, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Robinson International USA, Inc. is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products per the American Petroleum Institute (API) Measurement Standards:
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., has been accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of November 14, 2013.
Approved Gaugers and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12, that Intertek USA, Inc., 8500 West Bay Road, MS #37, Baytown, TX 77523, has been accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12.
Intertek USA, Inc. is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test this entity is accredited to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This notice advises the public of the quarterly Internal Revenue Service interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties. For the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2014, the interest rates for overpayments will be 2 percent for corporations and 3 percent for non-corporations, and the interest rate for underpayments will be 3 percent for both corporations and non-corporations. This notice is published for the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel.
Michael P. Dean, Revenue Division, Collection and Refunds Branch, 6650 Telecom Drive, Suite #100, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278; telephone (317) 614-4882.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the
The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.
In Revenue Ruling 2014-14, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2014, and ending on September 30, 2014. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of three percent (3%) for both corporations and non-corporations. For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus one percentage point (1%) for a total of two percent (2%). For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (1%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of three percent (3%). These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning October 1, 2014, and ending December 31, 2014.
For the convenience of the importing public and U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from before July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties, is published in summary format.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Comments Due Date: September 3, 2014.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.
The
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
Under the Endangered Species Act (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the receipt and availability of a proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP) and environmental assessment (EA) for take of the Perdido Key beach mouse incidental to construction of a multi-unit condominium in Escambia County, Florida. We invite public comments on these documents.
We must receive any written comments at our Regional Office (see
Documents are available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345; or the Panama City Field Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405.
Mr. David Dell, Regional HCP Coordinator (see
We announce the availability of the proposed HCP, accompanying incidental take permit (ITP) application, and an environmental assessment (EA), which analyze the take of the endangered Perdido Key beach mouse (
We specifically request scientific or technical information, views, and opinions from the public via this notice on our proposed Federal action, including identification of any other aspects of the human environment not already identified in the EA pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6. Further, we specifically solicit information regarding the adequacy of the HCP per 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.
The EA assesses the likely environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the activities, including the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative and the proposed action. The proposed action alternative is issuance of the ITP and implementation of the HCP as submitted by the Applicant. The HCP covers land clearing, construction, and occupation of a 15-unit condominium, which would permanently alter 0.428 acre of the 1.21 acres owned by the Applicant. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures include retention of natural habitat on 0.782 acre of the property, enhancement of natural habitat with native vegetation plantings, protection of portions of the natural habitat via a conservation easement, operational covenants to minimize impacts, and endowment of off-site habitat acquisition and management via the existing Perdido Key Conservation Fund.
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 TE143687-0 in such comments. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see
Finally, you may hand-deliver comments to either of our offices listed under
Perdido Key, a barrier island 16.9 miles long, constitutes the entire historic range of the Perdido Key beach mouse. The area encompassed by the HCP and ITP application is a 1.21-acre Gulf front lot in Escambia County, within the central portions of Perdido Key.
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 Perdido Key beach mouse.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) invites public comments on, and plans to request approval to continue, the collection of information from applicants for oil shale leases, oil shale lessees, and oil shale operators. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has assigned control
Please submit comments on the proposed information collection by October 3, 2014.
Comments may be submitted by mail, fax, or electronic mail. Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW., Room 2134LM, Attention: Jean Sonneman, Washington, DC 20240. Fax: To Jean Sonneman at 202-245-0050. Electronic mail:
Mary Linda Ponticelli at 202-912-7115. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 to leave a message for Ms. Ponticelli.
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, require that interested members of the public and affected agencies be given an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d) and 1320.12(a)). This notice identifies an information collection that the BLM plans to submit to the OMB for approval. The Paperwork Reduction Act provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until the OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.
The BLM will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) The accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) Ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany our submission of the information collection requests to the OMB.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The following information is provided for the information collection:
The estimated burdens are itemized in the following table:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Barstow Field Office intends to prepare an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan (1980, as amended) with a joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in cooperation with the California Public Utilities Commission in order to analyze Southern California Edison's proposal for the Coolwater to Lugo Transmission Line Project in San Bernardino County. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.
Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until September 3, 2014. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local news media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at:
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria related to the Coolwater to Lugo Transmission Line Project by any of the following methods:
Jeffery Childers, telephone: 951-697-5308; address: BLM California Desert District Office, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553-9046; email:
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is proposing a new high-voltage (220/500-kV) transmission line extending 64 miles from SCE's existing Coolwater Generation Station Switchyard located in Daggett, California, to SCE's existing Lugo Substation in Hesperia, California. The proposed Coolwater to Lugo Transmission Line Project (CLTP) would traverse 16 miles of public lands managed by the BLM, with the remainder on private or other lands within San Bernardino County. Approximately 47 miles of the transmission line would parallel or be within existing overhead utility rights-of-way (ROWs) and designated transmission corridors with the remaining 17 miles requiring a plan amendment to the CDCA plan to designate a new transmission line corridor. The proposed project also includes new substation facilities to support transmission line termination and new telecommunication facilities for a Special Protection System to maintain transmission system reliability. The new 500/220/115/12-kV Desert View Substation, which will initially be constructed as a switching station, is southeast of Apple Valley, California. The new telecommunications lines would extend from the Gale Substation to Pisgah Substation and from the new Desert View Substation to the Apple Valley Substation, traversing 6 miles of BLM-managed lands. The majority of the telecommunications fiber optic cable would be installed on existing poles. The project would include installation of 373 new single and double-circuit 220-kV and 500-kV transmission structures, and removal of 168 structures associated with the existing Lugo-Pisgah 220-kV transmission lines No. 1 and No. 2; construction of 25 miles of new roads; upgrades to 17 miles of roads; temporary use and construction areas; and 215 setup areas for conductor pulling and splicing. This project is needed to ensure that power from the nearly completed 275-MW Mojave Solar Project is delivered to population centers in Southern California. Additionally, the line is designed with additional capacity to facilitate the interconnection of future renewable energy projects that are expected to be developed in the region.
This document provides notice that the BLM Barstow Field Office, Barstow, California, intends to prepare a Draft CDCA plan amendment with an associated joint EIS/EIR with the California Public Utilities Commission for the CLTP; announces the beginning of the scoping process; and seeks public input on environmental issues and planning criteria. The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the planning process. Preliminary issues for the plan amendment area have been identified by BLM personnel, Federal, State, and local agencies, and other stakeholders. The issues include: Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources including special status species, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation, traffic, visual resources, cumulative effects, and areas with high potential for renewable energy development. Impacts will be reviewed and the BLM will identify opportunities to apply mitigation strategies for on-site, regional, and compensatory mitigation. Mitigation may include regional compensatory measures for raven management and big horn sheep habitat, and desert tortoise habitat acquisition.
You may submit comments on issues and planning criteria in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or you may submit them to the BLM using one of the methods listed in the
A preliminary list of the potential planning criteria that will be used to help guide and define the scope of the plan amendment includes:
1. The plan amendment will be completed in compliance with FLPMA, NEPA, and all other relevant Federal laws, executive orders, and BLM policies;
2. Existing valid plan decisions will not be changed and any new plan decisions will not conflict with existing plan decisions; and
3. The plan amendment(s) will recognize valid existing rights.
The BLM will use the NEPA public participation requirements to assist the agency in satisfying the public involvement requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). The information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed action will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
The BLM will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. The list of attendees for each scoping meeting and the scoping report will be available to the public and open for 30 days after the meeting to any participant who wishes to clarify the views he or she expressed.
The BLM will evaluate issues to be addressed in the plan, and will place them into one of three categories:
1. Issues to be resolved in the plan amendment;
2. Issues to be resolved through policy or administrative action; or
3. Issues beyond the scope of this plan amendment.
The BLM will provide an explanation in the draft plan amendment/EIS/EIR as to why an issue was placed in category two or three. The public is also encouraged to help identify any management questions and concerns that should be addressed in the plan. The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decisions that are best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns.
The BLM will use an interdisciplinary approach to develop the plan amendment in order to consider the variety of resource issues and concerns identified. Specialists with expertise in the following disciplines will be involved in the planning process: Rangeland management, minerals and geology, outdoor recreation, archaeology, paleontology, wildlife, lands and realty, hydrology, soils, sociology and economics.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before July 5, 2014. Pursuant to § 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 19, 2014. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before July 12, 2014. Pursuant to § 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 19, 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on June 27, 2014, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Macronix International Co., Ltd. of Taiwan and Macronix America, Inc., of Milpitas, California. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain devices containing non-volatile memory and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,998,826 (“the '826 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,031,757 (“the '757 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,341,324 (“the '324 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,341,330 (“the '330 patent”) . The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a general exclusion order, or in the alternative a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is 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., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2014).
Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on July 28, 2014,
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain devices containing non-volatile memory and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17, and 27-29 of the '826 patent; claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 13 of the '757 patent; claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 15 of the '324 patent; and claims 1-3 and 8-11 of the '330 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission
August 6, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000
Open to the public
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
On July 30, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Maine in the lawsuit entitled
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 $4.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $3.00.
JULY 28, 2014 (79 FR 43782)
11:45 a.m., Thursday, July 31, 2014.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in Sunshine Act” notice is hereby given that the NCUA Board gave notice on July 24, 2014 (published on July 28, 2014 at 79 FR 43782) of the regular meeting of the NCUA Board scheduled for July 31, 2014. Prior to the meeting, on July 30, 2014, with less than seven days' notice to the public, the NCUA Board unanimously determined that agency business required changing the previously announced closed meeting time from 11:45 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. No earlier notice of the change was possible.
9:00 a.m., Thursday, July 31, 2014
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) will be submitting the following information collection requirement to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
NSF 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 Federal government, universities, researchers, and others use the information extensively. The NSF and the NIH publish statistics from the survey in several reports, but primarily in the data tables, and the congressionally mandated biennial publication series, “Science and Engineering Indicators” and “Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering.” In addition, survey results will be used for research or statistical purposes, analyzing data, and preparing scientific reports and articles. All tables and reports are made available in various electronic formats on the GSS Web site (
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG), DG-1256, “Laboratory Investigations of Soils and Rocks for Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuclear Power Plants.” This guide describes a method that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use in the laboratory testing of soils and rocks needed to confirm the design and safety of nuclear power plants.
Submit comments by October 3, 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 on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Scott Stovall, telephone: 301-251-7922, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0183 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:
•
•
•
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0183 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 will not edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled, “Laboratory Investigations of Soils and Rocks for Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuclear Power Plants,” is proposed revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.138, dated December 2003, and it is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1256. This DG describes laboratory investigations and testing practices acceptable to the NRC staff for determining soil and rock properties and characteristics needed for engineering analysis and design of foundations and earthworks for nuclear power plants. The DG was revised to reflect changes in standards for testing procedures developed since 2003, and at the same time, the guide was re-formatted. The most significant change is in Section C.6.3, “Resonant Column Tests,” which provides an alternative method for resonant column and torsional shear testing of soil and rock samples.
Issuance of this DG in final form does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit Rule) and is not otherwise inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. This DG would not apply to any construction permits, operating licenses, early site permits, limited work authorizations already issued under 10 CFR 50.10 for which the NRC issued a final environmental impact statement (EIS) preceded by a draft EIS under 10 CFR 51.76 or 51.75, or combined licenses, any of which were issued by the NRC prior to issuance of the final regulatory guide. The NRC has already completed its siting determination for those construction permits, operating licenses, early site permits, limited work authorizations, and combined licenses. Therefore, no further NRC regulatory action on siting will occur for those licenses, permits, and authorizations, for which the guidance in the DG would be relevant, absent voluntary action by the licensees (e.g., license amendment, exemption request). Testing of soils and rocks for engineering analysis and design activities may be performed consistent with the licensing basis for each permit and license with respect to such testing; and need not comply with this regulatory guide. However, when a licensee or holder of an NRC regulatory approval voluntarily seeks a change to its license or regulatory approval for which new soils or rock testing is necessary and essential consideration of the NRC's evaluation of the change's acceptability, then the NRC may condition its approval on the licensee's or holder's agreement to conduct the soil or rock testing in accordance with the guidance in the DG (if finalized).
Once finalized, the guidance in this regulatory guide may be applied to applications for early site permits, combined licenses, and limited work authorizations issued under 10 CFR 50.10 (including information under 10 CFR 51.49(b) or (f)), any of which are docketed and under review by the NRC as of the date of issuance of the final regulatory guide. The guidance in this regulatory guide may also be applied to applications for construction permits, early site permits, combined licenses, and limited work authorizations (including information under 10 CFR 51.49(b) or (f)), any of which are submitted after the issuance of the final regulatory guide. Such action does not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) and is not otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. Applicants and potential applicants are not, with certain exceptions, protected by either the Backfit Rule or any issue finality provisions under part 52. Neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under part 52—with certain exclusions discussed below—were intended to every NRC action which substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; withdrawal by applicant.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted the request of Omaha Public Power District to withdraw its application dated February 18, 2013, as supplemented by letter dated February 20, 2014, for a proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40. The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical Specification Definitions and Technical Specification Sections 2.0.1 and 2.7 for Inoperable System, Subsystem or Component Due to Inoperable Power Source.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0010 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:
•
•
•
Fred Lyon, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2296 email:
The NRC has granted the request of Omaha Public Power District (the licensee) to withdraw its February 18, 2013, application, as supplemented by letter dated February 20, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13051A741 and ML14052A204, respectively), for proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40 for the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, located in Washington County, Nebraska.
The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical Specification Definitions and Technical Specification Sections 2.0.1 and 2.7 for Inoperable System, Subsystem or Component Due to Inoperable Power Source. Specifically, the proposed amendment would: (1) Revise the definition for Operable—Operability in the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Technical Specifications; (2) modify the provisions under which equipment may be considered operable when either its normal or emergency power source is inoperable; and (3) revise the minimum requirement statement in Technical Specification Section 2.7 to the wording previously reviewed and approved by the NRC in Amendment No. 147, dated August 3, 1992.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hereby gives notice that it will convene an evidentiary hearing pursuant to the 10 CFR part 2, Subpart M procedures to receive testimony and exhibits in the proceeding regarding the license transfer application of Aerotest Operations, Inc. and its proposed transferee, Nuclear Labyrinth, LLC (together, the Companies). Because the testimony will focus on proprietary information regarding whether the Companies satisfy financial qualification requirements for a license transfer under 10 CFR 50.33(f), the hearing will be closed to the public.
As set forth by the Licensing Board in its May 2014 Memorandum and Order Ruling on Admissibility of Areas of Controversy, there are two litigable areas of controversy in this proceeding: (1) Whether the Staff correctly concluded that the Companies failed to demonstrate that they have, or with reasonable assurance will have, sufficient funding to conduct activities authorized by the Aerotest Radiography and Research Reactor (ARRR) license if the license is indirectly transferred; and (2) whether the Staff correctly concluded that the Companies failed to demonstrate that there will be sufficient funds to cover the annual cost of spent fuel storage until the Department of Energy accepts ARRR's spent fuel.
The evidentiary hearing will commence at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Tuesday, August 12, 2014 in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel's Rockville Hearing Room and, if
Documents related to this proceeding are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or electronically via the publicly-available records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
Any updates or revisions to the evidentiary hearing schedule can be found on the NRC Web site at
It is so
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Rockville, Maryland.
Weeks of August 4, 11, 18, 25, September 1, 8, 2014.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
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.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 1, 2014.
9:30 a.m. Briefing on NRC International Activities (Closed-Ex. 1 & 9)
9:30 a.m. Strategic Programmatic Overview of the New Reactors Business Line (Public Meeting) (Contact: Donna Williams, 301-415-1322)
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
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
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before October 3, 2014.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or email at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
Peace Corps.
60-day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before October 3, 2014.
Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or email at
Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.
The Peace Corps Response Volunteer Application form is necessary to recruit qualified volunteers to serve in Peace Corps Response, which sends Volunteers throughout the world to work in specialized short term projects. Applicants are selected based on their qualifications for a specific Volunteer assignment.
a. Number of Respondents: 1,500.
b. Frequency of response: One time.
c. Completion time: 60 minutes.
d. Annual burden hours: 1,500.
September 10, 2014, at 11 a.m.
Commission hearing room, 901 New York Avenue NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.
The Postal Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting to discuss the agenda items outlined below. Part of the meeting will be open to the public as well as audiocast, and the audiocast may be accessed via the Commission's Web site at
The agenda for the Commission's September 10, 2014 meeting includes the items identified below.
1. Report from the Office of Public Affairs and Government Relations on legislative activities and the handling of rate and service inquiries from the public.
2. Report from the Office of General Counsel on the status of Commission dockets.
3. Report from the Office of Accountability and Compliance.
4. Report from the Office of the Secretary and Administration.
5. Presentation to Commissioners on the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) role in cross-border postal operations by a representative of the Department of Homeland Security.
6. Discussion of pending litigation.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, Postal Regulatory Commission, 901 New York Avenue NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001, at 202-789-6820 (for agenda-related inquiries) and Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary of the Commission, at 202-789-6800 or
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Accredited Business Consolidators Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of AsherXino Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2012.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended April 28, 2012.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Card Activation Technologies, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2012.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of High Plains Gas, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Pacific Copper Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended April 30, 2012.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed companies.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on July 31, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on August 13, 2014.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.
Department of State.
Notice.
On November 24, 2013, the United States and its partners in the P5+1 (France, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and Germany) and the EU reached an initial understanding with Iran, outlined in a Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), that halts progress on its nuclear program and rolls it back in key respects. In return, the P5+1 committed to provide limited, temporary, and targeted sanctions relief to Iran. The JPOA was scheduled to expire after July 20, 2014.
The JPOA was renewed by mutual consent of the P5+1, EU, and Iran on July 19, 2014, extending the temporary sanctions relief provided under the JPOA through November 24, 2014 (the Extended JPOA Period), in order to continue to negotiate a long-term comprehensive solution to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and to ensure that Iran's nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful.
This Notice outlines the U.S. government actions taken to implement the sanctions relief aspects of this understanding.
On general issues: John Hughes, Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation, Department of State, Telephone: (202) 647-7489.
To implement this limited sanctions relief, the U.S. government has executed temporary, partial waivers of certain statutory sanctions and has issued guidance regarding the suspension of sanctions under relevant Executive Orders and regulations. All U.S. sanctions not explicitly waived or suspended pursuant to the JPOA as extended remain fully in force, including sanctions on transactions with individuals and entities on the SDN List unless otherwise specified.
Furthermore, U.S. persons and foreign entities owned or controlled by U.S. persons (“U.S.-owned or -controlled foreign entities”) continue to be
All suspended sanctions are scheduled to resume on November 25, 2014 unless further action is taken by the P5+1 and Iran and subsequent waivers and guidance are issued by the U.S. government. Companies engaging in activities covered by the temporary sanctions relief described in this fact sheet should expect sanctions to apply to any activities that extend beyond the current end date of the Extended JPOA Period, November 24, 2014. The temporary suspension of sanctions applies only to activities that begin and end during the period January 20, 2014 to November 24, 2014. Except as specified below with respect to payments for insurance claims, the suspension does not apply to any related, otherwise sanctionable conduct, including shipping and financial activities, undertaken before that period or after that period, even if they are undertaken pursuant to contracts entered into during the JPOA period or Extended JPOA Period. For example, deliveries of goods or services after the Extended JPOA Period would be sanctionable even if relevant contracts were entered into during the JPOA Period or Extended JPOA Period.
To the extent that the provision of insurance or reinsurance is an associated service of an activity for which the JPOA provides temporary relief, the provision of such insurance or reinsurance by a non-U.S. person not otherwise subject to the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR) during the Extended JPOA Period would not be sanctionable.
Insurance payments for claims arising from incidents that occur during the JPOA Period and/or Extended JPOA Period may be paid after November 24, 2014, so long as the underlying transactions and activities conform to all other aspects of the sanctions remaining in place and the terms of the sanctions relief provided in the JPOA. Insurance and reinsurance companies should contact the U.S. government directly with any inquiries.
U.S. persons and their foreign subsidiaries remain prohibited from participating in the provision of insurance or reinsurance services to or for the benefit of Iran or sanctioned entities, including with respect to all elements of the sanctions relief provided pursuant to the JPOA, unless specifically authorized by OFAC.
The Secretary of State took the following action:
Acting under the authorities vested in me as Secretary of State, including through the applicable delegations of authority, I hereby make the following determinations and certifications:
Pursuant to Sections 1244(i), 1245(g), 1246(e), and 1247(f) of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (subtitle D of title XII of Pub. L. 112-239, 22 U.S.C. 8801
1. Section 1244(c)(1) of IFCA
a. Transactions by non-U.S. persons for the export from Iran of petrochemical products,
b. Transactions by U.S. or non-U.S. persons for the supply and installation of spare parts necessary for the safety of flight for Iranian civil aviation, for safety-related inspections and repairs in Iran, and for associated services, provided that OFAC has issued any required licenses, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List except for Iran Air;
c. Transactions by non-U.S. persons to which sanctions would not apply if an exception under section 1244(g)(2) of IFCA were applied to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, and for insurance and transportation services associated with such transactions, provided that such transactions are consistent with the purchase amounts provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013, as extended, excluding any transactions or associated services involving persons on the SDN List except for the National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company;
d. Transactions by non-U.S. persons for the sale, supply or transfer to or from Iran of precious metals, provided that such transactions are within the scope of the waiver of Sections 1245(a)(1)(A) and 1245(c) of IFCA (section 3 below), and for associated services, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List except for any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599;
2. Section 1244(d) of IFCA to the extent required for the sale, supply or transfer of goods or services by non-U.S. persons in connection with transactions by non-U.S. persons to which sanctions would not apply if an exception under section 1244(g)(2) of IFCA were applied to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, and for insurance and transportation services associated with such transactions, provided that such transactions are consistent with the purchase amounts provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013, as extended, excluding any transactions or associated services involving persons on the SDN List except for the National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company;
3. Sections 1245(a)(1)(A) and 1245(c) of IFCA to the extent required for transactions by non-U.S. persons for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of precious metals, provided that:
a. Such transactions do not involve persons on the SDN List, except for any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599 or any Iranian depository institution listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599; and
b. This waiver shall not apply to transactions for the sale, supply, or transfer to Iran of precious metals involving funds credited to an account located outside Iran pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(D)(ii)(II) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012;
4. Section 1246(a) of IFCA
a. By non-U.S. persons for the export from Iran of petrochemical products and for associated services, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List except for the following companies: Bandar Imam Petrochemical Company; Bou Ali Sina Petrochemical Company; Ghaed Bassir Petrochemical Products; Iran Petrochemical Commercial Company; Jam Petrochemical Company; Marjan Petrochemical Company; Mobin Petrochemical Company; National Petrochemical Company; Nouri Petrochemical Company; Pars Petrochemical Company; Sadaf Petrochemical Assaluyeh Company; Shahid Tondgooyan Petrochemical Company; Shazand Petrochemical Company; and Tabriz Petrochemical Company;
b. By U.S. persons or non-U.S. persons for the supply and installation of spare parts necessary for the safety of flight for Iranian civil aviation, for safety-related inspections and repairs in Iran, and for associated services, provided that OFAC has issued any required licenses, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List except for Iran Air;
c. By non-U.S. persons for transactions to which sanctions would not apply if an exception under section 1244(g)(2) of IFCA were applied to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, and for insurance and transportation services associated with such transactions, provided that such transactions are consistent with the purchase amounts provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013, as extended, excluding any transactions or associated services involving persons on the SDN List except for the National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company; and
d. By non-U.S. persons for the sale, supply or transfer to or from Iran of precious metals, provided that such transactions are within the scope of the waiver of Sections 1245(a)(1)(A) and 1245(c) of IFCA, and for associated services, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List except for any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599;
e. By non-U.S. persons for the sale, supply or transfer to Iran of goods and services used in connection with the automotive sector of Iran and for associated services, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List.
5. Section 1247(a) of IFCA
a. Bandar Imam Petrochemical Company; Bou Ali Sina Petrochemical Company; Ghaed Bassir Petrochemical Products; Iran Petrochemical Commercial Company; Jam Petrochemical Company; Marjan Petrochemical Company; Mobin Petrochemical Company; National Petrochemical Company; Nouri Petrochemical Company; Pars Petrochemical Company; Shahid Tondgooyan Petrochemical Company; Sadaf Petrochemical Assaluyeh Company; Shahid Tondgooyan Petrochemical Company; Shazand Petrochemical Company; and Tabriz Petrochemical Company for the export from Iran of petrochemicals;
b. Iran Air for the supply and installation of spare parts necessary for the safety of flight by Iran Air and for safety-related inspections and repairs for Iran Air, provided that OFAC has issued any required licenses;
c. The National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company for transactions by non-U.S. persons to which sanctions would not apply if an exception under section 1244(g)(2) of IFCA were applied to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, provided that such transactions are consistent with the purchase amounts provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013, as extended, excluding any transactions or associated services involving any other persons on the SDN List; and
d. Any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599 for the sale, supply or transfer to or from Iran of precious metals, provided that such transactions are within the scope of the waiver of Sections 1245(a)(1)(A) and 1245(c) of IFCA.
Pursuant to Section 4(c)(1)(A) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-172, 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) (ISA), I certify that it is vital to the national security interests of the United States to waive the application of section 5(a)(7) of ISA to the National Iranian Oil Company and the National Iranian Tanker Company to the extent required for insurance and transportation services provided on or after July 18, 2014, and associated with transactions to which sanctions would not apply if an exception under section 1244(g)(2) of IFCA were applied to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, provided that such transactions are consistent with the purchase amounts provided for in the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013, as extended.
These waivers shall take effect upon their transmittal to Congress, unless otherwise provided in the relevant provision of law, and the waivers shall apply to transactions during the period July 18, 2014, through November 24, 2014.
Therefore, these sanctions have been waived as described in the determinations above. Relevant agencies and instrumentalities of the United States Government shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this notice.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed Northwest Corridor highway project within the Municipalities of Hatillo,
Luis D. López-Rivera, PE, Environmental Specialist, FHWA Puerto Rico Division Office, 350 Avenue Carlos Chardón Suite 210, San Juan PR 00918-2161; Telephone: (787) 766-5600.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority (PRHTA), will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal for improvements to the Hatillo-Aguadilla Northwest Corridor in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The proposed project starts at PR-22/PR-2 intersection in the municipality of Hatillo, and ends at State Road PR-2 between kilometers 128.0 and 130.0 in the municipality of Aguadilla for a total length of approximately 45 kilometers.
The main goals of the Northwest Corridor project are: (1) Complete an expressway from San Juan to Aguadilla; (2) provide a more efficient system linkage in the study corridor; (3) alleviate local congestion on PR-2 in the municipalities of Hatillo, Camuy, Quebradillas, Isabela, Moca, and Aguadilla; (4) reduce travel time in at least 20% from Hatillo to Aguadilla; (5) improve traffic safety conditions from Hatillo to Aguadilla; (6) reduce the vehicle operating and maintenance costs of vehicle owners using the route; (7) reduce vehicle air emissions; and (8) promote the socioeconomic development of the northwest region of Puerto Rico.
Alternates under consideration include but are not limited to the following: (1) Taking no action; (2) widening the existing four-lane and at grade intersections to six-lanes and intersection overpasses at State Road PR-2; (3) constructing a four-lanes, limited access highway on new location; (4) and (5) constructing four-lanes, limited access highway segments on two new locations in combination with widening the existing four-lane and at grade intersections to six-lanes and intersection overpasses on other State Road PR-2 segments; (6) Dynamic Toll Lanes at State Road PR-2 from Hatillo to Aguadilla and constructing a four lanes limited access highway on the Aguadilla segment. The EIS will be developed in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 139, 23 CFR 771, and 40 CFR 1500-1508.
Public involvement will occur throughout the development of the environmental studies and the EIS. These documents will be made available for review and comments by federal and state resource agencies and the public. Specific efforts to encourage involvement by, and solicit comments from, minority and low-income populations in the project study area will be made. A series of public information meetings will be held during the project study. In addition, a public hearing will be held after the completion of the Draft EIS. Public notice will be given as to the time and place of all public information meetings and hearings.
Inquiries related to the Hatillo-Aguadilla Northwest Corridor Project EIS can be sent to FHWA at the address provided above or at
The EIS process will conclude with a Record of Decision selecting either the no build alternative or a preferred alternative.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. A
Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before September 3, 2014.
Dr. Kathy Sifrit at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NTI-132), W46-472, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Sifrit's phone number is 202-366-0868 and her email address is
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Central of Georgia Railroad Company (CGA), a wholly owned subsidiary of Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) (collectively, applicants) have jointly filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F—
Applicants have certified that (1) no local traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years; (2) no overhead traffic has moved over the Line for at least two years, and if there were any overhead traffic, it could be rerouted over other lines; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the Line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the Line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the two-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c) (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to these exemptions, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment or discontinuance shall be protected under
Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, these exemptions will be effective on September 3, 2014, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues,
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicants' representatives: William A. Mullins (representing CGA), Baker & Miller PLLC, 2401 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20037; and Louis E. Gitomer (representing CSXT), Law Offices of Louis E. Gitomer, LLC, 600 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 301, Towson, MD 21204.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemptions are void
Applicants have filed a combined environmental and historic report that addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment and discontinuance on the environment and historic resources. OEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by August 8, 2014. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to OEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling OEA at (202) 245-0305. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), CGA shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the Line. If consummation has not been effected by CGA's filing of a notice of consummation by August 4, 2015, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at “
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice, publication of guidance.
The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing Guidance Relating to the Provision of Certain Temporary Sanctions Relief in Order to Implement the Joint Plan Of Action (JPOA) Reached on November 24, 2013, between the P5 + 1 and the Islamic Republic of Iran, as Extended Through November 24, 2014 (Guidance).
Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Policy, tel.: 202-622-2402, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (
On November 24, 2013, the United States and its partners in the P5 + 1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, coordinated by the European Union's High Representative) reached an initial understanding with Iran, outlined in the JPOA, that halts progress on Iran's nuclear program and rolls it back in key respects. In return for Iran's commitment to place meaningful limits on its nuclear program, the P5 + 1 committed to provide Iran with limited, targeted, and reversible sanctions relief for a six-month period, renewable by mutual consent. In furtherance of the United States Government's (USG's) commitments under the JPOA, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of the Treasury implemented sanctions relief relating to certain activities and associated services taking place exclusively during the six-month period beginning on January 20, 2014, and ending July 20, 2014 (the JPOA Period).
The JPOA was renewed by mutual consent of the P5 + 1 and Iran on July 19, 2014, extending the temporary sanctions relief provided under the JPOA to cover the period beginning on July 21, 2014, and ending November 24, 2014 (the Extended JPOA Period), in order to continue to negotiate a long-term comprehensive solution to ensure that Iran's nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. During the Extended JPOA Period, the sanctions relief the USG committed to during the JPOA will be continued, as set out in the Guidance. The USG retains the authority to revoke this limited sanctions relief at any time if Iran fails to meet its commitments under the JPOA.
The Department of State and the Department of the Treasury jointly issued the updated Guidance on July 21, 2014. At the time of its issuance on July 21, 2014, OFAC made the Guidance available on the OFAC Web site:
On November 24, 2013, the United States and its partners in the P5 + 1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, coordinated by the European Union's High Representative) reached an initial understanding with Iran, outlined in a Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), that halts progress on Iran's nuclear program and rolls it back in key respects. In return for Iran's commitment to place meaningful limits on its nuclear program, the P5 + 1 committed to provide Iran with limited, targeted, and reversible sanctions relief for a six-month period, renewable by mutual consent. In furtherance of the U.S. Government's (USG) commitments under the JPOA, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of the Treasury implemented sanctions relief relating to certain activities and associated services taking place exclusively during the six-month period beginning on January 20, 2014, and ending July 20, 2014 (the JPOA Period).
The JPOA was renewed by mutual consent of the P5 + 1 and Iran on July 19, 2014, extending the temporary sanctions relief provided under the JPOA to cover the period beginning on July 21, 2014, and ending November 24, 2014 (the Extended JPOA Period), in order to continue to negotiate a long-term comprehensive solution to ensure that Iran's nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. During the Extended JPOA Period, the sanctions relief the USG committed to during the JPOA will be continued, as set out below. The USG retains the authority to revoke this limited sanctions relief at any time if Iran fails to meet its commitments under the JPOA.
For purposes of the JPOA sanctions relief, the USG interprets the term “associated service” to mean any necessary service—including any insurance, transportation, or financial service—ordinarily incident to the underlying activity covered by the JPOA, provided, however, that unless otherwise noted, such services may not involve persons identified on the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) List of
The USG retains the authority to continue imposing sanctions under the authorities identified below during the Extended JPOA Period for activities that occurred prior to January 20, 2014. Moreover, the USG retains the authority to impose sanctions under the authorities outlined below for activities occurring during the JPOA Period and/or the Extended JPOA Period to the extent such activities are materially inconsistent with sanctions relief described in the JPOA and outlined in this guidance. The USG also retains the authority to continue imposing sanctions during the Extended JPOA Period for activities occurring before and during the JPOA Period and the Extended JPOA Period under other authorities, such as those used to combat terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. During the Extended JPOA Period, the USG will continue to vigorously enforce our sanctions against Iran, including by taking action against those who seek to evade or circumvent our sanctions.
Please note that, with the exception of civil aviation activities described in section IV and the humanitarian channel described in section VI below, none of the sanctions relief outlined in this guidance may involve a U.S. person, or, as applicable, a foreign entity owned or controlled by a U.S. person,
The JPOA provides for the temporary suspension of U.S. sanctions on “
1.
2.
3.
In addition, please see section VII below, which describes the exercise of certain waiver authorities relevant to the activities and transactions described in this section.
The JPOA provides for the temporary suspension of U.S. sanctions on “Iran's auto industry, as well as sanctions on associated services.” To implement this provision during the Extended JPOA Period, the USG will continue to take the following steps to allow for the sale, supply, or transfer to Iran of significant goods or services used in connection with the automotive sector of Iran, as well as the provision of associated services by non-U.S. persons not otherwise subject to the ITSR:
1.
2.
In addition, please see section VII below, which describes the exercise of certain waiver authorities relevant to the activities and transactions described in this section.
The JPOA provides for the temporary suspension of U.S. sanctions on “
1.
2.
In addition, please see section VII below, which describes the exercise of certain waiver authorities relevant to the activities and transactions described in this section.
The JPOA provides for the temporary licensing of “
1.
2.
3.
In addition, please see Section VII below, which describes the exercise of certain waiver authorities relevant to the activities and transactions described in this section.
The JPOA provides for certain sanctions relief related to Iran's crude oil sales. Under the JPOA, the USG will “
1.
2.
3.
In addition, please see Section VII below, which describes the exercise of certain waiver authorities relevant to the activities and transactions described in this section.
The JPOA provides for the establishment of
Please note that the JPOA-related mechanism for humanitarian trade transactions is not the exclusive way to finance or facilitate the sale of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Iran by non-U.S. persons not otherwise subject to the ITSR, which is not generally sanctionable so long as the transaction does not involve persons designated in connection with Iran's support for international terrorism or Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or WMD delivery systems. Therefore, transactions for the export of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Iran generally may be processed pursuant to pre-existing exceptions and are not required to be processed through the new mechanism.
In addition, please see Section VII below, which describes the exercise of certain waiver authorities relevant to the activities and transactions described in this section.
To enable the implementation during the Extended JPOA Period of the sanctions relief outlined in the JPOA and described in detail in sections I through VI of this guidance, the USG has renewed, as needed, limited waivers of sanctions under: Section 1245(d)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) in connection with exports of crude oil from Iran to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey and for transactions related to the release in installments of an agreed amount of revenues to Iran for receipt at participating foreign financial institutions in selected jurisdictions and the establishment of the financial channel provided for in the JPOA; section 302(a) of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act
1. 1244(c)(1)—to the extent required for transactions by non-U.S. persons (and, in the case of the civil aviation activities described in section IV, U.S. persons): (i) For Iran's export of crude oil to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List other than NIOC and NITC; (ii) for the export from Iran of petrochemical products, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List other than the petrochemical companies listed in the Annex to this guidance; (iii) for the sale of precious metals to or from Iran, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List other than any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599; and (iv) for the supply and installation of spare parts necessary for the safety of Iranian civil aviation flights and for safety-related inspections and repairs in Iran, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List other than Iran Air.
2. 1244(d)—to the extent required for transactions by non-U.S. persons related to Iran's export of crude oil to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List other than NIOC and NITC.
3. 1245(a)(1)(A) and 1245(c)—to the extent required for transactions by non-U.S. persons for the sale, supply, or transfer of precious metals to or from Iran, provided that such transactions do not involve persons on the SDN List other than any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599 or any Iranian depository institutions listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599, and further provided that such transactions do not involve funds credited to an account located outside Iran pursuant to section 1245(d)(4)(D)(ii)(II) of NDAA.
4. 1246(a)—to the extent required for transactions by non-U.S. persons (and, in the case of the civil aviation activities described in section IV, U.S. persons) for: (i) Iran's exports of crude oil to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List other than NIOC and NITC; (ii) the export from Iran of petrochemical products, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List other than the petrochemical companies listed in the Annex to this guidance; (iii) the sale of precious metals to or from Iran, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List other than any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran listed solely pursuant to E.O. 13599; (iv) the sale, supply, or transfer to Iran of goods and services used in connection with the automotive sector of Iran, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List; and (v) the supply and installation of spare parts necessary for the safety of Iranian civil aviation flights and for safety-related inspections and repairs in Iran, excluding any transactions involving persons on the SDN List other than Iran Air.
5. 1247(a)—to the extent required for transactions by foreign financial institutions on behalf of: (i) NIOC and NITC related to Iran's exports of crude oil to China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey; (ii) the entities listed in the Annex to this guidance for the export of petrochemical products from Iran; (iii) any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Iran on the SDN List solely pursuant to E.O. 13599 for the sale of precious metals to or from Iran; and (iv) Iran Air for the supply and installation of spare parts necessary for the safety of Iranian civil aviation flights and for safety-related inspections and repairs in Iran.
1. Bandar Imam Petrochemical Company;
2. Bou Ali Sina Petrochemical Company;
3. Ghaed Bassir Petrochemical Products Company;
4. Iran Petrochemical Commercial Company;
5. Jam Petrochemical Company;
6. Marjan Petrochemical Company;
7. Mobin Petrochemical Company;
8. National Petrochemical Company;
9. Nouri Petrochemical Company;
10. Pars Petrochemical Company;
11. Sadaf Petrochemical Assaluyeh Company;
12. Shahid Tondgooyan; Petrochemical Company;
13. Shazand Petrochemical Company; and
14. Tabriz Petrochemical Company.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Revenue Procedure 2002-23, Taxation of Canadian Retirement Plans Under U.S.-Canada Income Tax Treaty.
Written comments should be received on or before October 3, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Electronic Filing of Form W-4.
Written comments should be received on or before October 3, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to, LaNita Van Dyke, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to Passive Foreign Investment Companies.
Written comments should be received on or before October 3, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke,at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning carryover of passive activity losses and credits and at-risk losses to bankruptcy estates of individuals.
Written comments should be received on or before October 3, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of this regulation should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6517, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, that the National Research Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Wednesday, September 10, 2014, in conference room 23, at 131 M St NE., Washington, DC. The meeting will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 4:00 p.m., and is open to the public. Anyone attending must show a valid photo ID to building security and be escorted to the meeting. Please allow 15 minutes before the meeting begins for this process.
The agenda will include an overview of the research programs of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) (10P9), a clinical presentation, and presentations on special research programs.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Members of the public wanting to attend, or needing further information, may contact Pauline Cilladi-Rehrer, Designated Federal Officer, ORD (10P9), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 443-5607, or by email at
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation (Committee) will meet on August 25-27, 2014, at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Board of Veterans' Appeals, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, in Conference Room 5E.100 on the Fifth Floor. The sessions will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. on all three days. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising during service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation.
The Committee will receive briefings on issues related to compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and other VA benefits programs. Time will be allocated for receiving public comments. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record.
The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Nancy Copeland, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, Regulation Staff (211D), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420 or by email at
Because the meeting is being held in a government building, a photo I.D. must be presented at the Guard's Desk as a part of the clearance process. Therefore, you should allow an additional 15 minutes before the meeting begins. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should email Mrs. Copeland or contact her at (202) 461-9685 or email Mr. Brendan Sheedy at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner (
This rule becomes effective on September 3, 2014.
This final rule is available on the Internet at
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated are included in the administrative record for this critical habitat designation and are available at
Debra Bills, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Texas Ecological Services Field Office, 2005 NE Green Oaks Blvd., Suite 140, Arlington, TX 76006; by telephone 817-277-1100; or by facsimile 817-277-1129. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
Elsewhere in today's
The critical habitat areas we are designating in this rule constitute our current best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner. We are designating approximately 1,002 river kilometers (km) (623 miles (mi)) of the upper Brazos River basin and the upland areas extending beyond the bankfull river channel by 30 meters (m) (98 feet (ft)) on each side as critical habitat for the species.
On August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47582; 78 FR 47612), we proposed to list the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner as endangered species and proposed to designate critical habitat under the Act. We held a public hearing on September 4, 2013, in Abilene, Texas. On March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12138), we published a notice of availability that requested comments on the draft economic analysis of critical habitat, as well as the proposed critical habitat designation. This comment period closed on April 3, 2014 (79 FR 12138).
All previous Federal actions are described in the August 6, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 47612) and the final rule listing the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner as endangered species under the Act, which is published elsewhere in today's
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner during two comment periods. The first comment
During the first comment period, we received 72 comment letters directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During the second comment period, we received 34 additional comment letters addressing the proposed critical habitat designation or the draft economic analysis. During the September 4, 2013, public hearing, nine individuals or organizations made comments, although not all specifically on the designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner or smalleye shiner. All substantive information provided during comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final rule, incorporated in the SSA Report, or addressed below. Comments received regarding critical habitat are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. Comments regarding the SSA Report are incorporated in Appendix B of the SSA Report.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from four knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the sharpnose and smalleye shiners or their habitats, biological needs, threats, general fish biology, and aquatic ecology. We received responses from three of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for the sharpnose and smalleye shiner. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and our assessment of the current status of these species. They provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the SSA Report. Peer reviewer comments were all specific to the SSA Report and are addressed in Appendix B of the SSA Report. Although changes were made to the SSA Report, generally the peer reviewers further supported our science and analysis.
(1)
Section 4(i) of the Act states, “the Secretary shall submit to the State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.” Comments received from the State regarding the proposal to designate critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner are addressed below.
(2)
The notification of the public hearing was clearly stated in both the proposed rule to list the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner as endangered species and in the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for these species on August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47582; 78 FR 47612). A notification of the public hearing was also published in the Lubbock Avalanche on Sunday, August 18th; the Abilene Reporter News on Sunday, August 18th; the Waco Tribune Herald on Sunday, August 25th; and the Baylor County Banner from August 15th through the 22nd. These newspapers have relatively large distributions with one located immediately upstream of designated critical habitat, one downstream of designated critical habitat, and two having distributions in or around designated critical habitat.
The Service mailed letters, which included information regarding the public hearing, to over 100 recipients shortly after the proposed rules published on August 6, 2013. Letter recipients included Federal agencies, State agencies, city offices, county courthouses, and numerous nongovernmental organizations. Service staff also contacted approximately 56 local media outlets and posted a news release containing the public hearing announcement on both the Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office and Service's Southwest Region Web pages.
The Act does not require the Service to hold multiple public hearings in multiple locations. The Act also does not indicate a necessary proximity to proposed designated critical habitat within which to hold a public hearing. The Service chose Abilene, Texas, because it is the largest city centrally located to the proposed designated critical habitat that contained a venue of appropriate size and with reasonable access by major roads and highways. The Service also held the public hearing in the evening to provide adequate time for attendees to travel after normal work hours. To provide additional opportunity to provide comments, the Service reopened the comment period on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for these species for 30 days to coincide with the availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for sharpnose and smalleye shiners on March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12138).
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
In contrast, the economic effects memo is tied to a projection of costs to specific projects that may require consultation. Only two specific potential reservoirs were identified by a Federal agency in the economic analysis process. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Lubbock, Texas, identified specific dam and reservoir projects in Subunit 1 (the Cedar Creek Reservoir) and Subunit 6 (Lake Alan Henry Reservoir). As such, the Service's incremental effects memorandum and listing rule are not contradictory. The economic cost associated with critical habitat consultation through section 7 of the Act will most likely be limited to additional administrative effort to consider adverse modification because all proposed critical habitat units are considered occupied. Thus, the presence of the shiner would trigger section 7 consultation with the Service even if critical habitat was not designated.
(7)
We considered three primary data sources in this evaluation: (1) The historical consultation rate within the counties containing proposed shiner critical habitat, (2) information Federal agencies provided to the Service regarding specific projects that may require future consultation, and (3) public comments. As summarized in Exhibit 3 of the screening memorandum, extremely low levels of section 7 consultations have occurred in the past in counties containing proposed critical habitat. Further, the
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
The Service welcomes the opportunity to provide technical assistance to landowners on a river crossing design that would meet the needs of the landowner (structural stability and effectiveness) while also allowing for unobstructed water flow and fish passage. The Service firmly believes well-designed river crossings would benefit both landowners and sharpnose and smalleye shiners.
(13)
In selecting peer reviewers we followed the guidelines for Federal agencies spelled out in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,” released December 16, 2004, and the Service's “Information Quality Guidelines and Peer Review”, revised June 2012. Part of the peer review process is to provide information online about how each peer review is to be conducted. Prior to publishing the proposed listing and critical habitat rules for the shiners, we posted a peer review plan on our Web site at
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
Portions of the occupied upper Brazos River basin where critical habitat has been designated periodically dry out during arid summer months. During these dry periods sections of critical habitat may be completely dry and therefore be temporarily unoccupied. The designation of critical habitat will help ensure Federal agencies consult on projects during dry seasons when fish may be temporarily absent. The Service would consider these dry areas occupied for the purpose of consultation although fish may not be physically present at all times. This process is similar to how the Service has historically treated seasonal habitat for migratory birds and other animals.
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
The evaluation of the impacts of a given rulemaking such as critical habitat is based on the direct and indirect impacts that are probable or reasonably likely to occur. These generally include direct impacts to Federal action agencies consulting with the Service on actions that they undertake that may affect critical habitat. Indirect effects generally include impacts associated with project modifications, delays, and conservation recommendations that a project proponent may incur as a result of the designation. The impact analysis does not and should not evaluate the potential costs associated with third-party litigation that could result from the rulemaking or project as that litigation is too speculative. This assertion is further supported by the fact that, based on our history of designating critical habitat for more than 650 federally listed species across the nation, we have found that proportionately very few designations have been litigated or resulted in third-party litigation on projects. As a consequence, we disagree with the commenter that our impact analysis should evaluate potential litigation costs that could result from a designation as a cost of the designation itself.
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
Only minor changes and clarifications were made to this final rule designating critical habitat based on comments received. The SSA Report was updated, clarified, and expanded based on several peer review and public comments. However, these changes did not modify our assessment of the critical habitat designation.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the
When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential for the sharpnose shiner from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the
Sharpnose shiners occur in fairly shallow, flowing water, often less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) deep with sandy substrates. They broadcast spawn semi-buoyant eggs and larvae that may remain suspended in the water column for several days before they are capable of independent swimming, indicating there is a minimum river segment length necessary to support successful reproduction and survival. A comparison of minimum estimated reach length requirements for similar species and current modeling efforts for this species indicate an unobstructed reach length of greater than 275 km (171 mi) is likely required to complete the species' life history. Lengths greater
Therefore, based on the information above and additional analysis in the March 2014 SSA Report (Service 2014, Chapter 2), we identify flowing water of sufficient unobstructed length (275 km (171 mi)) to be a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the sharpnose shiner.
Sharpnose shiners are generalist feeders consuming aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates (mostly insects), plant material, and detritus. The presence of terrestrial insects in its diet suggests native riparian vegetation along the stream banks where the sharpnose shiners occur is important in providing food availability. The prevalence of sand-silt in the gut contents of sharpnose shiners indicates they likely forage among the sediments when food availability is low, suggesting river segments containing sandy substrates may be preferred by this species.
Flowing water of sufficient quality (minimal pollution, lacking golden alga toxicity, and within physiological tolerances) is required for the survival of these species. Sharpnose shiners can tolerate temperatures of 39.2 degrees Celsius (°C) (102.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) only briefly and generally require oxygen concentrations above 2.66 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (2.66 parts per million (ppm)). Sharpnose shiners experience significant mortality at salinities greater than 25 millisiemens per centimeter (mS/cm) (15 parts per thousand (ppt)). The susceptibility of sharpnose shiners to environmental pollutants is not well understood; however, it has been observed that petroleum contamination, and possibly other pollutants, are capable of killing this species. Although the effects of golden alga on sharpnose shiners have not been documented, toxic blooms in occupied habitat are certain to cause mortality.
Native riparian vegetation adjacent to the river channel where the sharpnose shiner occurs is important as a source of food (terrestrial insects) and in maintaining physical habitat conditions in the stream channel. Riparian areas are essential for energy and nutrient cycling, filtering runoff, absorbing and gradually releasing floodwaters, recharging groundwater, and maintaining stream flows. Healthy riparian corridors help ensure aquatic resources maintain the ecological integrity essential to stream fishes, including the sharpnose shiner. A riparian width of 30 m (98 ft) is generally sufficient to protect the water quality of adjacent streams and is expected to provide the necessary prey base for sharpnose shiners (Service 2014, Chapter 6).
Therefore, based on the information above and additional analysis in the March 2014 SSA Report (Service 2014, Chapter 2), we identify river segments containing flowing water of sufficient quality (i.e., within physiological tolerances, low in toxic pollutants, and lacking toxic golden alga blooms) with sandy substrates, and their associated native riparian vegetation, to be physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the sharpnose shiner.
Specific cover or sheltering requirements for sharpnose shiners within the aquatic ecosystem have not been identified and may not be pertinent to their conservation because these fish mostly occur in open water. Therefore, we have not identified any specific cover or shelter habitat requirements to be physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the sharpnose shiner.
Successful reproduction by sharpnose shiners requires minimum levels of flowing water through the summer breeding season. Cyprinid eggs spawned into the pelagic zone (open water not near the river bottom) become semi-buoyant within 10 to 30 minutes, allowing them to drift through the water column for approximately 1 or 2 days prior to hatching. Larval stages (before fish reach the free-swimming juvenile stage) may drift in the water column for an additional 2 to 3 days post-hatching.
Spawning occurs from April through September asynchronously (fish not spawning at the same time) during periods of no and low flow, and synchronously (many fish spawning at the same time) during elevated streamflow events. Successful recruitment (survival to the juvenile fish stage) does not occur during periods completely lacking flow. This is because in no-flow conditions, the floating eggs, zygotes, and larval fish of broadcast spawners sink and suffocate in the anoxic sediments and are more susceptible to predation. Modeling studies have estimated minimum mean summer discharge of 2.61 cubic meters per second (m
Therefore, based on the information above and additional analysis in the March 2014 SSA Report (Service 2014, Chapter 2), we identify river segments with a minimum mean summer discharge of approximately 2.61 m
Sharpnose shiner habitat is subject to dynamic changes resulting from flooding and drying of occupied waterways. Consequently, fluctuating water levels create circumstances in which the extent of the sharpnose shiner's range varies over time, and may be periodically contracted or expanded depending on water availability. Worsening drought conditions are increasing the intensity and duration of river drying in the upper Brazos River basin. As a result of these dynamic changes, particularly during intense droughts, sharpnose shiners require unobstructed river segments through which they can migrate to find refuge from river drying. These fish can later emigrate from these refugia (spring-fed pools, isolated pools, and reservoirs) and recolonize normally occupied areas when suitable conditions return.
Therefore, based on the information above and additional analysis in the March 2014 SSA Report (Service 2014, Chapter 2), we identify unobstructed river segments of at least 275 km (171 mi) to be a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the sharpnose shiner because these unobstructed river segments will allow this species to recolonize previously occupied areas following river drying. If arid climate fish refugia are separated from one another by fish migration barriers recolonization of the currently occupied range of the species will not be possible following severe drought.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential for the smalleye shiner from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the
Smalleye shiners occur in fairly shallow, flowing water, often less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) deep with sandy substrates. They broadcast spawn semi-buoyant eggs and larvae that may remain suspended in the water column for several days before larval fish are capable of independent swimming, indicating there is a minimum stream reach length necessary to support successful reproduction and survival. A comparison of minimum estimated reach length requirements for similar species and current modeling efforts for this species indicate that an unobstructed reach length of greater than 275 km (171 mi) is likely required to complete the species' life history. Lengths greater than 275 km (171 mi) would also provide migratory pathways to refugia in which smalleye shiners may survive drought conditions.
Therefore, based on the information above and additional analysis in the March 2014 SSA Report (Service 2014, Chapter 2), we identify flowing water of sufficient unobstructed length (275 km (171 mi)) to be a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the smalleye shiner.
Smalleye shiners are generalist feeders consuming aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates (mostly insects), plant material, and detritus. The presence of terrestrial insects in the smalleye shiner's diet suggests native riparian vegetation along the banks of inhabited rivers is important in providing food availability, as well as the general health of the aquatic riverine ecosystem. The prevalence of sand-silt in the gut contents of smalleye shiners indicate they likely forage among the sediments when food availability is low, suggesting river segments containing sandy substrates may be preferred by this species.
Water of sufficient quality (minimal pollution, lacking golden alga toxicity, and within physiological tolerances) is required for the survival of these species. Smalleye shiners can tolerate temperatures of 40.6 °C (105.1 °F) only briefly and generally require oxygen concentrations above 2.11 mg/L (2.11 ppm). Smalleye shiners experience significant mortality at salinities greater than 30 mS/cm (18 ppt). The susceptibility of smalleye shiners to environmental pollutants is not well understood; however, it has been observed that petroleum contamination, and possibly other pollutants, are capable of killing this species. Although the effects of golden alga on smalleye shiners have not been documented, blooms in occupied habitat are certain to cause mortality in this species.
Native riparian vegetation adjacent to the river channel where the smalleye shiner occurs is important as a source of food (terrestrial insects) and in maintaining physical habitat conditions in the stream channel. Riparian areas are essential for energy and nutrient cycling, filtering runoff, absorbing and gradually releasing floodwaters, recharging groundwater, and maintaining stream flows. Healthy riparian corridors help ensure aquatic resources maintain the ecological integrity essential to stream fishes, including the smalleye shiner. A riparian width of 30 m (98 ft) is generally sufficient to protect the water quality of adjacent streams and is expected to provide the necessary prey base for smalleye shiners (Service 2014, Chapter 6).
Therefore, based on the information above and additional analysis in the March 2014 SSA Report (Service 2014, Chapter 2), we identify sandy-bottomed river segments containing flowing water of sufficient quality (i.e., within physiological tolerance, low in toxic pollutants, and lacking toxic golden algal blooms), and their associated native riparian vegetation, to be physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the smalleye shiner.
Specific cover or sheltering requirements for smalleye shiners within the aquatic ecosystem have not been identified and may not be pertinent to their conservation because these fish mostly occur in open water. Therefore, we have not identified any specific cover or shelter habitat requirements to be physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the smalleye shiner.
Successful reproduction by smalleye shiners requires minimum levels of flowing water through the summer breeding season. Cyprinid eggs spawned into the pelagic zone (open water not near the river bottom) become semi-buoyant within 10 to 30 minutes, allowing them to drift through the water column for approximately 1 or 2 days prior to hatching. Larval stages may drift in the water column for an additional 2 to 3 days post-hatching.
Spawning occurs from April through September asynchronously during periods of no and low flow, and synchronously during elevated streamflow events. Successful recruitment (survival to the juvenile fish stage) does not occur during periods completely lacking flow. This is because in no-flow conditions, the floating eggs, zygotes, and larval fish of broadcast spawners sink and suffocate in the anoxic sediments and are more susceptible to predation. Modeling studies have estimated minimum mean summer discharge of 6.43 m
Therefore, based on the information above and additional analysis in the March 2014 SSA Report (Service 2014, Chapter 2), we identify river segments with a minimum mean summer discharge of approximately 6.43 m
Smalleye shiner habitat is subject to dynamic changes resulting from flooding and drying of occupied waterways. Consequently, fluctuating water levels create circumstances in which the extent of the sharpnose and smalleye shiner's range vary over time, and may be periodically contracted or expanded depending on water availability. Worsening drought conditions are increasing the intensity and duration of river drying in the upper Brazos River basin. As a result of these dynamic changes, particularly during intense droughts, smalleye shiners require unobstructed river segments through which they can migrate to find refuge from river drying. These fish can later emigrate from these refugia (spring-fed pools, isolated pools, and reservoirs) and recolonize normally
Therefore, based on the information above and additional analysis in the March 2014 SSA Report (Service 2014, Chapter 2), we identify unobstructed river segments of at least 275 km (171 mi) to be a physical or biological feature essential to the conservation of the sharpnose shiner because these unobstructed river segments will allow this species to recolonize previously occupied areas following river drying. If arid climate fish refugia are separated from one another by fish migration barriers, recolonization of the currently occupied range of the species will not be possible following severe drought.
In summary, the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner need specific vital resources for survival and completion of their life histories. One of the most important aspects of their life histories is that their broadcast-spawn eggs and developing larvae require flowing water of sufficient length within which they develop into free-swimming juvenile fish. In addition, sharpnose shiners and smalleye shiners typically live for no more than two breeding seasons. As a result, if resources are not available in a single spawning season, their populations would be greatly impacted, and if resources are not available through two consecutive breeding seasons, the impacts would be catastrophic.
The sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner have exceptionally specialized habitat requirements to support these life-history needs and maintain adequate population sizes. Habitat requirements are characterized by river segments of greater than 275 km (171 mi) with estimated average spawning season flows greater than 2.61 m
Populations of sharpnose shiners and smalleye shiners with a high likelihood of long-term viability require contiguous river segments containing the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of these species. This contiguous suitable habitat is necessary to retain the reproductive success of these species in the face of natural and manmade seasonal fluctuations of water availability. Sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner habitat is subject to dynamic changes resulting from flooding and drying of occupied waterways. Consequently, fluctuating water levels create circumstances in which the extent of the sharpnose and smalleye shiner's range varies over time, and may be periodically contracted or expanded depending on water availability.
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to identify the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes (Service 2014, Chapter 2), we determine that the primary constituent element (PCE) specific to the sharpnose shiner consists of a riverine system with habitat to support all life stages of sharpnose shiners, which includes:
(1) Unobstructed, sandy-bottomed river segments greater than 275 km (171 mi) in length.
(2) Flowing water of greater than approximately 2.61 m
(3) Water of sufficient quality to support survival and reproduction, characterized by:
a. Temperatures generally less than 39.2 °C (102.6 °F);
b. Dissolved oxygen concentrations generally greater than 2.66 mg/L (2.66 ppm);
c. Salinities generally less than 25 mS/cm (15 ppt); and
d. Sufficiently low petroleum and other pollutant concentrations such that mortality does not occur.
(4) Native riparian vegetation capable of maintaining river water quality, providing a terrestrial prey base, and maintaining a healthy riparian ecosystem.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes (Service 2014, Chapter 2), we determine that the primary constituent element (PCEs) specific to the smalleye shiner consists of a riverine system with habitat to support all life-history stages of smalleye shiners, which includes:
(1) Unobstructed, sandy-bottomed river segments greater than 275 km (171 mi) in length.
(2) Flowing water of greater than approximately 6.43 m
(3) Water of sufficient quality to support survival and reproduction, characterized by:
a. Temperatures generally less than 40.6 °C (105.1 °F);
b. Dissolved oxygen concentrations generally greater than 2.11 mg/L;
c. Salinities less than 30 mS/cm (18 ppt); and
d. Sufficiently low petroleum and other pollutant concentrations such that mortality does not occur.
(4) Native riparian vegetation capable of maintaining river water quality, providing a terrestrial prey base, and maintaining a healthy riparian ecosystem.
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The features essential to the conservation of these species may require special management considerations or protection to reduce the following threats: Habitat loss and modification from fragmentation of river segments; alteration to natural flow regimes by impoundment, groundwater withdrawal, and drought; water quality degradation; and invasive saltcedar encroachment.
River fragmentation decreases the unobstructed river length required for successful reproduction in these species. Impoundments, groundwater withdrawal, saltcedar encroachment, and drought have the potential to reduce river flow below the minimum requirement to keep the eggs and larvae of these species afloat and ultimately for
For sharpnose shiners and smalleye shiners, special management considerations or protection may be needed to address threats. Management activities that could ameliorate threats include, but are not limited to: (1) Removing or modifying existing minor fish barriers to allow fish passage; (2) managing existing reservoirs to allow sufficient river flow to support shiner reproduction and population growth; (3) protecting groundwater, surface water, and spring flow quantity; (4) protecting water quality by implementing comprehensive programs to control and reduce point sources and non-point sources of pollution; and (5) protecting and managing native riparian vegetation. A more complete discussion of the threats to the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner and their habitats can be found in the March 2014 SSA Report (Service 2014, Chapter 3).
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. For this rule, we rely heavily on the analysis of biological information reviewed in the March 2014 SSA Report (Service 2014). In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If, after identifying currently occupied areas, we determine that those areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species, in accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) we then consider whether designating additional areas—outside those currently occupied—are essential for the conservation of the species. We are not designating any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species because occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of the species.
For the purpose of designating critical habitat for the sharpnose and smalleye shiners, we defined occupancy based on several criteria. First, we defined occupancy to include areas with confirmed persistence of both species within the Brazos River basin of Texas upstream of Possum Kingdom Lake in the Brazos River main stem, Salt Fork of the Brazos River, Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, and North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (Service 2014, Chapter 4) based on survey results since 2008. We chose to use survey results since 2008 because these data are relatively consistent from year to year and represent the best available information for what areas should be considered occupied at the time of listing. Second, we defined occupancy to include tributaries once known to be historically occupied by one or both species that lack sufficient fish sampling but are contiguous (i.e., lacking fish migration barriers) with areas in the upper Brazos River confirmed to be occupied by both species. The sharpnose and smalleye shiner are similar in their biology, and they are both capable of colonizing river segments when conditions are favorable. Therefore, we considered tributary streams to be occupied at the time of listing if they were previously occupied by either species. Third, tributaries for which we had no information that either species recently or historically occurred were not considered occupied, even if they were contiguous with areas that are currently occupied.
Segments considered to be occupied at the time of listing were then assessed to determine if they contained the physical or biological features for the species and whether they may require special management considerations or protection. River segments not exceeding 275 km (171 mi) upstream of the lentic waters of Possum Kingdom Lake were not included because they lack the necessary physical or biological features for successful reproduction. Segments that do not typically maintain suitable water quality conditions (i.e., within physiological tolerances, minimal pollution, lacking regular golden alga blooms) were not included because they would not likely support a viable population of shiners. Segments not likely to maintain minimum mean spawning season flows capable of sustaining populations of either species, even during favorable climatic conditions, were also not included because they would not support successful reproduction.
The lower Brazos River, where shiners were released in 2012, is considered unoccupied for the purposes of determining critical habitat because prior to their 2012 release, both species had become extirpated or were functionally extirpated from this area as no fish had been collected since 2006. The release effort in 2012 was likely insufficient to restart a population of these species in the lower Brazos River. Therefore, given the old age, small number of fish released in 2012, and the inability to detect these species in subsequent surveys, it is likely they are extirpated from this reach of the Brazos River (Service 2014, Chapter 4).
To determine if any areas not considered occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species, we considered: (1) Whether the area was historically occupied; (2) the potential contribution of the area to the conservation of each species based on our March 2014 SSA Report (Service 2014, Chapter 2); (3) whether the area could be restored to contain the habitat conditions needed to support the species; and (4) whether a viable population of the species could be reestablished at the site. We recognize that both species likely need additional areas beyond those currently occupied in order to have sufficient redundancy and resiliency for long-term viability. However, our review of the areas within the historical range found that none of them have all four of these necessary characteristics to be considered essential for the conservation of either species.
We considered but did not include four areas that were historically occupied by one or both species as possible critical habitat: The Colorado River, Wichita River, middle Brazos River (between Possum Kingdom Lake and the low water crossing near the City of Marlin, Falls County, Texas), and lower Brazos River (downstream of Marlin to the Gulf of Mexico). The smalleye shiner is not known to have naturally occurred outside of the Brazos River basin, so neither the Colorado nor Wichita Rivers were considered essential for the conservation of that species. For the sharpnose shiner, our review found that neither the Colorado nor Wichita Rivers were considered necessary to maintain viability of either species because of the limited abundance and distribution of this shiner historically in these rivers. In addition, both of these rivers have extensive impoundments such that the unfragmented stream length needed for reproduction by these species is lacking.
The middle Brazos River also lacks the necessary unimpounded river length required to support sharpnose and smalleye shiner reproduction (Service 2014, Chapter 4). Existing impoundments are expected to exist into the future with no apparent potential for their removal. As a result, these areas cannot be restored to contain the necessary habitat conditions to support the species. Therefore, since this area of the middle Brazos River cannot be restored to appropriate habitat conditions, we find it is not essential for the conservation of either species, and we did not propose it as critical habitat.
The lower Brazos River was also found likely to have limited importance to the overall viability for both species (Service 2014, Chapter 2). The lower Brazos River does contain an unimpounded stream length long enough to support reproduction of sharpnose and smalleye shiners; however, their populations in this segment have already declined to the point that we presume they are extirpated from this reach. We expect the extirpation was the result of poor habitat conditions. Both the flow regime and river channel morphology of the lower Brazos River are considerably different (higher flow and deeper, wider channel) than the upper Brazos River, so this segment may never have supported populations of either species independent of the upper Brazos River populations. As a result, it is unlikely that sharpnose and smalleye shiners are capable of sustaining populations in the lower Brazos River without constant emigration (downstream dispersal) from the upstream source population in the upper Brazos River, which is now isolated by impoundments in the middle Brazos River. Therefore, with limited importance and the inability to support populations, we find the lower Brazos River is not essential for the conservation of either species, and we did not propose this area for critical habitat.
In conclusion, based on the best available information, we conclude that the areas within the historical range of one or both species, but not occupied by either species at the time of listing, are not essential for the conservation of either species. The Colorado and Wichita Rivers do not contribute substantially to the conservation of the sharpnose shiner and are unlikely to be restored to contain the necessary habitat conditions to support either species. The middle Brazos River cannot be restored to contain the necessary habitat conditions to support either species. The lower Brazos River may not be important for the conservation of either species and is not likely able to support a viable population of either species. Therefore, we have not desginated any areas as critical habitat beyond what is occupied at the time of listing.
In determining the lateral extent (overbank areas adjacent to the river channel) of critical habitat along proposed riverine segments, we considered the definition of critical habitat under the Act. Under the Act, critical habitat must contain the physical or biological features essential to a species' conservation and which may require special management considerations or protection. Conservation of the river channel alone is not sufficient to conserve sharpnose and smalleye shiners because the nearby native riparian vegetation areas adjacent to the river channel where the shiners occur are important components of the critical habitat for the shiners as a source of food (terrestrial insects) and to maintain physical habitat conditions in the stream channel. Riparian areas are essential for energy and nutrient cycling, filtering runoff, absorbing and gradually releasing floodwaters, recharging groundwater, and maintaining stream flows. Healthy riparian corridors help ensure aquatic resources maintain the ecological integrity essential to stream fishes, including the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner.
A riparian width of 5 to 30 m (16 to 98 ft) on each side of the stream is generally sufficient to protect the water quality of adjacent streams (Fischer and Fischenich 2000, p. 8). The ability of riparian buffers to filter surface runoff is largely dependent on vegetation density, type, and slope, with dense, grassy vegetation and gentle slopes facilitating filtration. A riparian buffer width of 30 to 500 m (98 to 1,640 ft) should be sufficient to provide wildlife habitat; however, the riparian zone of the upper Brazos River may never have been extensive due to the aridity of the area, and the terrestrial insect prey base of the shiners would likely persist at even the thinnest recommended width. A riparian width of 30 m (98 ft) beyond the bankfull width of the river should be sufficient to maintain proper runoff filtration and provide the water quality and food base required by sharpnose and smalleye shiners (Service 2014, Chapter 6). As such, the final critical habitat includes the stream and river segments identified below and an area extending 30 m (98 ft) on each side perpendicularly to the stream channel beyond bankfull width. The bankfull width is the width of the stream or river at bankfull discharge and often corresponds to the edge of the riparian vegetation. Bankfull discharge is significant because it is the flow at which water begins to leave the active channel and move into the floodplain and serves to identify the point at which the active channel ceases and the floodplain begins.
For each species, we are desginating one critical habitat unit, divided into six subunits. These subunits are derived from the most recent USGS high-resolution National Hydrological Flowline Dataset. Although river channels migrate naturally, it is assumed the segment lengths and locations will remain reasonably accurate over an extended period of time. All mapping was performed using ArcMap version 10 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer Geographic Information System (GIS) program.
We set the limits of each critical habitat subunit by identifying landmarks (reservoirs and dams) that clearly act as barriers to fish migration. Partial barriers to fish migration that impede fish movement only during low river flow are not used to identify segment endpoints because it is presumed fish may occasionally be capable of traversing these impediments. Stream confluences are also used to delineate the boundaries of subunits contiguous with other critical habitat subunits because they are logical and recognizable termini.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, existing maintained transportation rights-of-way within the lateral extent buffers, and other structures because such lands lack physical or biological features for sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on
We are designating as critical habitat lands that we have determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient physical or biological features to support life-history processes essential for the conservation of the species.
Subunits were designated based on sufficient elements of physical or biological features being present to support sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner life processes. Some subunits contained all of the identified elements of physical or biological features and supported multiple life processes. Some segments contained only some elements of the physical or biological features necessary to support the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner's particular use of that habitat.
We are designating a single critical habitat unit divided into six subunits in Texas of approximately 1,002 river km (623 mi) of the upper Brazos River basin and the upland areas extending beyond the bankfull river channel by 30 m (98 ft) on each side. The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best assessment at this time of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat. Those six subunits are: (1) Upper Brazos River main stem, (2) Salt Fork of the Brazos River, (3) White River, (4) Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, (5) North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, and (6) South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River. Table 1 shows the occupied units.
The approximate length of each critical habitat unit is shown in Table 2.
The critical habitat areas include the river channels within the identified stream segments. The stream beds of navigable waters (stream beds maintaining an average width of at least 9 m (30 ft) wide from the mouth up) in Texas are generally owned by the State, in trust for the public, while the lands alongside the streams can be privately owned. Therefore, for all stream subunits included in the critical habitat, the stream beds, including the small, seasonally dry portion of the stream beds between the bankfull width where vegetation occurs, and the wetted channel are owned by the State for the purposes of this rule. To the best of our knowledge, all adjacent riparian areas are privately owned.
We determined the unit of the upper Brazos River basin and its subunits are occupied by both species at the time of listing (Service 2014, Chapter 4). The upper Brazos River critical habitat unit, when considered in its entirety, exhibits all four of the primary constituent elements of critical habitat for both species. Some individual subunits may
Subunits are designated based on sufficient elements of physical or biological features being present to support life-history processes of the sharpnose and smalleye shiners. Some subunits contain all of the identified elements of physical or biological features and support multiple life-history processes, while other subunits contain only some elements of the physical or biological features necessary to support each species' particular use of that habitat. The following subunit descriptions briefly describe each of the proposed critical habitat subunits and the reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner. The subunits are generally numbered from downstream to upstream.
Subunit 1 is 326.8 river km (203.1 mi) long in Young, Throckmorton, Baylor, Knox, King, and Stonewall Counties. The downstream extent of the Upper Brazos River Main Stem Subunit is approximately 15 river km (9.3 mi) upstream of the eastern border of Young County where it intersects the upper portion of Possum Kingdom Lake. The upstream extent of this subunit is at the confluence of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the Salt Fork of the Brazos River where they form the Brazos River main stem.
Subunit 1 provides an adequate length of unobstructed, sandy bottomed river (PCE 1) often with sufficient flow (PCE 2) and water quality (PCE 3) to support sharpnose and smalleye shiner survival and reproduction. However, during periods of severe drought, sufficient flow may not be maintained. Many upland areas adjacent to this subunit are encroached by saltcedar, although it generally contains the native riparian vegetation capable of maintaining river water quality and an adequate prey base for both shiner species (PCE 4).
Habitat features in this subunit are primarily threatened by groundwater withdrawal, saltcedar invasion, water quality degradation, drought, and impoundment. The South Bend Reservoir, identified as a feasible water management strategy by the Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group, would occur on this subunit if constructed, while the Throckmorton Reservoir and Millers Creek Reservoir Augmentation would occur on tributaries that discharge into this subunit (Service 2014, Chapter 3). The physical or biological features in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts from these threats.
Subunit 2 is 275.1 km (171 mi) long in Stonewall, Kent, and Garza Counties. The downstream extent of the Salt Fork of the Brazos River Subunit is at the confluence of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the Salt Fork of the Brazos River where they form the Brazos River main stem. The upstream extent of this subunit is on the Salt Fork of the Brazos River at the McDonald Road crossing in Garza County, which acts as a barrier to fish passage.
Subunit 2 provides an adequate length of unobstructed, sandy bottomed river (PCE 1) often with sufficient flow (PCE 2) and water quality (PCE 3) to support sharpnose and smalleye shiner survival and reproduction. However, during periods of severe drought, sufficient flow may not be maintained, and naturally occurring salt plumes may occasionally result in inadequate water quality. Many upland areas adjacent to this subunit are encroached by saltcedar, although it generally contains the native riparian vegetation capable of maintaining river water quality and an adequate prey base for both shiner species (PCE 4).
Habitat features in this subunit are primarily threatened by groundwater withdrawal, saltcedar invasion, desalination projects, water quality degradation, and drought. Several of these threats have the potential to decrease surface water volume available for fish use. The threat of reservoir impoundment is minimized because the highly saline water of this subunit is generally of little use for industrial, agricultural, and municipal needs. The physical or biological features in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts from these threats.
Subunit 3 is 40.3 km (25.1 mi) long in Kent, Garza, and Crosby Counties. The downstream extent of the White River Subunit is at the confluence of the White River with the Salt Fork of the Brazos River. The upstream extent is immediately downstream of the White River Lake impoundment on the White River.
Given the lack of adequate sampling from this area, records of the smalleye shiner from the White River are old and rare, and sharpnose shiners have never been recorded from this subunit (Service 2014, Chapter 2). However, records of both species have been documented within the last 5 years from the Salt Fork of the Brazos River less than 1 km (0.6 mi) downstream of the confluence of this subunit. Therefore, the White River Subunit is contiguous with areas currently occupied by both species, and there are no fish barriers to prevent them from migrating into this area. Given the information above and the biological similarity between these species, we consider this subunit within the geographic range occupied by both species. Furthermore, the White River provides surface water flow of relatively low salinity into the Salt Fork of the Brazos River, which may be important in maintaining the water quality of this downstream subunit.
Subunit 3 provides an adequate length of unobstructed, sandy bottomed river (PCE 1) when considered as part of the contiguous critical habitat unit as a whole. This subunit likely contains only sufficient flow (PCE 2) and water quality (PCE 3) to support sharpnose and smalleye shiner survival and reproduction under wet climatic conditions or when water is being released from upstream impoundments. During periods of severe drought, sufficient flow may not be maintained. Upland areas adjacent to this subunit are likely encroached by saltcedar, although it generally contains the native riparian vegetation capable of maintaining river water quality and an adequate prey base for both shiner species (PCE 4).
Habitat features in this subunit are primarily threatened by groundwater withdrawal, saltcedar invasion, water quality degradation, drought, and impoundment. Flow is normally available in this subunit only as a result of water release from White River Lake upstream of this subunit. Therefore, the physical or biological features in this subunit may require special management considerations or
Subunit 4 is 239.8 km (149 mi) long in Stonewall, Haskell, Fisher, and Kent Counties. The downstream extent of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River Subunit is at the confluence of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the Salt Fork of the Brazos River where they form the Brazos River main stem. The upstream extent of this subunit is at the confluence of the South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River where they form the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River.
Subunit 4 provides an adequate length of unobstructed, sandy bottomed river (PCE 1) when considered as part of the contiguous critical habitat unit as a whole. This subunit likely contains sufficient flow (PCE 2) and water quality (PCE 3) to support sharpnose and smalleye shiner survival and reproduction most of the time although during periods of severe drought, sufficient flow may not be maintained. Upland areas adjacent to this subunit are likely encroached by saltcedar, but it generally contains the native riparian vegetation capable of maintaining river water quality and an adequate prey base for both shiner species (PCE 4).
Habitat features in this subunit are primarily threatened by groundwater withdrawal, saltcedar invasion, water quality degradation, drought, and impoundment. The Double Mountain Fork East and West Reservoirs, identified as feasible water management strategies by the Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group, would occur in this subunit if constructed (Service 2014, Chapter 3). Therefore, the physical or biological features in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts from these threats.
Subunit 5 is 108.6 km (67.5 mi) long in Kent, Garza, and Crosby Counties. The downstream extent of the North Fork Double Mountain Fork Subunit is at the confluence of the South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River where they form the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River. The upstream extent of this subunit is the earthen impoundment near Janes-Prentice Lake in Crosby County, Texas.
Subunit 5 provides an adequate length of unobstructed, sandy bottomed river (PCE 1) when considered as part of the contiguous critical habitat unit as a whole. This subunit likely contains sufficient flow (PCE 2) and water quality (PCE 3) to support sharpnose and smalleye shiner survival and reproduction much of the time, but during periods of severe drought, sufficient flow may not be maintained. Upland areas adjacent to this subunit are likely encroached by saltcedar, although it generally contains the native riparian vegetation capable of maintaining river water quality and an adequate prey base for both shiner species (PCE 4).
Habitat features in this subunit are primarily threatened by groundwater withdrawal, saltcedar invasion, water quality degradation, drought, and impoundment. Post Reservoir and the North Fork Diversion Reservoir, identified as feasible water management strategies by the Brazos G Regional Water Planning Group, would occur in this subunit if constructed (Service 2014, Chapter 3). Therefore, the physical or biological features in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts from these threats.
Subunit 6 is 11.1 km (6.9 mi) long in Kent and Garza Counties. The downstream extent of the South Fork Double Mountain Fork Subunit is at the confluence of the South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River where they form the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River. The upstream extent of this subunit is immediately downstream of the John T. Montford Dam of Lake Alan Henry. Although there is a lack of recent records (smalleye shiner last observed in 1992) in this subunit, it is contiguous with areas currently occupied by both species, and there are no known fish barriers to prevent them from migrating into this area. The subunit does not have public access, and researchers have few opportunities to survey for fish in this river segment. However, given the information above and the biological similarity between these species, we consider this subunit within the geographic range occupied by both sharpnose and smalleye shiners.
Subunit 6 provides an adequate length of unobstructed, sandy bottomed river (PCE 1) when considered as part of the contiguous critical habitat unit as a whole. This subunit likely contains only sufficient flow (PCE 2) and water quality (PCE 3) to support sharpnose and smalleye shiner survival and reproduction under wet climatic conditions or when water is being actively released from upstream impoundments. During periods of severe drought, sufficient flow may not be maintained. Upland areas adjacent to this subunit may be encroached by saltcedar, although it generally contains the native riparian vegetation capable of maintaining river water quality and an adequate prey base for both shiner species (PCE 4).
Habitat features in this subunit are primarily threatened by drought and impoundment. Flow is normally present in this subunit only as a result of water released from Lake Alan Henry. Flow from this subunit directly affects surface water volume in the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River Subunit available for fish use. Therefore, the physical or biological features in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to minimize impacts from these threats.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” (50 CFR 402.02) (see
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect and are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in consultation for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner. These activities include, but are not limited to:
(1) Activities physically disturbing the riverine habitat upon which these shiner species depend, particularly by decreasing surface water flows or altering channel morphology. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, impoundment, in-stream mining, channelization, and dewatering. These activities could result in the physical destruction of habitat or the modification of habitat such that it no longer supports the reproduction of these species.
(2) Activities increasing the concentration of pollutants in surface water within areas designated as critical habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, increases in impervious cover in the surface watershed, destruction of the adjacent upland areas by land uses incompatible with maintaining a healthy riverine system, and release of pollutants into the surface water or connected groundwater. These activities could alter water conditions to levels that are beyond the tolerances of the shiner species and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and their life cycles.
(3) Activities depleting the underlying groundwater or otherwise diverting water to an extent that decreases or stops the flow of surface waters within areas designated as critical habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, excessive water withdrawals from aquifers and diversion of natural discharge features. These activities could dewater habitat or reduce water quality to levels that are beyond the tolerances of the sharpnose and smalleye shiner, and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and their life cycles.
(4) Activities leading to the introduction, expansion, or increased density of a nonnative plant or animal species that is detrimental to the sharpnose shiner or smalleye shiner or their habitat.
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: “The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.” There are no Department of Defense lands within the critical habitat designation.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis, which, together with our narrative and interpretation of effects, we consider our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (IEc 2014a, entire). The analysis, dated January 23, 2014, was made available for public review from March 4, 2014, through April 3, 2014 (79 FR 12138). Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. Additional information relevant to the probable incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner is summarized below and available in the screening analysis for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner (IEc 2014b, entire), available at
Review of the Service's incremental effects memorandum and discussion within the Service identified the following economic activities that may affect the shiners and their habitat: (1) Water management, including flood control and drought protection operations; (2) in-stream projects; (3) transportation activities, including bridge construction; (4) oil and natural gas exploration and development; and (5) utilities projects, including water and sewer lines. The sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner were not previously listed under the Act; therefore, no previous consultation history exists for these shiner species. The final economic analysis looks retrospectively at costs that may have been incurred since 2007 based on the incidence of technical assistances that have historically occurred in or near designated critical habitat since that time. As explained in our IEM, we believe 2007 presents an accurate starting point to assess the trends of section 7 consultation history in the area to be designated as critical habitat.
The economic cost of implementing the rule through section 7 of the Act will most likely be limited to additional administrative effort to consider adverse modification during consultation because: (1) Project modifications requested to avoid adverse modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid jeopardy in occupied habitat, and (2) all critical habitat subunits are considered occupied; thus, the presence of the shiners, when the listing is finalized, provides significant baseline protection. The additional administrative cost of addressing adverse modification during the section 7 consultation process ranges from approximately $410 to $5,000 per consultation, depending upon the type of consultation. Based on a review of the technical assistance history for the shiners, no more than 2 formal consultations, 28 informal consultations, and 16 technical assistances are expected annually. Thus, the incremental administrative burden resulting from critical habitat designation is expected to be less than $84,000 per year (in 2013 dollars). Because we use high-end estimates of consultations and technical assistances, this estimate is more likely to overstate than understate actual incremental costs.
Due to data availability limitations, we are unable to assign costs to specific subunits. Rather, we provide estimates of potential costs across the entire proposed critical habitat designation. We note that, of the 11 counties where critical habitat is located, Young County contains more than one-third of the overall human population. Thus, the amount of economic activity generated in this area may be larger than in the more remote counties. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Lubbock, TX, identified specific dam and reservoir projects that may affect surface flows in Subunit 1 (the Cedar Ridge Reservoir) and Subunit 6 (diversions from Lake Alan Henry Reservoir for the City of Lubbock's municipal needs).
In some cases, designation of critical habitat may provide new information to project proponents who otherwise would not have consulted with the Service, thus resulting in incremental economic impacts. We cannot predict where or when these situations may occur, but anticipate that consultations of this nature will be infrequent. The designation of critical habitat is not expected to trigger additional requirements under State or local regulations, nor is the designation expected to have perceptional effects on markets. Additional section 7 efforts to conserve the species are not predicted to result from the designation of critical habitat. Thus, it is unlikely that the critical habitat designation will result in cost exceeding $100 million in a given year.
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs that are likely to result from the designation. There is no evidence that the potential economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as critical habitat. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner based on economic impacts.
A copy of the IEM and screening analysis with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office (see
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether a national or homeland security impact might exist on potential critical habitat. In preparing this final rule, we have determined that no lands within the designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner or smalleye shiner are owned or managed by the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national or homeland security. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on impacts on national or homeland security.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat. We consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area,
In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are currently no permitted HCPs or other approved management plans for the sharpnose shiner or smalleye shiner, and the final designation does not include any tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on other relevant impacts.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of 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 regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601
In this final rule, we are certifying that the critical habitat designation for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts on these small entities are significant, we consider the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking only on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself and, therefore, not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the Agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if promulgated, the final critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
During the development of this final rule we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. Based on this information, we affirm our certification that this final critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
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. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared to not taking the regulatory action under consideration.
The economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic analysis, energy-related
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments because the lands adjacent to the river channel designated as critical habitat are primarily owned by private landowners, which do not fit the definition of “small governmental jurisdiction.” Therefore a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner in a takings implications assessment. Based on the best available information, the takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner does not pose significant takings implications.
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation with, appropriate State resource agencies in Texas. We received comments from the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and have addressed them in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section of the rule. From a federalism perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the rule does not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the physical and biological features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist these local governments in long-range planning (because these local governments no longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner. The designated areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if desired.
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
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's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. We determined that there are no tribal lands occupied by the sharpnose shiner or smalleye shiner at the time of listing that contain the physical or biological features essential to conservation of the species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by the sharpnose shiner or smalleye shiner that are essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner or smalleye shiner on tribal lands.
A complete list of all references cited is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
(e)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Baylor, Crosby, Fisher, Garza, Haskell, Kent, King, Knox, Stonewall, Throckmorton, and Young Counties, Texas, on the maps below.
(2) Critical habitat includes the bankfull width of the river channel within the identified river segments indicated on the maps below, and includes a lateral distance of 30 meters (98 feet) on each side of the stream width at bankfull discharge. Bankfull discharge is the flow at which water begins to leave the channel and move into the floodplain, and generally occurs every 1 to 2 years.
(3) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the sharpnose shiner consist of a riverine system with habitat to support all life-history stages of the sharpnose shiner, which includes:
(i) Unobstructed, sandy-bottomed river segments greater than 275 kilometers (171 miles) in length.
(ii) Flowing water of greater than 2.61 cubic meters per second (m
(iii) Water of sufficient quality to support survival and reproduction, characterized by:
(A) Temperatures generally less than 39.2 °C (102.6 °F);
(B) Dissolved oxygen concentrations generally greater than 2.66 milligrams per liter (mg/L);
(C) Salinities generally less than 15 parts per thousand (ppt) (25 millisiemens per centimeter (mS/cm)); and
(D) Sufficiently low petroleum and other pollutant concentrations such that mortality does not occur.
(iv) Native riparian vegetation capable of maintaining river water quality, providing a terrestrial prey base, and maintaining a healthy riparian ecosystem.
(4) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, railroads, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on September 3, 2014.
(5)
(6) Index map of critical habitat for the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner follows:
(7) Subunit 1: Brazos River Main Stem; Baylor, King, Knox, Stonewall, Throckmorton, and Young Counties, Texas.
(i) Brazos River Main Stem from approximately 15 river km (9.3 miles) upstream of the eastern border of Young County where it intersects the upper portion of Possum Kingdom Lake (32.974302, −98.509880) upstream to the confluence of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the Salt Fork of the Brazos River where they form the Brazos River main stem (33.268404, −100.010209)
(ii) Note: Map of Subunit 1, Brazos River Main Stem, follows:
(8) Subunit 2: Salt Fork of the Brazos River; Garza, Kent, and Stonewall Counties, Texas.
(i) Salt Fork of the Brazos River from its confluence with the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (33.268404, −100.010209) upstream to the McDonald Road crossing (33.356258, −101.345890).
(ii) Note: Map of Subunit 2, Salt Fork of the Brazos River, follows:
(9) Subunit 3: White River; Crosby, Garza, and Kent Counties, Texas.
(i) White River from its confluence with the Salt Fork of the Brazos River (33.241172, −100.936181) upstream to the White River Lake impoundment (33.457240, −101.084546).
(ii) Note: Map of Subunit 3, White River, follows:
(10) Subunit 4: Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River; Fisher, Haskell, Kent, and Stonewall Counties, Texas.
(i) Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River from its confluence with the Salt Fork of the Brazos River (33.268404, −100.010209) upstream to the confluence of the South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River where they form the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (33.100269, −100.999803).
(ii) Note: Map of Subunit 4, Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, follows:
(11) Subunit 5: North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River; Crosby, Garza, and Kent Counties, Texas.
(i) North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River from its confluence with the South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (33.100269, −100.999803) upstream to the earthen impoundment near Janes-Prentice Lake (33.431515, −101.479610).
(ii) Note: Map of Subunit 5, North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, follows:
(12) Subunit 6: South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River; Garza and Kent Counties, Texas.
(i) South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River from its confluence with the North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (33.100269, −100.999803) upstream to the John T. Montford Dam of Lake Alan Henry (33.065008, −101.039780).
(ii) Note: Map of Subunit 6, South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River, follows:
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Baylor, Crosby, Fisher, Garza, Haskell, Kent, King, Knox, Stonewall, Throckmorton, and Young Counties, Texas, on the maps.
(2) Critical habitat includes the bankfull width of the river channel within the identified river segments indicated on the maps, and includes a lateral distance of 30 meters (98 feet) on each side of the stream width at bankfull discharge. Bankfull discharge is the flow at which water begins to leave the channel and move into the floodplain and generally occurs every 1 to 2 years.
(3) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the smalleye shiner consist of a riverine system with habitat to support all life-history stages of the smalleye shiner, which includes:
(i) Unobstructed, sandy-bottomed river segments greater than 275 kilometers (171 miles) in length.
(ii) Flowing water of greater than 6.43 cubic meters per second (m
(iii) Water of sufficient quality to support survival and reproduction, characterized by:
(A) Temperatures generally less than 40.6 °C (105.1 °F);
(B) Dissolved oxygen concentrations generally greater than 2.11 milligrams per liter (mg/L);
(C) Salinities generally less than 18 parts per thousand (ppt) (30 millisiemens per centimeter (mS/cm)); and
(D) Sufficiently low petroleum and other pollutant concentrations such that mortality does not occur.
(iv) Native riparian vegetation capable of maintaining river water quality, providing a terrestrial prey base, and maintaining a healthy riparian ecosystem.
(4) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as buildings, railroads, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
(5)
(6) Index map of critical habitat units for the smalleye shiner is provided at paragraph (6) of the entry for the sharpnose shiner in this paragraph (e).
(7) Subunit 1: Brazos River Main Stem from approximately 15 river km (9.3 miles) upstream of the eastern border of Young County where it intersects the upper portion of Possum Kingdom Lake (32.974302, −98.509880) upstream to the confluence of the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the Salt Fork of the Brazos River where they form the Brazos River main stem (33.268404, −100.010209); Baylor, King, Knox, Stonewall, Throckmorton, and Young Counties, Texas. Map of Upper Brazos River Main Stem Subunit is provided at paragraph (7) of the entry for the sharpnose shiner in this paragraph (e).
(8) Subunit 2: Salt Fork of the Brazos River from its confluence with the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (33.268404, −100.010209) upstream to the McDonald Road crossing (33.356258, −101.345890); Garza, Kent, and Stonewall Counties, Texas. Map of Salt Fork of the Brazos River Subunit is provided at paragraph (8) of the entry for the sharpnose shiner in this paragraph (e).
(9) Subunit 3: White River from its confluence with the Salt Fork of the Brazos River (33.241172, −100.936181) upstream to the White River Lake impoundment (33.457240, −101.084546); Crosby, Garza, and Kent Counties, Texas. Map of White River Subunit is provided at paragraph (9) of the entry for the sharpnose shiner in this paragraph (e).
(10) Subunit 4: Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River from its confluence with the Salt Fork of the Brazos River (33.268404, −100.010209) upstream to the confluence of the South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River and the North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River where they form the Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (33.100269, −100.999803); Fisher, Haskell, Kent, and Stonewall Counties, Texas. Map of Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River Subunit is provided at paragraph (10) of the entry for the sharpnose shiner in this paragraph (e).
(11) Subunit 5: North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River from its confluence with the South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (33.100269, −100.999803) upstream to the earthen impoundment near Janes-Prentice Lake (33.431515, −101.479610); Crosby, Garza, and Kent Counties, Texas. Map of North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River Subunit is provided at paragraph (11) of the entry for the sharpnose shiner in this paragraph (e).
(12) Subunit 6: South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River from its confluence with the North Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River (33.100269, −100.999803) upstream to the John T. Montford Dam of Lake Alan Henry (33.065008, −101.039780); Garza and Kent Counties, Texas. Map of South Fork Double Mountain Fork of the Brazos River Subunit is provided at paragraph (12) of the entry for the sharpnose shiner in this paragraph (e).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for the sharpnose shiner (
This rule becomes effective September 3, 2014.
This final rule is available on the Internet at
Debra Bills, Field Supervisor, Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office, (see
On June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657), the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner were made candidates for listing under the Act. On May 11, 2004, we received a petition to list the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner. We published our petition finding on May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24899). Because the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner were previously identified through our candidate assessment process, the species had already received the equivalent of a substantial 90-day finding and a warranted, but precluded, 12-month finding (67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002). Through the annual candidate review process (69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) continued to solicit information from the public regarding these species.
On August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47582; 78 FR 47612), we proposed to list the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner under the Act as endangered species and proposed to designate critical habitat. We held a public hearing on September 4, 2013, in Abilene, Texas. On March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12138), we requested comments on the draft economic analysis of critical habitat designation for the shiners, as well as the proposed rule to designate critical habitat. This comment period closed on April 3, 2014 (79 FR 12138).
The April 2014 Species Status Assessment Report (SSA Report) (Service 2014, entire), available online at
Our SSA Report documents the results of the comprehensive biological status review for the sharpnose and smalleye shiners and provides a thorough account of the species' overall viability and, conversely, extinction risk (Service 2014, entire). The SSA Report contains the data on which this final rule is based. The following is a summary of the results and conclusions from the SSA Report.
The sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner are small minnows native to arid prairie streams of Texas originating from the Brazos River. The naturally occurring historical distribution of the sharpnose shiner included the Brazos River, Colorado River, and Wichita River in Texas, while the naturally occurring historical distribution of the smalleye shiner included only the Brazos River.
In conducting our status assessment, we first considered what the two shiners need to ensure viability. We generally define viability as the ability of the species to persist over the long term and, conversely, to avoid extinction. We then evaluated whether those needs currently exist and the repercussions to the species when those needs are missing, diminished, or inaccessible. We next considered the factors that are causing the species to lack what they need, including historical, current, and future factors. Finally, considering the information reviewed, we evaluated the current status and future viability of the species in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
Resiliency is the ability of a species to withstand stochastic events and, in the case of the shiners, is best measured by the extent of suitable habitat in terms of stream length. Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events by spreading the risk and can be measured through the duplication and distribution of resilient populations across the species' range. Representation is the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions and can be measured by the breadth of genetic diversity within and among populations and the ecological diversity of populations across the species' range. In the case of the shiners, we evaluate representation based on the extent of the geographical range and the variability of habitat characteristics within their range as indicators of genetic and ecological diversity.
Our assessment found that both species of shiners have an overall low viability (or low probability of persistence) in the near term (over about the next 10 years) and a decreasing viability (increasing risk of extinction) in the long-term future (over the next 11 to 50 years). For the shiners to be considered viable, individual fish need specific vital resources for survival and completion of their life cycles. Both species need wide, shallow, flowing waters generally less than 0.5 meters (m) (1.6 feet (ft)) deep with sandy substrates, which are found in mainstem rivers in the arid prairie region of Texas. Both species broadcast-spawn eggs and sperm into open water asynchronously (fish not spawning at the same time) during periods of low flow and synchronously (many fish spawning at the same time) during periods of elevated streamflow from April through September. Their eggs are semi-buoyant and remain suspended 1 or 2 days in flowing water as they develop into larvae. Larval fish remain suspended in the flowing water column an additional 2 to 3 days as they develop into free-swimming juvenile fish. In the absence of sufficient water velocities, suspended eggs and larvae sink into the substrate where a majority likely dies. The reproductive strategy of these species makes them particularly vulnerable to changes in the natural conditions of occupied habitat.
To sustain populations of the shiners long term, population dynamics modeling suggests estimated mean spawning season river flows of 2.61 cubic meters per second (m
The current conditions of both species indicate that they do not have the necessary resources for persistence in the immediate future. Both species have experienced range reduction, with both fish having lost at least half of their historical range. Both species are now restricted to one population in the upper Brazos River basin. As a result, sharpnose and smalleye shiners currently lack redundancy, which is reducing the viability of these species as a whole. In addition, streamflows within their current extant range are insufficient during some years to support successful reproduction, such as occurred in 2011. These fish have been resilient to past stressors that occur over short durations, and their populations appear capable of recovering naturally even when an entire year's reproductive effort is lost. However, without human intervention, given their short lifespan and restricted range, stressors that persist for two or more reproductive seasons (such as a severe drought) severely limit these species' current viability, placing them at a high risk of extinction now.
The two primary factors affecting the current and future conditions of these shiners are river fragmentation by impoundments and alterations of the natural streamflow regime (by impoundments, drought, groundwater withdrawal, and saltcedar encroachment) within their range. Other secondary factors, such as water quality degradation and commercial harvesting for fish bait, likely also impact these species but to a lesser degree. These multiple factors are not acting independently, but are acting together as different sources (or causes), which can result in cumulative effects to lower the overall viability of the species.
Fish barriers such as impoundments are currently restricting the upstream and downstream movement of migrating fish and prevent survival of the semi-buoyant eggs and larvae of sharpnose and smalleye shiners. This is because the eggs and larvae cannot remain suspended in the water column under non-flowing conditions in reservoirs or if streamflows cease. Of the area once occupied by one or both species in the Brazos, Colorado, and Wichita Rivers, only two contiguous river segments remain with unobstructed lengths (without dams) greater than 275 km (171 mi): The upper Brazos River (where the fish are extant) and the lower Brazos River (where the fish are either extirpated or functionally extirpated). The effects of river habitat fragmentation have occurred and
The historical ranges of both species have been severely fragmented, primarily by large reservoir impoundments, resulting in the isolation of one population of each species in the upper Brazos River basin. The construction of Possum Kingdom Reservoir in 1941, for example, eliminated the ability of these species to migrate downstream to wetter areas when the upper Brazos River experiences drought. There are also a number of existing in-channel structures (primarily pipeline crossings and low-water crossings) within the occupied range of these species, some of which are known to restrict fish passage during periods of low flow. Species extirpation has already occurred in areas where river segments have been fragmented and reduced to less than 275 km (171 mi) in length.
In addition, future fragmentation of the remaining occupied habitat of the upper Brazos River by new impoundments would decrease the contiguous, unfragmented river habitat required by these species for successful reproduction and impact the sole remaining population of each of these species. Texas does not have adequate water supplies to meet current or projected water demand in the upper Brazos River region, and additional reservoir construction is considered imminent. Possible new impoundments include the 2012 State Water Plan's proposed Post Reservoir in Garza County, the Double Mountain Fork Reservoir (East and West) in Stonewall County, and the South Bend Reservoir in Young County. Because extirpation of these species is expected to eventually occur in occupied river fragments reduced to less than 275 km (171 miles) in length, any new structures further fragmenting stream habitats increases the likelihood of extinction for both species.
The natural flow regime is considered one of the most important factors to which native riverine species, like the shiners, become adapted, and alterations to it can have severe impacts on fishes. A majority of sharpnose and smalleye shiner reproductive output occurs through synchronized spawning during periods of elevated pulse flows associated with storms, although successful reproduction is also possible during periods of low to moderate flow. When streamflows are insufficient, the fish cannot successfully spawn and reproduce. There are several environmental changes that are a source of declining streamflows within the range of the shiners. Downstream of reservoirs, streamflows are lowered and stabilized, which has reduced or, in some areas, eliminated successful reproduction in these species. In addition, groundwater withdrawal and depletion will reduce or eliminate the remaining springs and seeps of the upper Brazos River basin, which will lower river flow. Drought is another obvious source of impact that negatively affects streamflow and has severe impacts on sharpnose and smalleye shiner reproduction. Severe droughts in this region are expected to become more common as a result of ongoing climate change. Finally, saltcedar encroachment is another source of environmental change that not only is affecting streamflows but also restricts channel width and increases channel depth. These stream channel changes reduce the amount of wide channels and shallow waters preferred by sharpnose and smalleye shiners. Reduced streamflow leading to river pooling also affects the survival of adult and juvenile fishes because water quality parameters such as salinity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature may approach or exceed those tolerated by these species and food availability becomes limited. Flow reduction and an altered flow regime have occurred and continue to occur throughout the range of these species and are expected to impact both species at the individual, population, and species levels.
Within the reduced range of these species in the upper Brazos River basin, there are currently at least 13 impoundments or other structures (e.g., pipelines and low water crossings) affecting (to varying degrees) the amount of stream flow within the occupied range of these species. Upstream reservoirs serve as water supplies for various consumptive water uses and reduce downstream flows available for the fishes. Because the current impoundments restrict stream flow below the minimum levels required for both species, we expect these impoundments to impact both species at the individual, population, and species levels.
Additional future impoundments, reservoir augmentations, and water diversions are under consideration for construction within the upper Brazos River basin, which would further reduce flows and fragment remaining habitat. The construction of at least some of these structures to meet future water demand in the region is likely to occur within the next 50 years. These future impoundments, reservoir augmentations, and water diversions will further increase the likelihood of extinction for both species.
Besides impoundments and diversions of water from reservoirs, there are other sources causing reduced stream flows in the upper Brazos River basin. One such source is the projected warmer temperatures and drier conditions in the upper Brazos River basin in the future. This trend is already becoming apparent and exacerbates the risk of the species' extinction from loss of river flow. River flow reductions and river drying are also expected to increase as groundwater withdrawals negatively impact already reduced spring flows. Saltcedar encroachment also intensifies evaporative water loss along occupied river segments. There are several existing efforts addressing threats to natural flow regimes, including the Texas Environmental Flows Program, saltcedar control programs, and groundwater conservation districts. However, these programs and conservation efforts have not alleviated ongoing and future threats negatively affecting water flow in the upper Brazos River basin.
The effects of reduced stream flows on the shiners were dramatically demonstrated during the summer spawning season of 2011. During 2011, Texas experienced the worst 1-year drought on record, and the upper Brazos River went dry. Some individual fish presumably found refuge from the drying river in Possum Kingdom Lake downstream. However, the non-flowing conditions in the river made reproduction impossible, and any shiners in the lake would have faced increased predation pressure from large, lake-adapted, piscivorous fish. Fearing possible extinction of these species, State fishery and Texas Tech University biologists captured sharpnose and smalleye shiners from isolated pools in 2011, prior to their complete drying, and maintained a small population in captivity until they were released back into the lower Brazos River the following year. During the 2011 drought, no sharpnose shiner or smalleye shiner reproduction was documented. Given their short lifespan (they rarely survive through two reproductive seasons, and most typically survive long enough to reproduce only once); a similar drought in 2012 would have likely led to extinction of both species. However, 2012 fish survey results of the upper
As remaining habitat of the shiners becomes more fragmented and drought conditions intensify, the single remaining population of sharpnose shiners and smalleye shiners will become more geographically restricted, further reducing the viability of the species into the future. Under these conditions, the severity of secondary threats, such as water quality degradation from pollution and golden algal blooms, and legally permitted commercial bait fish harvesting, will have a larger impact on the species and a single pollutant discharge, golden algal bloom, or commercial harvesting or other local event will increase the risk of extinction of both species.
The shiners currently have limited viability and increased vulnerability to extinction largely because of their stringent life-history requirement of long, wide, flowing rivers to complete their reproductive cycle. With a short lifespan allowing only one or two breeding seasons and the need for unobstructed river reaches greater than 275 km (171 mi) in length containing average flows greater than 2.61 m
Given the short lifespan and restricted range of these species, without human intervention, lack of adequate flows (due to drought and other stressors) persisting for two or more consecutive reproductive seasons would likely lead to the species' extinction. With human water use and ongoing regional drought, the probability of this happening in the near term (about the next 10 years) is high, putting the species at a high risk of extinction. Over the longer term (the next 11 to 50 years), these conditions will only continue to deteriorate as human water use continues, construction of new dams within the extant range is possible, and ongoing climate change exacerbates the likelihood of drought. In conclusion, both species currently experience low viability (low probability of persistence), and their viability is expected to continue to decline into the future.
In the proposed rule published on August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47582), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by October 7, 2013. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Lubbock Avalanche, Abilene Reporter News, Waco Tribune Herald, and Baylor County Banner. We received requests for a public hearing and held one on September 4, 2013, in Abilene, TX.
During the comment period for the proposed rule, we received 268 comment letters, including 3 peer review comment letters, addressing the proposed listing of sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner. During the September 4, 2013, public hearing, nine individuals or organizations made comments on the proposed rule. Comments addressing the proposed critical habitat designation were fully addressed in a separate rulemaking action, and published elsewhere in the
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from four knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with sharpnose and smalleye shiners or their habitats, biological needs, threats, general fish biology, or aquatic ecology. We received responses from three of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of sharpnose shiners and smalleye shiners. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and our assessment of the current status of these species. They provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the SSA Report. Peer reviewer comments were all specific to the SSA Report and are incorporated into the SSA Report or responded to in Appendix B of the SSA Report.
The sharpnose and smalleye shiner are currently limited to the upper Brazos River basin and are extirpated or functionally extirpated from the lower Brazos River area. The sole remaining populations of these species occur in the upper Brazos River basin. While the Service agrees drought is an important factor affecting the viability of these fish, drought is exacerbated by the impoundment of their natural habitat, which further reduces water flows and impedes fish migration to more suitable habitat during dry conditions. We are unclear as to what artificial environment the commenter is referring. However, we are not recreating an artificial environment. We are attempting to conserve a healthy, natural aquatic ecosystem in the upper Brazos River basin is important protect habitat for sharpnose and smalleye shiners and other aquatic wildlife.
We sought comments from independent peer reviewers to ensure that our determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. We solicited information from the general public, non-governmental conservation organizations, State and Federal agencies that are familiar with the species and their habitats, academic institutions, and groups and individuals that might have information that would contribute to an update of our knowledge of the species, as well as the activities and natural processes that might be contributing to the decline of either species. While some uncertainty will always exist, the existing body of literature on sharpnose shiners, smalleye shiners, and similar broadcast-spawning minnows is the best available information. See the SSA Report for more detailed information about these species.
Projections of climate change globally and for broad regions through the 21st century are based on the results of modeling efforts using state-of-the-art Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models and various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (Meehl
Drought conditions negatively impact sharpnose shiners and smalleye shiners by reducing the availability and flow rate of river water required to survive and reproduce. The frequency of spawning seasons not meeting the estimated minimum mean summer discharge requirements to support sharpnose and smalleye shiner growth appears to be increasing (Service 2014, p. 42). With increasing drought, there is a projected decrease in surface runoff up to 10 percent by the mid-21st century (Mace and Wade 2008, p. 656; Karl
The notification of the public hearing was clearly stated in both the proposed rule to list the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner as endangered and in
The Service mailed letters, which included information regarding the public hearing to over 100 recipients, shortly after the proposed rules published on August 6, 2013. Letter recipients included Federal agencies, State agencies, city offices, county courthouses, and numerous nongovernmental organizations. Service staff also contacted approximately 56 local media outlets and posted a news release containing the public hearing announcement on the Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office and Service's Southwest Region Web pages.
The Act does not require the Service to hold multiple public hearings in multiple locations. The Act also does not indicate a necessary proximity to proposed critical habitat within which to hold a public hearing. The Service chose Abilene, Texas, because it is the largest city centrally located to the proposed designated critical habitat that contained a venue of appropriate size and with reasonable access by major roads and highways. The Service also held the public hearing in the evening to provide adequate time for attendees to travel after normal work hours. To provide additional opportunity for the public to provide comments, the Service reopened the comment period on the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for these species for 30 days to coincide with the availability of the Draft Economic Analysis of the Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Sharpnose and Smalleye Shiners on March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12138).
Due to drought conditions and lack of streamflow in 2011 there was no observed recruitment of juvenile sharpnose or smalleye shiners during sampling efforts of the upper Brazos River during the spawning season of 2011 (Wilde 2012b, pers. comm.). Given these species at most survive for two reproductive seasons, severe drought conditions during consecutive spawning seasons may result in local extirpations or complete extinction unless recovery actions are implemented. The summer of 2011 provided an example of what happens to these species when water availability is reduced by in-channel impoundments (water withheld for municipal use in the upper Brazos River basin), continued groundwater depletion (particularly for agricultural use in the upper Brazos River basin), saltcedar encroachment (particularly in the downstream portion of the upper Brazos River), and severe drought (2011 being Texas' worst 1-year drought on record). When these factors acted together, the upper Brazos River dried up over much of its length, and a complete lack of reproduction and recruitment was observed for these species. The impoundment of Possum Kingdom Lake also exacerbated the impact of flow regime alteration to these species by blocking the downstream movement of these fish to areas with suitable conditions for survival and reproduction, as may have historically occurred during extreme circumstances. Negative effects were likely also exacerbated by increased predation pressure on adult sharpnose and smalleye shiners seeking refuge in Possum Kingdom Lake by larger, lentic-adapted piscivorous fish species.
In selecting peer reviewers we followed the guidelines for Federal agencies spelled out in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,” released December 16, 2004, and the Service's “Information Quality Guidelines and Peer Review”, revised June 2012. Part of the peer review process is to provide information online about how each peer review is to be conducted. Prior to publishing the proposed listing and critical habitat rule for the shiners, we posted a peer review plan on our Web site at
The Service recognizes in the SSA Report that these species could be transferred as bait fish. However, a river where a fish may be transferred would need suitable habitat to establish and maintain a population, and there are limited rivers in the area that provide suitable habitat. Further, it is likely that a suitable number of individuals would need to be transferred in order to survive and establish a population. However, if such a transfer would occur, these species would be protected wherever they are found due to listing under the Act.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and Texas Tech University's release of fish into the lower Brazos River was a response to intense drought during the summer of 2011 and is not part of a formal reintroduction plan. While Texas Tech University maintains a small stock of sharpnose and smalleye shiners in the laboratory, they are primarily used for research purposes. They do not have a captive propagation program in place to breed and release fish into the wild on a large-scale basis. Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, it is presumed that the fish released into the lower Brazos River are either extirpated or functionally extirpated. The Service has considered these conservation measures, but these efforts do not ameliorate the threats to these species to the point that the species do not meet the definition of endangered.
Furthermore, we are not attempting, through this rule, to use the Act to regulate climate change or greenhouse gases. We are making a decision as to whether the species meet the definition of endangered or threatened. To do so, the Act requires the Service to evaluate five factors, individually and in combination, including natural or man-made factors that are affecting the species' continued existence. This necessarily includes assessing potential impacts to a species or its habitat caused by global climate change.
Only minor changes and clarifications were made to the listing rule based on comments received. The SSA Report was updated, clarified, and expanded based on several peer review and public comments. These minor changes did not alter our previous assessment of these species from the proposed rule to the final rule.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, the Secretary is to make threatened or endangered determinations required by subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to her after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account conservation efforts by States or foreign nations. The standards for determining whether a species is threatened or endangered are provided in section 3 of the Act. An endangered species is any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is any species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Per section 4(a)(1) of the Act, in reviewing the status of the species to determine if it meets the definitions of threatened or endangered, we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
Until recently, the Service has presented its evaluation of information under the five listing factors in an outline format, discussing all of the information relevant to any given factor and providing a factor-specific conclusion before moving to the next factor. However, the Act does not require findings under each of the factors, only an overall determination as to status (e.g., threatened, endangered, not warranted). Ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency and efficacy of the Service's implementation of the Act have led us to present this information in a different format that we believe leads to greater clarity in our understanding of the science, its uncertainties, and the application of our statutory framework to that science. Therefore, while the presentation of information in this rule differs from past practice, it differs in format only. We have evaluated the same body of information that we would have evaluated under the five listing factors outline format, we are applying the same information standard, and we are applying the same statutory framework in reaching our conclusions.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner. Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner are currently in danger of extinction throughout all of their range and, therefore, each meets the definition of an endangered species. This finding, explained below, is based on our conclusions that these species exhibit low viability, as characterized by not having the resiliency to overcome persistent threats and insufficient population redundancy to overcome catastrophic events. We found the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner are at an elevated risk of extinction now and no data indicate that the situation will improve without significant conservation intervention. We, therefore, find that the sharpnose shiner
On the basis of our biological review documented in the March 2014 SSA Report, we found that the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner are vulnerable to extinction due to their reduced ranges and their highly specific reproductive strategies. These species are currently restricted to the upper Brazos River and its major tributaries, which represents a greater than 70 percent reduction in range for the sharpnose shiner and a greater than 50 percent range reduction for the smalleye shiner. The occupied river segments of the upper Brazos River currently retain the necessary length (greater than 275 km (171 mi)) to support successful broadcast-spawning reproduction in these species. However, these river segments have naturally occurring periods of low flow, periods completely lacking flow, and periods of complete drying (Factor A)—often during the dry summer months, which is also when these species spawn. The eggs and larvae of these species require flowing water of sufficient velocity to keep their eggs and larvae afloat and alive. During periods of insufficient river flow, reproduction is not successful and no young are produced (Factor A).
Our review found the primary factors leading to a high risk of extinction for these fishes include habitat loss and modification due to river fragmentation and decreased river flow, resulting mainly from reservoir impoundments (Factor A). Drought, exacerbated by climate change (Factor E), and groundwater withdrawals also act as sources to reduce stream flows and modify stream habitats (Factor A). Fragmentation due to reservoir construction has resulted in a substantially reduced range with only one isolated population of each species in the upper Brazos River. With only one isolated population remaining, these species have no redundancy, reduced resiliency due to the inability to disperse downstream, and limited representation. This situation puts the species in danger of extinction from only one adverse event (such as insufficient flow rates for 2 consecutive years). Secondary causes of habitat modifications include water quality degradation and saltcedar encroachment that alters stream channels (Factor A). As population sizes decrease, localized concerns, such as commercial harvesting of individuals, also increases the risk of extinction (Factors B).
We evaluated whether the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner are in danger of extinction now (i.e., an endangered species) or are likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future (i.e., a threatened species). The foreseeable future refers to the extent to which the Secretary can reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making determinations about the conservation status of the species. A key statutory difference between an endangered species and a threatened species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either now (endangered species) or in the foreseeable future (threatened species). Because of the fact-specific nature of listing determinations, there is no single metric for determining if a species is presently “in danger of extinction.” In the case of the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner, the best available information indicates the severe range reduction and isolation of these species to a single population in the upper Brazos River basin places these species in danger of extinction now, and the situation is exacerbated by the ongoing and intensifying effects of river fragmentation (Factor A), drought (Factor A), saltcedar encroachment (Factor A), water quality degradation (Factor A), and commercial bait harvesting (Factor B). The current threats affecting these species are expected to continue (or even increase without substantial conservation efforts), causing both species to be in danger of extinction now. Therefore, because these species have been reduced to less than half of their previously occupied range and because both species are restricted to a single, non-resilient population at a high risk of extinction from a variety of unabated threats, we find both species are in danger of extinction now and meet the definition of an endangered species (i.e., in danger of extinction), in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival of these species occur throughout their range and are not restricted to any particular significant portion of their range. Accordingly, our assessments and determinations apply to these species throughout their entire range.
In conclusion, as described above, after a review of the best available scientific and commercial information as it relates to the status of the species and the five listing factors, we find the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner are in danger of extinction now. Therefore, we are listing the sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner as endangered species in accordance with section 3(6) of the Act. We find that a threatened species status is not appropriate for the sharpnose or smalleye shiner because the overall risk of extinction is high at this time and the existing populations are not sufficiently resilient to support viable populations.
Regulations at 50 CFR 424.18 require final rules to include a description of conservation measures available under the rule. Following is an explanation of the measures that may be implemented for the conservation of the shiners under this final rule.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species, measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may not occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Because these species are listed as endangered, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Texas would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection and recovery of the sharpnose and smalleye shiners. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for these species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on these species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include but are not limited to: permitting of interbasin water transfers, permitting of large groundwater withdrawal projects, permitting of in-channel mining and dredging, issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
Our policy, as published in the
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, in interstate commerce, delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
(2) Unauthorized destruction or alteration of sharpnose and smalleye shiner habitats (e.g., unpermitted in-stream dredging, impoundment, or construction; water diversion or withdrawal; channelization; discharge of fill material) that impairs essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering, or results in killing or injuring sharpnose or smalleye shiners. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, the destruction of upland riparian areas in a manner that negatively impacts the river ecosystem.
(3) Capture, survey, or collection of specimens of these taxa without a permit from the Service under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office (see
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the Arlington, Texas, Ecological Services Field Office (see
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) maintains, as part of its Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the Commerce Control List (CCL), which identifies certain of the items subject to Department of Commerce jurisdiction. This final rule revises the CCL to implement changes made to the Wassenaar Arrangement's List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar List) maintained and agreed to by governments participating in the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (Wassenaar Arrangement, or WA) at the December 2013 WA Plenary Meeting (the Plenary). The Wassenaar Arrangement advocates implementation of effective export controls on strategic items with the objective of improving regional and international security and stability. This rule harmonizes the CCL with the changes made to the WA List at the Plenary by revising Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) controlled for national security reasons in each category of the CCL, as well as amending the General Technology Note, WA reporting requirements, and definitions section in the EAR. However, BIS intends to publish a separate rule in September setting forth changes to the CCL resulting from the WA agreements for cybersecurity. These changes agreed to at the Plenary include raising the Adjusted Peak Performance (APP) for digital computers in ECCN 4A003. The President's report for High Performance Computers was sent to Congress on July 1, 2014 to set forth the new APP in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY1998. This rule also makes corresponding revisions to the
This rule is effective August 4, 2014, except the amendments to parts 734, 743, and ECCN 4A003 (amendatory instructions: 2, 9, and 28), which are effective on August 30, 2014.
For general questions contact Sharron Cook, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce at 202-482-2440 or by email:
For technical questions contact:
The Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies is a group of 41 like-minded states committed to promoting responsibility and transparency in the global arms trade, and preventing destabilizing accumulations of arms. As a Participating State, the United States has committed to controlling for export all items on the WA control lists. The lists were first established in 1996 and have been revised annually thereafter. Proposals for changes to the WA control lists that achieve consensus are approved by Participating States at annual December Plenary meetings. Participating States are charged with implementing the agreed list changes as soon as possible after approval. Implementation of WA list changes ensures U.S. companies have a level playing field with their competitors in other WA member states.
Unless otherwise indicated, the changes to the EAR described below are made in order to implement changes to the WA control lists approved at the December 2013 Plenary meeting.
In paragraph 0A018.b, the text that previously stated that an item is subject to the license authority of the U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls was universally changed to “subject to the ITAR” in the Export Control Reform revisions (78 FR 61874, October 4, 2013). Therefore the new language is inserted here.
A Note is added to paragraph 0A018.b that states that 0A018.b does not apply to: “components” for ammunition crimped without a projectile (blank star); dummy ammunition with a pierced powder chamber; or other blank and dummy ammunition not incorporating components designed for live ammunition. These components do not pose a threat to national security and are now designated EAR99.
ECCN 1A004 is amended by adding Technical Notes after the Note following the introductory text to paragraph 1A004.a in the items paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section to clarify that filter canisters include filter cartridges.
ECCN 1B001 is amended by revising the text of 1B001.b (`Tape-laying machines') and 1B001.g (`Tow-placement machines') to remove ambiguity with the current controls, which may result in a double coverage in controls or no control at all. A Technical Note is added to 1B001.b to explain the abilities of `tape-laying machines.' A Technical Note is added to 1B001.g to explain the abilities of `tow-placement machines.' The Technical Notes establish 25 mm as the break
ECCN 1C008 is amended by revising paragraphs a.3 and .f in the Items paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section to relax the controls on aromatic polyimides in 1C008.a.3 based on the foreign availability of this material. The current validation procedures are limited in accuracy to very small samples. Removal of these validation procedures and reference to national standards in the 1C008 Technical Notes provides a simpler and cleaner text. In order to accommodate the newly referenced testing method, Technical Note 1 is revised and a new Technical Note 2 is added to the existing 1C008 Technical Note. These changes do not affect the scope of the other paragraphs in 1C008.
ECCN 1C010 is amended by removing the Technical Note after paragraph b.2 and adding Technical Notes after the Note following paragraph c.2 in the Items paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section. These changes are made to remove ambiguity regarding the determination of the specific tensile strength and modulus that are specified in various 1C010 entries, especially when the 1C010 tensile properties metrics are applied to various forms of multi-axial materials (woven fabrics, random mats and braids).
Also, a comma is added after the word “pitch” in paragraph e.2.a to correct the punctuation.
The List of Explosives is amended by revising paragraphs 32.d and 43, removing and reserving paragraph 34 and adding paragraphs 44 through 48. Paragraph 32 is amended by changing the square brackets to parentheses to read “BDNTA ([bis-dinitrotriazole] amine); ((bis-dinitrotriazole) amine);” to be consistent with the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) conventions. The deletion of paragraph 34 is a result of a class of energetics that has short-term high temperature capability, which is no longer in demand. Paragraph 43 is amended by changing the semi-colon to a period at the end of the entry to accommodate the addition of paragraphs to follow. Paragraphs 44 through 48 are added to address the trend towards `Insensitive Munitions.' Insensitive munitions are chemically stable enough to withstand mechanical shock, fire, and impact by shrapnel, but can still explode as intended to destroy their targets.
“Technical Notes for 2B001 to 2B009, 2B201, 2B290 and 2B991 to 2B999” is amended by revising paragraph .f of the Note to paragraph 5 in order to update the thresholds to ensure the rules regarding stated accuracy remain consistent in Category 2.
ECCN 2B006 is amended by revising paragraphs b.1.b., b.1.c.2.b, and the introductory text of paragraph b.2 in the Items paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section. 2B006.b.1.b is revised to clarify the controls of certain displacement measuring instruments (Linear Variable Differential Transformer—LVDT). 2B006.b.2 is amended to delete the current definition for “angular position deviation” and to add the word “accuracy” in this entry. The definition refers to a standard that not only is out of date, but no longer published. WA decided that the definition of “accuracy” could be useful to clarify the assessment of accuracy of angular displacement measuring instruments for this entry.
The term “machine tools” is replaced with “items” in Notes 1 and 3 to clarify the scope of control on software for electronic devices or systems capable of controlling 5 or more axes.
ECCN 3A001 is amended by removing Notes 3 and 4 from the Related Control Notes paragraph in the List of Items Controlled section, because they refer to ECCN 3A982, which is removed by this rule.
ECCN 3A001 is amended by revising Note 2 to paragraph 3A001.a, paragraphs a.5.a.1, a.7.b, b.2., b.3, and b.4; adding a Technical Note after the introductory text to paragraph 3A001.b; and revising Note 3 to paragraph 3A001.h.
“Three dimensional integrated circuits” are added to Note 2 to paragraph 3A001.a, because a new approach to improve the functionality and performance of integrated circuits is using a 3D integrated circuit (3D-IC).
Paragraph 3A001.a.5.a.1 (High Performance Analog-to-Digital Integrated Circuits) is amended by replacing the output rate of “greater than 500 million words per second” to “greater than 1 billion words per second” to update the Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) control thresholds for the 8 and 9 bit resolution ADCs to reflect the advances in technology used in the commercial cellular communications and oscilloscope applications.
Paragraph 3A001.a.7.b is amended by replacing “or” with “of” to make a correction submitted by a Technical Advisory Committee member.
A Technical Note is added to 3A001.b to set forth alternative terms for “peak saturated power output” that may appear on product data sheets.
This rule makes a series of changes regarding microwave or millimeter wave components specified by entries 3A001.b.2 (Microwave Monolithic Integrated Circuits—MMIC), 3A001.b.3 (Discrete microwave transistors) and 3A001.b.4 (Microwave solid state amplifiers). The changes are intended to add a frequency bandwidth (2.7-3.2 GHz) to each of the existing entries 3A001.b.2, b.3 and b.4. The changes also aim at modernizing the control text over the entire controlled spectrum by replacing the current control parameter `
A comma is added to Note 3 to paragraph 3A001.h to correct the punctuation. The addition of the comma makes the modifying phrase (incorporated into equipment designed for civil automobile, civil railway, or “civil aircraft” applications) apply to all three nouns (switches, diodes, and modules).
ECCN 3A002 is amended by revising the Heading; revising License Exception GBS and CIV paragraphs; revising the introductory text to paragraph .a; removing and reserving paragraphs a.1 through a.4; revising paragraph a.6;
The Heading is amended by removing the phrase “and accessories therefor.” The only accessories enumerated in 3A002 are test tapes in 3A002.a, which are test tapes for instruments described in 3A002.a.1 through 3A002.a.4. As 3A002.a.1 through 3A002.a.4 are removed and reserved by this rule, the reference to “accessories” is no longer needed.
Paragraphs 3A002.a.1 through a.4 are removed and reserved because magnetic instrumentation tape recorders are obsolete technology. The replacement technology is magnetic disk storage, for which instruments remain controlled in 3A002.a.6.
Paragraph 3A002.a.6 (Digital instrumentation data recorders) is revised to address a potential loophole for digital instrumentation recorders that do not digitize data but rather receive digitized data from external digitizers.
This rule adds new entry 3A002.a.7 to control very high-speed oscilloscopes that are used to develop and test military radars, communications systems, and electronic warfare systems. The values used in this new control are intended to separate the highest performing oscilloscopes from those used for more routine commercial applications. Consequential changes are also made in the introductory text to 3A002.a with the addition of `and oscilloscopes.'
Paragraph 3A002.d.1 is amended by replacing “pulses” with “pulse-modulated signals” to clarify that “pulses” more accurately refers to signals that are pulse modulated.
Technical Note 2 that appears after paragraph 3A002.d.5 is amended to introduce the industrial norm of `pulse duration' and its measurement.
ECCNs 3A982 and associated software (3D982) and technology (3E982) are removed from the Commerce Control List (CCL). These ECCNs are removed because the microwave and millimeter wave components identified in this entry were discussed and agreed for inclusion in the WA 2013 Plenary updates to 3A001.b.2 and 3A001.b.3. Software “specially designed” for the development or production of equipment controlled by 3A001.b is controlled under ECCN 3D001. Technology for the development or production of 3A001.b is controlled under ECCN 3E001. Because the items of concern are now controlled in these new entries, the need for ECCNs 3A982, 3D982 and 3E982 is eliminated.
ECCN 3A991 is amended by revising paragraph .d (field programmable logic devices) in the items paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section. The parameters are changed from “gate count” and “toggle frequency” to “maximum number of single-ended digital input/outputs.” The control level is set at “200 or greater and less than 500.” This is to align 3A991 parameters with 3A001.a.7.a parameters for these types of devices.
ECCN 3E002.b is amended by replacing “two 64-bit or larger floating-point operation results per cycle” with “four 64-bit or larger floating-point operation results per cycle” to update the control text to maintain control of leading edge technology and decontrol that technology no longer considered state-of-the-art.
The AT license requirement paragraph is revised to update the Adjusted Peak Performance (APP) upper limit in the range in the cross reference to ECCN 4A994 from 3.0 Weighted TeraFLOPS (WT) to 8.0 WT to harmonize with the change to 4A003.b.
The Congressional notification requirement set forth in subsections 1211(d) and (e) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 1998 (Pub. L. 105-85, November 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1932) provide that the President must submit a report to Congress 60 days before adjusting the composite theoretical performance level above which exports of digital computers to Tier 3 countries require a license. The President sent a report to Congress on July 1, 2014 that establishes and provides justification for the 8.0 WT control level using the APP formula.
The APP in the Note in the License Requirements section is changed from 3.0 WT to 8.0 WT to harmonize with the change to 4A003.b. This paragraph explains that no license is required for computers with an APP not exceeding 8.0 WT and for electronic assemblies described in 4A003.c that are not capable of exceeding an APP exceeding 8.0 WT in aggregation, except to destinations in Country Group E:1 of Supplement No. 1 to part 740.
The APP in 4A003.b for digital computers is raised from 3.0 WT to 8.0 WT, because multi-core processor technology has continued to advance rapidly as feature size shrinks. Most high-performance computer systems use processors with four, eight, or more cores as the compute engine, and each core also has greater double-precision floating point capabilities.
List based License Exception TSR eligibility and License Exception STA conditions are amended by raising the APP from 0.5 WT to 1.0 WT to align with revision to 4D001 in the WA Sensitive List. The control parameter for software for digital computers is amended by raising the APP from 0.25 to 0.60 WT in paragraph 4D001.b.1, in order to maintain control on leading-edge software for the development or production of digital computers.
List based License Exception TSR eligibility and License Exception STA conditions are amended by raising the APP from 0.5 WT to 1.0 WT to align with revision to 4E001 in the WA Sensitive List. The control parameter for software for digital computers is amended by raising the APP from 0.25 to 0.60 WT in paragraph 4E001.b.1, in order to maintain control on leading-edge technology for the development or production of digital computers.
A comma is added to 5A001.b.1.d to correct the punctuation and clarify the meaning of the sentence.
In 5A001.b.5.b, the term “frequency switching time” is replaced by “channel switching time” and a Technical Note is added to define `channel switching time.' The definition for “frequency switching time” had been crafted for the purposes of defining a signal generator's characteristics more so than a radio receiver's. The change in term and definition will help clarify its interpretation for both signal generators specified under 3A002.d, as well as radio receivers specified by 5A001.b.5.
ECCN 5E001.d is amended to align with the revisions made to ECCN 3A001.b. The changes are intended to add a frequency bandwidth (2.7-3.2 GHz) to 5E001.d. The changes also modernize the control text over the entire controlled spectrum in 5E001.d by replacing the current control parameter `
Category 5 Part 2 is amended by revising paragraph b of Note 3. `Executable software' is added to Note 3, as well as a Technical Note to define `executable software' as “ “software” in executable form, from an existing hardware component excluded from 5A002 by the Cryptography Note.” A Note is also added after the Technical Note that states, “ `Executable software' does not include complete binary images of the “software” running on an end-item.” Encryption is increasingly a commonplace functionality implemented by `mass market' Information and Communications Technology (ICT) products. Moreover, cryptographic functionality is often implemented in “software,” with comparable capability found in hardware. This revision ensures that all such comparable components of `mass market' products are given equal treatment under the Cryptography Note.
Category 5 Part 2 is amended by moving the Technical Note at the end of Note 4 to after 5A002.a.1.a. The Technical Note states, “Parity bits are not included in the key length.” so that it now immediately follows the text to which it refers. Within Category 5 Part 2, the topic of `parity bits' is only relevant to how key lengths are calculated and considered, and 5A002.a.1 is the only paragraph that involves key lengths.
An editorial correction is made to paragraph (i) of the 5A002 decontrol note to remove “or” from the end of paragraph (i). “Or” is added to paragraph (j) of the 5A002 decontrol Note, because of the addition of paragraph (k). Paragraph (k) “mobile telecommunications Radio Access Network (RAN) equipment designed for civil use . . .” is added to the 5A002 decontrol Note. Domestic small cells for use in the home offer telecommunications service providers a way to roll out their networks without the need to install expensive infrastructure. Using their customer's Internet connections, they can backhaul data from their subscribers in the immediate vicinity of a small cell. These items are designed to be simple to install by anyone, and in many cases are mass market items. However, these items are not always marketed in a way that allows the application of Note 3 in Category 5 Part 2, because in some countries the sale of some small cells is restricted to privileged customers or high value individuals, and some have restrictions on where they may be used.
This rule amends the Nota Bene after the introductory text of paragraph .a by adding the phrase, “, and for related decryption “software” and “technology” see 7D005 and 7E001.” This is a consequential change to harmonize with the addition of ECCN 7D005 “ “Software” specially designed to decrypt Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) ranging signals designed for government use” and related technology in ECCN 7E001, and to ensure that GNSS-related software and technology resides in Cat 7 only and is not spread across two Categories, which may be undesirable and cause confusion.
Paragraph 3 in the Technical Note to 5A001.a.1 is moved to the definition for “cryptography” in § 772.1 of the EAR, because paragraph 3 applies directly and broadly to the definition of “cryptography.”
The Note to 5A002.a.1 is removed because it is redundant. 5A002.a.1 controls the implementation of “cryptography” utilizing `digital techniques' regardless of what types of `principles' (
The introductory text to paragraph a.9 is amended by adding the phrase “or perform” to clarify the scope of the control. The whole text reads, “Designed or modified to use or perform `quantum cryptography.'”
Note 3 is added to the introductory paragraph a.1.c, in order to clarify that 6A001.a.1.c applies to projectors or transducers designed and manufactured using either of two high performance transduction materials: 1) lead-magnesium-niobate/lead-titanate (
In the Technical Note below paragraph a.1.c.2, a single quotation mark is added to the beginning of the term `acoustic power density' to add the missing single quotation mark.
Paragraph a.1.e (Active individual sonars, “specially designed” or modified to detect, locate and automatically classify swimmers or divers) is amended by adding the phrase “and “specially designed” transmitting and receiving acoustic arrays therefor,” in order to control critical components of such systems.
Paragraph a.2.a.3.d (Lead-magnesium-niobate/lead-titanate (i.e., Pb(Mg1/3Nb2/3)O3-PbTiO3, or PMN-PT) piezoelectric single crystals grown from solid solution) and paragraph a.2.a.3.e (Lead-indium-niobate/lead-magnesium niobate/lead-titanate (i.e., Pb(In1/2Nb1/2)O3-Pb(Mg1/3Nb2/3)O3-PbTiO3, or PIN-PMN-PT) piezoelectric single crystals grown from solid solution) are added as parameters for hydrophone sensing elements, because PMN-PT and PIN-PMN-PT single crystals are a new generation of piezoelectric materials that exhibit superior piezoelectric properties over PZT ceramics. Hydrophones designed using PIN-PMN-PT have greater bandwidth and sensitivity, as well as lower self-noise.
Paragraph a.2.b.8 (Accelerometer-based hydro-acoustic sensors specified by 6A001.a.2.g) is added as a parameter for towed acoustic hydrophone arrays because these sensors are useful for military applications.
Paragraph a.2.e.3 (Incorporating accelerometer-based hydro-acoustic sensors specified by 6A001.a.2.g) is added as a parameter for bottom or bay-cable hydrophone arrays because these sensors are useful for military applications. Consequential editorial revisions are made to paragraphs a.2.e.1 (removing an “or”) and a.2.e.2.b (adding
Paragraph a.2.g (Accelerometer-based hydro-acoustic sensors) is added under passive marine acoustic systems, equipment, and specially designed components therefor, because these sensors are useful for military applications. A Note is included to clarify that 6A001.a.2.g does not apply to particle velocity sensors or geophones. Two Technical Notes are added to inform the reader that accelerometer-based hydro-acoustic sensors are also known as vector sensors, and to include a definition for the term `acceleration sensitivity,' which is used in the parameters for these sensors.
In the NP License Requirement paragraph, the existing text is replaced with “NP applies to “lasers” that exceed the parameters of 6A205.” The License Requirement Note pertaining to NP controls is removed.
References to 6A005.b.6.c.2 and 6A005.b.6.c.2.b are changed to 6A005.b.6.d.2 and 6A005.b.6.d.2.b in the License Exceptions GBS and CIV eligibility paragraphs. These are consequential changes due to the revisions in 6A005.b.6.
References to 6A005.a.6.b.1 and 6A005.b.6 are added after the definition for `wall-plug efficiency' in the Related Definitions paragraph. The definition for `non-repetitive pulsed' is added to the Related Definitions paragraph with references to where the term is used: Note 2 of 6A005 and 6A005.d.6.
Note 2 at the beginning of the Items paragraph is revised by adding single quotes to the term `non-repetitieve pulsed' and a Technical Note is added to Note 2 to define `non-repetitive pulsed' to improve the understanding of Note 2.
The Technical Note that defines `non-repetitive pulsed' is moved from 6A005.d.6 to after Note 2, where it is first used in 6A005. The definition is also added to the Related Definitions paragraph, because it is used more than once in 6A005.
Note 2 is added to 6A005.a.6.b to describe multiple transverse mode industrial “lasers” that are not controlled under 6A005.a.6.b. This Note includes a Technical Note to define `brightness.'
The parameters in paragraph 6A005.b.4, b.5, and b.6 are revised to reset the control level below the level for which military utility can be achieved for lasers with pulse durations less than 1 picosecond. Consequential changes are made to distinguish or move paragraphs that pertain to lasers with pulse durations equal to or exceeding 1 picosecond. Here is where they were located and where they move to: b.4.a to b.4.b.1; b.4.b to b.4.b.2; b.5.a to b.5.b; b.5.b to b.5.c; b.6.a to b.6.b; b.6.b to b.6.c; and b.6.c to b.6.d. Consequential changes within ECCN 6A005 include: correcting references to these paragraphs that have moved in the NP paragraph of the License Requirements section, License Requirement paragraphs: (b) and (f), and License Exceptions GBS and CIV eligibility paragraphs. Consequential changes outside of ECCN 6A005 include revising the Related Controls Note 3 in ECCN 6A205 and the Heading of ECCN 6E201 to correct references to these paragraphs that have moved.
Paragraph 6A007.a is amended by removing “μgal” and adding in its place “μGal” to correct the scientific abbreviation for microgal (one millionth of a gal). The gal, sometimes called galileo, (symbol Gal) is a unit of acceleration used extensively in the science of gravimetry. The gal is defined as 1 centimeter per second squared (1 cm/s
Paragraphs b.1 and b.2 are amended by removing “mgal” and adding in its place “mGal” to correct the scientific abbreviation for milligal (one thousandth of a gal). The gal, sometimes called galileo, (symbol Gal) is a unit of acceleration used extensively in the science of gravimetry. The gal is defined as 1 centimeter per second squared (1 cm/s
A Technical Note is added to 6A007.b to define `time-to-steady-state registration,' which is used in 6A007.b.2, to make the control text clearer and more effective.
Paragraph 6A008.k.2 is amended by adding the adjective “compressed” and by adding a Note to decontrol two dimensional `marine radar' or `vessel traffic service' radar from 6A008.k.2. Solid state devices, which apply “pulse compression,” are replacing magnetron devices as a component of marine radars and Vessel Traffic Safety (VTS) radars for safety navigation. This revision decontrols such radars for safety navigation incorporating solid state devices from 6A008.k.2.
The Note to 6A008.l.1 is amended by revising the phase “marine or harbor radar” to read `marine radar,' as well as adding single quotes around the term `marine radar.'
The Note following the paragraph l.4 is amended by revising the paragraph it applies to from 6A008.l.4 to 6A008.l, as well as changing the term “marine traffic control” to single quoted `vessel traffic services.'
Technical Notes are added to the end of the Items paragraph of 6A008 to define `marine radar' and `vessel traffic service.'
The Heading is amended by replacing “mgal” with “mGal” to correct the scientific unit abbreviation for milligal (one thousandth of a gal). The gal, sometimes called galileo, (symbol Gal) is a unit of acceleration used extensively in the science of gravimetry. The gal is defined as 1 centimeter per second squared (1 cm/s
This rule removes the Nuclear Proliferation (NP) license requirement paragraph from the License Requirements section of 6D001, because the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) Annex does not list software controls for any of the equipment identified in the heading of 6D001.
The Heading of ECCN 6E201 is amended by revising references to 6A005 to harmonize with revisions to the items paragraph of 6A005 and the NP controls of 6A005 in this rule. In order to determine NP controls on 6A005 commodities, you must analyze 6A205 to determine if the commodities meet or exceed the parameters of commodities in 6A205. If the 6A005 commodities meet or exceed the parameters of 6A205 commodities, then the 6A005 commodity is NP controlled. If the 6A005 commodity is NP controlled, then the “use” technology for it is classified in 6E201.
The Note to 7A002.a.1.b in the Items paragraph is amended by replacing the single quotes with double quotes around the term “spinning mass gyros,” as the Technical Note below this Note that defined this term is deleted and the term is now defined in § 772.1 of the EAR. Terms used in multiple locations are generally not locally defined and indicated by single quotes, but are defined in § 772.1 of the EAR and are indicated with double quotes.
Paragraph 7A002.a.2.a is amended by revising the “bias” “stability” from “less (better) than 40 degrees per hour” to “less (better) than 4 degrees per hour.” Paragraph 7A002.a.2.b is amended by revising the “angle random walk” from “less (better) than or equal to 0.2 degree per square root hour” to “less (better) than or equal to 0.1 degree per square root hour.” These changes are made in consideration of commercial and technological development in the area of Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS). The Note to 7A002.a.2.b is amended by replacing the single quotes with double quotes around the term “spinning mass gyros.”
The Heading is amended by using a more general phrase, `inertial measurement equipment or systems' instead of `inertial systems' to encompass the breadth of controlled products. The Heading establishes a “having any of the following” structure regarding the functionalities that follow, which is intended to better accommodate multiple-output equipment. This new text is not intended to change the scope of the entry, but to better specify the inertial equipment to facilitate easier evaluation by licensing officers.
“Specially designed components” no longer appear in the Heading or in the List of Items Controlled section. “Specially designed components” that should be controlled are specified in 7A001 (Accelerometers) and 7A002 (Gyros).
The definition for the term “Data-Based Referenced Navigation” (“DBRN”) Systems is removed from the Related Definitions paragraph, because this definition is moved to § 772.1. Defined terms that are used in multiple ECCNs are placed in § 772.1 and this term is used in 7A003, 7D003 and 7E004.
A new note (Note 1) has been added at the beginning of the Items paragraph in order to help readers better understand the scope of the entry. In addition to describing the basic functionality of these products, the new note also provides a list of the most commonly used product names.
A Technical Note below 7A003.a explains how to assess the performance depending on the application that is typical for that system (air, land and sea platforms). There are different controls for different types of products and the Technical Note provides instructions on how to apply these controls, i.e., 7A003.a.1, 7A003.a.2 and 7A003.a.3 typically apply to `inertial measurement equipment or systems' designed for “aircraft,” vehicles, and vessels, respectively. Even though there is now a control specifically for navigation equipment for land vehicles, it is important to note that the control limit applied is not intended to control civilian car navigation equipment.
Space qualified systems are now specified in 7A003.d because these are systems and not components specified by 7A002. Note the reference to “spacecraft” is removed from the current text of 7A003.a, because inertial equipment for “spacecraft” does not provide position.
7D003.c (“Source code” for integrated avionics or mission systems which combine sensor data and employ “expert systems”) is removed and reserved, because no mission management systems employing “expert systems” could be identified. The definition for “expert systems” is also removed from § 772.1 as a consequential change. The reference to 7D003.c is removed from the STA paragraph in the Special Conditions for STA section as well.
The Heading for 7D004 is amended by revising the reference to “7E004.a” to read “7E004.a.1 to a.6” to specify only the technology relevant to flight control source code in 7D004.
ECCN 7D005 is added to close a loophole in the controls which are associated with the control of receivers for Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS); there is no entry which explicitly includes the software which performs the data processing of the relevant signals. It also takes into account the fact that GNSS receivers making use of encrypted signals do not actually contain the decrypt algorithms and software. The new entry will capture the software of concern irrespective of whether it is intended to reside in a receiver or elsewhere, for example a secure server. This software is controlled for NS:1 and AT:1 reasons and will require a license to all destinations, except Canada. No list-based license exceptions are available for this ECCN; however, License Exception STA may be available, as well as transaction based license exceptions as outlined in Part 740 of the EAR.
ECCN 7D005 is added to the Heading and the NS license requirement paragraph of 7E001 to control “development” “software” specified in 7D005 to close a loophole in the controls which are associated with the control of receivers for Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). This technology is controlled under NS:1 and AT:1 to all destinations, except Canada. No list-based license exceptions or License Exception STA are available for this ECCN. A Note is added to clarify that 7E001 includes key management “technology” exclusively for equipment specified in 7A005.a to capture development technology used to produce potentially controlled software, including the development of decryption algorithms.
ECCN 7E004 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph b.6 (Full authority digital flight control or multisensory mission management system, employing “expert systems”) and removing the Nota Bene below it, because no such system could be identified.
Paragraph 8A002.i.2 in the Items paragraph of the List of Items Controlled section is amended by deleting the phrase “or by using a dedicated computer,” because it has been found that remotely controlled articulated manipulators specially designed or modified for use with submersible
The Technical Note below 8A002.i.2 is amended by adding the phrase “related motion” to clarify the control and by removing the phrase “or by using a dedicated computer” for reasons stated in the previous paragraph.
A Nota Bene is added below the Note that follows paragraph q.2 to reference 8A620.f for equipment and devices “specially designed” for military use.
The Note to 9A001.a is revised to be Note 1, in order to add Note 2.
Note 2 is added following 9A001.a to state that “9A001.a does not apply to aero gas turbine engines for Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) approved by the civil aviation authority in a Wassenaar Arrangement Participating State, see Supplement No. 1 to part 743 of the EAR.”
Supplement No. 2 to part 774 “General Technology and Software Notes” is amended by removing the phrase “operation, maintenance (checking), and repair” and adding in its place “operation, maintenance (checking), or repair” in the General Technology Note. This change is made to clarify that technology meeting any one of the aspects listed is controlled and does not have to meet all of the aspects to be controlled.
Supplement No. 5 to part 774 “Items Classified Under ECCNS 0A521, 0B521, 0C521, 0D521 and 0E521” is amended by extending the expiration date to June 20, 2015 for 0D521 No. 2 and 0E521 No. 6, which is “source code” for the “development” of fly-by-wire control systems and specified “technology” for fly-by-wire control systems. The extension is justified because Wassenaar proposals are being negotiated to add this source code and technology to the WA List.
Paragraphs (4)(ii) 4D001and (4)(iii) 4E001 are amended by revising the APP from 0.5 Weighted TeraFLOPS (WT) to 1.0 WT.
Paragraph (7)(iv) 7D003.c is removed and reserved to harmonize with the removal of this paragraph from the CCL.
This rule redesignates paragraphs (7)(v) and (7)(vi) to read (7)(vi) and (7)(vii), and adds new paragraph (7)(v) “7D004.a to .d and .g” to correct the oversight of dropping the Sensitive List entry when this software moved from 7D003 to 7D004.
Previously, foreign-made computers with an APP of 3.0 WT located in a foreign country are not eligible for the application of the
Mexico was added as a Wassenaar Participating State in 2011. It was added as an Australia Group member in 2013. In 2013, it was also added to the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Therefore, BIS has decided to remove the “X” for Mexico under columns NS:2 and RS:2.
Section 740.13 is amended by replacing the phrase “operation, maintenance (checking), and repair” with “operation, maintenance (checking), or repair” in the second sentence of paragraph (a)(1). The same change was made to the General Software Note of the Wassenaar List, which is the Note License Exception TSU is based upon. Instead of meeting all of four of the listed characteristics (installation, operation, maintenance (checking), and repair), now the technology would only have to meet one of the four characteristics to be considered “operation technology.”
This rule removes and reserves paragraph (b)(2)(ix) that restricted the use of License Exception STA for 3A982 (Microwave or millimeter wave components that operate at frequencies below those controlled by 3A001). This change is being made because ECCN 3A982 is removed by this rule and because the microwave and millimeter wave components identified in that ECCN are now controlled under 3A001.b.2 and 3A001.b.3.
This section outlines special post-shipment reporting requirements for the export of certain computers to destinations in Computer Tier 3 of License Exception APP (Section 740.7 of the EAR). The reporting requirement applies to high performance computers exported to a destination in Computer Tier 3, as well as to exports of commodities used to enhance computers previously exported or reexported to Computer Tier 3 destinations, where the “APP is greater than 3.0 Weighted TeraFLOPS (WT). This rule increases that APP level from 3.0 WT to 8.0 WT in accordance with the WA agreement to increase the APP in ECCN 4A003.
While the WA agreed to remove the definition for “angular position deviation” from the WA list definitions, BIS is not removing the term from § 772.1 of the EAR, because this term is still used in 2B206.b.2 and .c.
The definition for “cryptography” is amended by adding the phrase “`secret parameters' (e.g., crypto variables) and/or associated key management,” as well as adding a Technical Note that defines `secret parameters.' The `secret parameter' phrase and Technical Note were agreed upon by WA in 2012, but were inadvertently missed in the drafting of the implementation rule. These additions occurred in the context of establishing preventative measures for reverse engineering that is occurring during analysis of failures in integrated circuits. Also, the Technical Note in 5A002.a that explains that “cryptography” does not include “fixed” data compression or coding techniques applies directly and broadly to the definition of “cryptography.” Accordingly, this Technical Note is moved into the definition of “cryptography.”
The definition for the term “Data-Based Referenced Navigation” (“DBRN”) Systems is removed from the Related Definitions paragraph of 7A003 and added to § 772.1, because defined terms that are used in multiple ECCNs are placed in § 772.1. This term is used in 7A003, 7D003 and 7E004.
This rule removes the term “expert systems” from § 772.1 of the EAR, because the control list paragraphs where it was used are deleted by this rule (7D003.c and 7E004.b.6). See explanations for removal of these paragraphs in the respective ECCN preambles above.
The term “frequency switching time” in § 772.1 of the EAR is amended by removing the phrase “(Cat 3 and 5)” and adding in its place “(Cat 3),” because in 5A001.b.5.b, the term “frequency switching time” is replaced by “channel switching time.” For more explanation, see the preamble for 5A001 above.
The definition for “measurement uncertainty” used in Category 2 is amended by removing one of the referenced standards “VDI/VDE 2617,” because the VDI/VDE 2617 standard was withdrawn in mid-2005 and may not be purchased by the public. It is not appropriate to reference a standard in the control list definitions that is no longer published.
The term “space-qualified” is amended by removing the phrase “Cat 3 and 6” and adding in its place “Cat 3, 6, and 7,” because “space-qualified” systems are now specified in 7A003.d.
This rule adds the term “spinning mass gyros” in alphabetic order to § 772.1 of the EAR. This term is used in decontrol Notes to 7A002.a.1.b, a.2.b, and 7A003.d.2. Because it is used in multiple locations in the CCL, the Technical Notes that defined this term are removed and the definition is added to § 772.1 of the EAR.
This rule adds the term “three dimensional integrated circuit” in alphabetic order to § 772.1 of the EAR. This term is added to Note 2 to 3A001.a to clarify that the controls in 3A001 apply to these types of integrated circuits. 3D integrated circuit design is a recent approach to improving the functionality and performance of integrated circuits.
Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, has been in lapse. However, 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 FR 49107 (August 12, 2013) has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701
Shipments of items removed from license exception eligibility or eligibility for export without a license as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on August 4, 2014, pursuant to actual orders for export to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license so long as they have been exported from the United States before October 3, 2014. Any such items not actually exported before midnight, on October 3, 2014, require a license in accordance with this regulation.
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 designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule involves two collections of information subject to the PRA. One of the collections has been approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” and carries a burden hour estimate of 58 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. The other of the collections has been approved by OMB under control number 0694-0106, “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the Wassenaar Arrangement,” and carries a burden hour estimate of 21 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of these collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to OMB Desk Officer, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and to Jasmeet Seehra, OMB Desk Officer, by email at
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under 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 participation, and a 30-day delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Immediate implementation of these amendments fulfills the United States' international obligation to the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies. The Wassenaar Arrangement contributes to international security and regional stability by promoting greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilizing accumulations of such items. The Wassenaar Arrangement consists of 41 member countries that act on a consensus basis and the changes set forth in this rule implement agreements reached at the December 2012 plenary session of the WA. Because the United States is a significant exporter of the items covered by this rule, implementation of this rule is necessary for the WA to achieve its purpose. Any delay in implementation will create a disruption in the movement of affected items globally because of disharmony between export control measures implemented by WA members, resulting in tension between member countries. Export controls work best when all countries implement the same export controls in a timely manner. If this rulemaking were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, it would prevent the United States from fulfilling its commitment to the WA in a timely manner and would injure the credibility of the United States in this and other multilateral regimes.
Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Inventions and patents, Research Science and technology.
Exports.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, Parts 734, 738, 740, 743, 772 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-774) are amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 8, 2013, 78 FR 49107 (August 12, 2013).
50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 8, 2013, 78 FR 49107 (August 12, 2013).
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 12, 2011, 76 FR 50661 (August 16, 2011).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c, 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 30 U.S.C. 185(s), 185(u); 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 42 U.S.C. 6212; 43 U.S.C. 1354; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. app. 5; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; Notice of August 12, 2011, 76 FR 50661 (August 16, 2011).
b. “Specially designed” components and parts for ammunition, except cartridge cases, powder bags, bullets, jackets, cores, shells, projectiles, boosters, fuses and components, primers, and other detonating devices and ammunition belting and linking machines (all of which are “subject to the ITAR.” (See 22 CFR parts 120 through 130);
a. * * *
b. `Tape laying machines', of which the motions for positioning and laying tape are coordinated and programmed in five or more `primary servo positioning' axes, “specially designed” for the manufacture of “composite” airframe or missile structures;
g. Tow-placement machines, of which the motions for positioning and laying tows are coordinated and programmed in two or more `primary servo positioning' axes, “specially designed” for the manufacture of “composite” airframe or missile structures.
a. * * *
a.3. Aromatic polyimides having a `glass transition temperature (Tg)' exceeding 505 K (232° C);
f. Polybiphenylenethersulphone having a `glass transition temperature (Tg)' exceeding 563 K (290° C).
The additions read as follows:
c. * * *
c.2. * * *
* * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
5. * * *
* * *
b. * * *
b.1. * * *
b.1.b. Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) systems having all of the following:
b.1.b.1. “”Having any of the following:
b.1.b.1.a. “Linearity” equal to or less (better) than 0.1% measured from 0 to the `full operating range', for LVDTs with a `full operating range' up to and including ± 5 mm;
b.1.b.1.b. “Linearity” equal to or less (better) than 0.1% measured from 0 to 5 mm for LVDTs with a `full operating range' greater than ± 5 mm;
b.1.b.2. Drift equal to or less (better) than 0.1% per day at a standard ambient test room temperature ± 1 K;
b.1.c. * * *
b.1.c.2. * * *
b.1.c.2.b. Capable of achieving a “measurement uncertainty” equal to or less (better) than (0.2 + L/2,000) μm (L is the measured length in mm) at any point within a measuring range, when compensated for the refractive index of air;
b.2. Angular displacement measuring instruments having an angular position “accuracy” equal to or less (better) than 0.00025°;
The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
a. * * *
—
—
—
—
—
—
a.5. * * *
a.5.a. * * *
a.5.a.1. A resolution of 8 bit or more, but less than 10 bit, with an output rate greater than 1 billion words per second;
a.7. * * *
a.7.b. An `aggregate one-way peak serial transceiver data rate' of 200 Gb/s or greater;
b. * * *
b.2. Microwave “Monolithic Integrated Circuits” (MMIC) power amplifiers that are any of the following:
b.2.a. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 GHz with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 15%, and having any of the following:
b.2.a.1. A peak saturated power output greater than 75 W (48.75 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 2.9 GHz;
b.2.a.2. A peak saturated power output greater than 55 W (47.4 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 2.9 GHz up to and including 3.2 GHz;
b.2.a.3. A peak saturated power output greater than 40 W (46 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 3.2 GHz up to and including 3.7 GHz;
b.2.a.4. A peak saturated power output greater than 20 W (43 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 3.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 GHz;
b.2.b. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 16 GHz with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 10%, and having any of the following:
b.2.b.1. A peak saturated power output greater than 10 W (40 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 8.5 GHz;
b.2.b.2. A peak saturated power output greater than 5 W (37 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 8.5 GHz up to and including 16 GHz;
b.2.c. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 3 W (34.77 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 16 GHz up to and including 31.8 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 10%;
b.2.d. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 0.1n W (−70 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 31.8 GHz up to and including 37 GHz;
b.2.e. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 1 W (30 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 37 GHz up to and including 43.5 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 10%;
b.2.f. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 31.62 mW (15 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 43.5 GHz up to and including 75 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 10%;
b.2.g. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 10 mW (10 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 75 GHz up to and including 90 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 5%;
b.2.h. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 0.1 nW (−70 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 90 GHz;
b.3. Discrete microwave transistors that are any of the following:
b.3.a. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 GHz and having any of the following:
b.3.a.1. A peak saturated power output greater than 400 W (56 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 2.9 GHz;
b.3.a.2. A peak saturated power output greater than 205 W (53.12 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 2.9 GHz up to and including 3.2 GHz;
b.3.a.3. A peak saturated power output greater than 115 W (50.61 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 3.2 GHz up to and including 3.7 GHz;
b.3.a.4. A peak saturated power output greater than 60 W (47.78 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 3.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 GHz;
b.3.b. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 31.8 GHz and having any of the following:
b.3.b.1. A peak saturated power output greater than 50 W (47 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 8.5 GHz;
b.3.b.2. A peak saturated power output greater than 15 W (41.76 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 8.5 GHz up to and including 12 GHz;
b.3.b.3. A peak saturated power output greater than 40 W (46 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 12 GHz up to and including 16 GHz;
b.3.b.4. A peak saturated power output greater than 7 W (38.45 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 16 GHz up to and including 31.8 GHz;
b.3.c. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 0.5 W (27 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 31.8 GHz up to and including 37 GHz;
b.3.d. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 1 W (30 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 37 GHz up to and including 43.5 GHz;
b.3.e. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 0.1 nW (−70 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 43.5 GHz;
b.4. Microwave solid state amplifiers and microwave assemblies/modules containing microwave solid state amplifiers, that are any of the following:
b.4.a. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 GHz with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 15%, and having any of the following:
b.4.a.1. A peak saturated power output greater than 500 W (57 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 2.9 GHz;
b.4.a.2. A peak saturated power output greater than 270 W (54.3 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 2.9 GHz up to and including 3.2 GHz;
b.4.a.3. A peak saturated power output greater than 200 W (53 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 3.2 GHz up to and including 3.7 GHz;
b.4.a.4. A peak saturated power output greater than 90 W (49.54 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 3.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 GHz;
b.4.b. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 31.8 GHz with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 10%, and having any of the following:
b.4.b.1. A peak saturated power output greater than 70 W (48.54 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 8.5 GHz;
b.4.b.2. A peak saturated power output greater than 50 W (47 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 8.5 GHz up to and including 12 GHz;
b.4.b.3. A peak saturated power output greater than 30 W (44.77 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 12 GHz up to and including 16 GHz;
b.4.b.4. A peak saturated power output greater than 20 W (43 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 16 GHz up to and including 31.8 GHz;
b.4.c. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 0.5 W (27 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 31.8 GHz up to and including 37 GHz;
b.4.d. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 2 W (33 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 37 GHz up to and including 43.5 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 10%;
b.4.e. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 43.5 GHz and having any of the following:
b.4.e.1. A peak saturated power output greater than 0.2 W (23 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 43.5 GHz up to and including 75 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 10%;
b.4.e.2. A peak saturated power output greater than 20 mW (13 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 75 GHz up to and
b.4.e.3. A peak saturated power output greater than 0.1 nW (−70 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 90 GHz;
b.4.f. Rated for operation at frequencies above 2.7 GHz and all of the following:
b.4.f.1. A peak saturated power output (in watts), P
b.4.f.2. A “fractional bandwidth” of 5% or greater;
b.4.f.3. Any two sides perpendicular to one another with either length d (in cm) equal to or less than 15 divided by the lowest operating frequency in GHz [d ≤ 15 cm*GHz/f
h. * * *
The revisions and additions read as follows:
a. Recording equipment and oscilloscopes, as follows:
a.6. Digital instrumentation data recorder systems using magnetic disk storage technique and having all of the following, and “specially designed” digital recorders therefor:
a.6.a. Digitized instrumentation data rate equal to or more than 100 million samples per second and at a resolution of 8 bits or more;
a.6.b. A `continuous throughput' of 1 Gbit/s or more;
a.7. Real-time oscilloscopes having a vertical root-mean-square (rms) noise voltage of less than 2% of full-scale at the vertical scale setting that provides the lowest noise value for any input 3dB bandwidth of 60 GHz or greater per channel;
d. * * *
d.1. Specified to generate pulse-modulated signals having all of the following, anywhere within the synthesized frequency range exceeding 31.8 GHz but not exceeding 75 GHz:
d.5. * * *
d. Field programmable logic devices having a maximum number of single-ended digital input/outputs of 200 or greater and less than 500;
b. Designed to perform more than four 64-bit or larger floating-point operation results per cycle;
The revisions read as follows:
b. “Digital computers” having an “Adjusted Peak Performance” (“APP”) exceeding 8.0 weighted TeraFLOPS (WT);
The revisions read as follows:
b. * * *:
b.1. “Digital computers” having an “Adjusted Peak Performance” (“APP”) exceeding 0.60 Weighted TeraFLOPS (WT);
The revisions read as follows:
b. * * *
b.1. “Digital computers” having an “Adjusted Peak Performance” (“APP”) exceeding 0.60 Weighted TeraFLOPS (WT);
The revisions and addition read as follows:
b. * * *
b.1 * * *
b.1.d. Using “lasers” or light-emitting diodes (LEDs), with an output wavelength greater than 400 nm and less than 700 nm, in a “local area network”;
b.5. * * *
b.5.b. A `channel switching time' of less than 1 ms;
b.5.d. * * *
d. “Technology” according to the General Technology Note for the “development” or “production” of Microwave Monolithic Integrated Circuit (MMIC) power amplifiers “specially designed” for telecommunications and that are any of the following:
d.1. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 GHz with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 15%, and having any of the following:
d.1.a. A peak saturated power output greater than 75 W (48.75 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 2.7 GHz up to and including 2.9 GHz;
d.1.b. A peak saturated power output greater than 55 W (47.4 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 2.9 GHz up to and including 3.2 GHz;
d.1.c. A peak saturated power output greater than 40 W (46 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 3.2 GHz up to and including 3.7 GHz; or
d.1.d. A peak saturated power output greater than 20 W (43 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 3.7 GHz up to and including 6.8 GHz;
d.2. Rated for operation at frequencies exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 16 GHz with a “fractional bandwidth” greater than 10%, and having any of the following:
d.2.a. A peak saturated power output greater than 10W (40 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 6.8 GHz up to and including 8.5 GHz; or
d.2.b. A peak saturated power output greater than 5W (37 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 8.5 GHz up to and including 16 GHz;
d.3. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 3 W (34.77 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 16 GHz up to and including 31.8 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 10%;
d.4. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 0.1n W (−70 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 31.8 GHz up to and including 37 GHz;
d.5. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 1 W (30 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 37 GHz up to and including 43.5 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 10%;
d.6. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 31.62 mW (15 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 43.5 GHz up to and including 75 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 10%;
d.7. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 10 mW (10 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 75 GHz up to and including 90 GHz, and with a “fractional bandwidth” of greater than 5%; or
d.8. Rated for operation with a peak saturated power output greater than 0.1 nW (−70 dBm) at any frequency exceeding 90 GHz;
The revision reads as follows:
b. * * *
3. The feature set of the component or `executable software' is fixed and is not designed or modified to customer specification;
The revisions and addition read as follows:
* * *
a. * * *
a.1. * * *
a.1.a. * * *
a.9. Designed or modified to use or perform `quantum cryptography.'
The revisions and additions read as follows:
a. * * *
a.1. * * *
a.1.c. * * *
a.1.c.2. * * *
a.1.e. Active individual sonars, “specially designed” or modified to detect, locate and
a.2. * * *
a.2.a. * * *
a.2.a.3. Having any of the following sensing elements:
a.2.a.3.a. Optical fibers;
a.2.a.3.b. `Piezoelectric polymer films' other than polyvinylidene-fluoride (PVDF) and its co-polymers {P(VDF-TrFE) and P(VDF-TFE)};
a.2.a.3.c. `Flexible piezoelectric composites';
a.2.a.3.d. Lead-magnesium-niobate/lead-titanate (i.e., Pb(Mg
a.2.a.3.e. Lead-indium-niobate/lead-magnesium niobate/lead-titanate (i.e., Pb(In
a.2.b. * * *
a.2.b.6. [RESERVED];
a.2.b.7. Hydrophone characteristics controlled by 6A001.a.2.a;
a.2.b.8. Accelerometer-based hydro-acoustic sensors specified by 6A001.a.2.g;
a.2.e. Bottom or bay-cable hydrophone arrays having any of the following:
a.2.e.1. Incorporating hydrophones controlled by 6A001.a.2.a;
a.2.e.2. Incorporating multiplexed hydrophone group signal modules having all of the following characteristics:
a.2.e.2.a. Designed to operate at depths exceeding 35 m or having an adjustable or removal depth sensing device in order to operate at depths exceeding 35 m;
a.2.e.2.b. Capable of being operationally interchanged with towed acoustic hydrophone array modules;
a.2.e.3. Incorporating accelerometer-based hydro-acoustic sensors specified by 6A001.a.2.g;
a.2.f. * * *
a.2.g. Accelerometer-based hydro-acoustic sensors having all of the following:
a.2.g.1. Composed of three accelerometers arranged along three distinct axes;
a.2.g.2. Having an overall `acceleration sensitivity' better than 48 dB (reference 1,000 mV rms per 1g);
a.2.g.3. Designed to operate at depths greater than 35 meters;
a.2.g.4. Operating frequency below 20 kHz;
2.
The revisions read as follows:
$3000 for all other items
a. * * *
a.6. * * *
a.6.b. * * *
a.6.b.2. * * *
b. * * *
b.4. Output wavelength exceeding 540 nm but not exceeding 800 nm and any of the following:
b.4.a. “Pulse duration” less than 1 ps and any of the following:
b.4.a.1. Output energy exceeding 0.005 J per pulse and “peak power” exceeding 5 GW;
b.4.a.2. “Average output power” exceeding 20 W;
b.4.b. “Pulse duration” equal to or exceeding 1 ps and any of the following:
b.4.b.1. Output energy exceeding 1.5 J per pulse and “peak power” exceeding 30 W;
b.4.b.2. “Average output power” exceeding 30 W;
b.5. Output wavelength exceeding 800 nm but not exceeding 975 nm and any of the following:
b.5.a. “Pulse duration” less than 1ps and any of the following:
b.5.a.1. Output energy exceeding 0.005 J per pulse and “peak power” exceeding 5 GW;
b.5.a.2. Single transverse mode output and “average output power” exceeding 20 W;
b.5.b. “Pulse duration” equal to or exceeding 1 ps and not exceeding 1 μs and any of the following:
b.5.b.1. Output energy exceeding 0.5 J per pulse and “peak power” exceeding 50 W;
b.5.b.2. Single transverse mode output and “average output power” exceeding 20 W;
b.5.b.3. Multiple transverse mode output and “average output power” exceeding 50 W;
b.5.c. “Pulse duration” exceeding 1 μs and any of the following:
b.5.c.1. Output energy exceeding 2 J per pulse and “peak power” exceeding 50 W;
b.5.c.2. Single transverse mode output and “average output power” exceeding 50 W;
b.5.c.3. Multiple transverse mode output and “average output power” exceeding 80 W.
b.6. Output wavelength exceeding 975 nm but not exceeding 1,150 nm and any of the following:
b.6.a. “Pulse duration” of less than 1 ps, and any of the following:
b.6.a.1. Output “peak power” exceeding 2 GW per pulse;
b.6.a.2. “Average output power” exceeding 10 W;
b.6.a.3. Output energy exceeding 0.002 J per pulse;
b.6.b. “Pulse duration” equal to or exceeding 1 ps and less than 1 ns, and any of the following:
b.6.b.1. Output “peak power” exceeding 5 GW per pulse;
b.6.b.2. “Average output power” exceeding 10 W;
b.6.b.3. Output energy exceeding 0.1 J per pulse;
b.6.c. “Pulse duration” equal to or exceeding 1 ns but not exceeding 1 μs and any of the following:
b.6.c.1. Single transverse mode output and any of the following:
b.6.c.1.a. “Peak power” exceeding 100 MW;
b.6.c.1.b. “Average output power” exceeding 20 W limited by design to a maximum pulse repetition frequency less than or equal to 1 kHz;
b.6.c.1.c. `Wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 12%, “average output power” exceeding 100 W and capable of operating at a pulse repetition frequency greater than 1 kHz;
b.6.c.1.d. “Average output power” exceeding 150 W and capable of operating at a pulse repetition frequency greater than 1 kHz;
b.6.c.1.e. Output energy exceeding 2 J per pulse;
b.6.c.2. Multiple transverse mode output and any of the following:
b.6.c.2.a. “Peak power” exceeding 400 MW;
b.6.c.2.b. `Wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 18% and “average output power” exceeding 500 W;
b.6.c.2.c. “Average output power” exceeding 2 kW; or
b.6.c.2.d. Output energy exceeding 4 J per pulse;
b.6.d. “Pulse duration” exceeding 1 μs and any of the following:
b.6.d.1. Single transverse mode output and any of the following:
b.6.d.1.a. “Peak power” exceeding 500 kW;
b.6.d.1.b. `Wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 12% and “average output power” exceeding 100 W;
b.6.d.1.c. “Average output power” exceeding 150 W;
b.6.d.2. Multiple transverse mode output and any of the following:
b.6.d.2.a. “Peak power” exceeding 1 MW;
b.6.d.2.b. `Wall-plug efficiency' exceeding 18% and “average output power” exceeding 500 W;
b.6.d.2.c. “Average output power” exceeding 2 kW;
d. Other “lasers”, not controlled by 6A005.a., 6A005.b, or 6A005.c as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
b. * * *
b.1. A static accuracy of less (better) than 0.7 mGal;
b.2. An in-service (operational) accuracy of less (better) than 0.7 mGal having a `time-to-steady-state registration' of less than 2 minutes under any combination of attendant corrective compensations and motional influences;
k. * * *
k.2. A compressed pulse width of less than 200 ns;
e.
l. * * *
l.1. * * *
l.4. * * *
The revisions read as follows:
a. * * *
a.1. * * *
a.1.b. * * *
a.2. * * *
a.2.a. A “bias” “stability” of less (better) than 4 degrees per hour, when measured in a 1 g environment over a period of three minutes, and with respect to a fixed calibration value;
a.2.b. An “angle random walk” of less (better) than or equal to 0.1 degree per square root hour;
The revisions read as follows:
—
—
—
—
—
—
a. Designed for “aircraft”, land vehicles or vessels, providing position without the use of `positional aiding references', and having any of the following accuracies subsequent to normal alignment:
a.1. 0.8 nautical miles per hour (nm/hr) `Circular Error Probable' (`CEP') rate or less (better);
a.2. 0.5% distanced travelled `CEP' or less (better);
a.3. Total drift of 1 nautical mile `CEP' or less (better) in a 24 hr period;
b. Designed for “aircraft”, land vehicles or vessels, with an embedded `positional aiding reference' and providing position after loss of all `positional aiding references' for a period of up to 4 minutes, having an accuracy of less (better) than 10 meters `CEP';
c. Designed for “aircraft”, land vehicles or vessels, providing heading or True North determination and having any of the following:
c.1. A maximum operating angular rate less (lower) than 500 deg/s and a heading accuracy without the use of `positional aiding references' equal to or less (better) than 0.07 deg sec (Lat) (equivalent to 6 arc minutes rms at 45 degrees latitude);
c.2. A maximum operating angular rate equal to or greater (higher) than 500 deg/s and a heading accuracy without the use of `positional aiding references' equal to or less (better) than 0.2 deg sec (Lat) (equivalent to 17 arc minutes rms at 45 degrees latitude);
d. Providing acceleration measurements or angular rate measurements, in more than one dimension, and having any of the following:
d.1. Performance specified by 7A001 or 7A002 along any axis, without the use of any aiding references;
d.2. Being “space-qualified” and providing angular rate measurements having an “angle random walk” along any axis of less (better) than or equal to 0.1 degree per square root hour.
The revision reads as follows:
The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.
The revisions and addtion to read as follows:
The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
i. * * *
i.2. Controlled by proportional master-slave techniques and having 5 degrees of `freedom of movement' or more;
q. * * *
q.2. * * *
* * *
a. * * *
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(4) * * *
(ii) 4D001—”Software” “specially designed” for the “development” or “production” of equipment controlled under ECCN 4A001.a.2 or for the “development” or “production” of “digital computers” having an `Adjusted Peak Performance' (`APP') exceeding 1.0 Weighted TeraFLOPS (WT).
(iii) 4E001— “Technology” according to the General Technology Note for the “development” or “production” of any of the following equipment or “software”: equipment controlled under ECCN 4A001.a.2, “digital computers” having an `Adjusted Peak Performance' (`APP') exceeding 1.0 Weighted TeraFLOPS (WT), or “software” controlled under the specific provisions of 4D001 described in this Supplement.
(7) * * *
(v) 7D004.a to .d and .g.