Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Rural Utilities Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Management and Budget Office
Presidential Documents
Science and Technology Policy Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Management and Budget Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of commercial shipments of fresh beans, shelled or in pods (French, green, snap, and string), from Jordan into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the beans must be produced in accordance with a systems approach that includes requirements for packing, washing, and processing. The beans must also be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate attesting that all phytosanitary requirements have been met and that the consignment was inspected and found free of quarantine pests. This action allows for the importation of fresh beans, shelled or in pods, from Jordan into the continental United States while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests.
Mr. Marc Phillips, Senior Regulatory Coordination Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 156, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2114.
The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-61, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.
On May 2, 2013, we published in the
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending July 1, 2013. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.
In our May 2013 proposed rule, we proposed to add the conditions governing the importation of beans from Jordan as § 319.56-59. In this final rule, those conditions are added as § 319.56-62.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under
The Small Business Administration's small-entity standard for U.S. farms that produce fresh beans is annual receipts of not more than $750,000. In 2007, the average market value of sales by the 15,654 U.S. farms that produced snap beans for the fresh market was about $25,400, well below the small-entity standard.
Jordan expects to export 200 metric tons of fresh beans to the continental United States annually. This quantity is equivalent to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S fresh snap bean production. While most entities that may be affected by the final rule are small, the impact of the rule will be minor.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule allows fresh beans, shelled or in pods, to be imported into the United States from Jordan. State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh beans imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh beans are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Fresh beans (
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
In Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1600 to 1759, revised as of January 1, 2013, on page 246, in § 1726.14, the second definition of
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of October 21, 2013, for the direct final rule that was published in the
The effective date of October 21, 2013, is confirmed for this direct final rule.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0268 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Daniel W. Lenehan, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3501; email:
On August 7, 2013 (78 FR 48037), the NRC published a direct final rule that amended its regulations in § 95.33 of Title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; technical correction.
The FAA is correcting the final flightcrew member duty and rest rule published on January 4, 2012. In that rule, the FAA amended its existing flight, duty and rest regulations applicable to certificate holders and their flightcrew members operating certain domestic, flag, and supplemental operations. This document corrects several issues requiring a technical correction in the codified text of the final flightcrew member duty and rest rule.
Effective January 4, 2014.
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Dale E. Roberts, AFS-200, Flight Standards Service, Air Transportation Division Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-5749; email
For legal questions concerning this action, contact Alex Zektser or Bonnie Dragotto, AGC-220, Office of Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email:
On January 4, 2012, the FAA published a final rule entitled “Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements” (77 FR 330). In that rule, the FAA created a new part, part 117, which replaced the then-existing flight, duty, and rest regulations for part 121 passenger operations. As part of this rulemaking, the FAA also applied the new part 117 to certain part 91 operations, and it permitted all-cargo operations operating under part 121 to voluntarily opt into the part 117 flight, duty, and rest regulations.
After the final rule was published, the FAA discovered several issues requiring a technical correction in the regulatory text of the rule. These issues, and the corresponding technical corrections, are as follows.
Under the existing rules, 14 CFR 121.470(b) states that “[c]ertificate holders conducting scheduled operations entirely within the States of Alaska or Hawaii with airplanes having a passenger seat configuration of more than 30 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds” may elect to comply with the flag flight, duty, and rest rules of part 121.
The final rule that created 14 CFR part 117 provides that all-cargo operations that do not choose to operate under part 117 will be able to operate under the same flight, duty, and rest rules that they operated under prior to the creation of part 117.
The regulatory text in § 117.3 has been corrected to clarify that if there is a conflict in definitions, the definitions in § 117.3 control only for purposes of the flight and duty limitations and rest requirements of part 117.
Section 117.11(b) permits a flightcrew member to exceed the flight-time limits of § 117.11(a) and § 117.23(b) in certain circumstances. To ensure that the FAA is notified in all instances in which the § 117.11(b) extension is utilized, § 117.11(c) has been corrected to clarify that reporting is required if the extension in § 117.11(b) is used to exceed either the limits of § 117.11 or § 117.23(b).
Similar to § 117.11(b), § 117.19(b) permits a flightcrew member to exceed the flight-duty-period limits specified in Tables B and C and in § 117.23(c). To ensure that the FAA is notified in all instances in which the § 117.19(b) extension is utilized, § 117.19(b)(4) has been corrected to clarify that reporting is required if the extension in § 117.19(b) is used to exceed either the limits of Tables B/C or § 117.23. We note that while reporting is not required if the limits of Table B or C are exceeded by 30 minutes or less, the corrected § 117.19(b) requires certificate holder reporting if the limits of § 117.23 are exceeded by any amount of time.
The cumulative flight-time limitations in § 117.23(c) have been corrected to clarify that a flightcrew member cannot accept an assignment that would cause that crewmember's total flight duty period to exceed either 60 hours in any
Similar to § 117.11(b) and § 117.19(b), § 117.29 permits a flightcrew member to exceed the cumulative limits specified in Tables A, B, and C, and in § 117.23. To ensure that the FAA is notified in all instances in which the § 117.29(b) extension is utilized, § 117.29(e) has been corrected to clarify that reporting is required if the extension in § 117.29(b) is used to exceed either the limits of Tables A/B/C or § 117.23.
Accordingly, in the final rule, FR Doc. 2011-33078, published on January 4, 2012 (77 FR 330), make the following corrections:
In addition to the definitions in §§ 1.1 and 110.2 of this chapter, the following definitions apply to this part. In the event there is a conflict in definitions, the definitions in this part control for purposes of the flight and duty limitations and rest requirements of this part.
(c) Each certificate holder must report to the Administrator within 10 days any flight time that exceeded the maximum flight time limits permitted by this section or § 117.23(b). The report must contain a description of the extended flight time limitation and the circumstances surrounding the need for the extension.
(b) * * *
(4) Each certificate holder must report to the Administrator within 10 days any flight duty period that either exceeded the cumulative flight duty periods specified in § 117.23(c), or exceeded the maximum flight duty period limits permitted by Tables B or C of this part by more than 30 minutes. The report must contain a description of the circumstances surrounding the affected flight duty period.
(c) * * *
(1) 60 flight duty period hours in any 168 consecutive hours or
(e) Each certificate holder must report within 10 days:
(1) Any flight duty period that exceeded the maximum flight duty period permitted in Tables B or C of this part, as applicable, by more than 30 minutes;
(2) Any flight time that exceeded the maximum flight time limits permitted in Table A of this part and § 117.11, as applicable; and
(3) Any flight duty period or flight time that exceeded the cumulative limits specified in § 117.23.
(b) Certificate holders conducting scheduled operations entirely within the States of Alaska or Hawaii with airplanes having a passenger seat configuration of more than 30 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds, may comply with the requirements of this subpart or subpart R of this part for those operations.
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Final rule; nomenclature change.
Effective October 1, 2013, the Department of Commerce (Department), through internal department organizational orders, changed the name of “Import Administration” to “Enforcement and Compliance.” Consistent with this action, this rule makes appropriate conforming changes in part 400 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The rule also sets forth a Savings Provision that preserves, under the new name, all actions taken under the name of Import Administration and provides that any references to Import Administration in any document or other communication shall be deemed to be references to Enforcement and Compliance.
This rule is effective on November 19, 2013.
Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Telephone: (202) 482-2862; Joanna Theiss, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, Telephone: (202) 482-5052.
This rule implements the decision by the Department of Commerce, through internal Department Organizational Order 10-3 (effective September 18, 2013) and Department Organizational Order 40-1, (effective September 19, 2013), to consolidate and reorganize certain Department organizational functions and revise the name of “Import Administration” to “Enforcement and Compliance.” The revision more accurately reflects the breadth of the agency's activities with respect to the enforcement of, and compliance with, U.S. trade laws. Consistent with the consolidation and name change, this rule makes a number of changes in part 400 of title 15 of the
This rule shall constitute notice that all references to Import Administration in any documents, statements, or other communications, in any form or media, and whether made before, on, or after the effective date of this rule, shall be deemed to be references to Enforcement and Compliance. Any actions undertaken in the name of or on behalf of Import Administration, whether taken before, on, or after the effective date of this rule, shall be deemed to have been taken in the name of or on behalf of Enforcement and Compliance.
1. This final rule has been determined to be exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
2. This rule does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as this term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this rule involves a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). 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 5 U.S.C. or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) are not applicable. Accordingly, this rule is issued in final form.
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Foreign trade zones, Harbors, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 15 CFR part 400 is amended as set forth below:
Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (Pub. L. 73-397, 48 Stat. 998-1003 (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u)).
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, DoD.
Direct final rule with request for comments.
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is updating the NGA Privacy Act Program by adding the (k)(2) exemption to accurately describe the basis for exempting the records in the system of records notice NGA-008, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Polygraph Records System. In this rulemaking, the NGA proposes to exempt portions of this system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil and administrative enforcement requirements. This direct final rule makes non-substantive changes to the NGA Program rules. These changes will allow the Department to add exemption rules to the NGA Privacy Program rules that will exempt applicable Department records and/or material from certain portions of the Privacy Act. This will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD's program by ensuring the integrity of the security and counterintelligence records by the NGA and the Department of Defense.
This rule is being published as a direct final rule as the Department of Defense does not expect to receive any adverse comments, and so a proposed rule is unnecessary.
The rule will be effective on January 28, 2014 unless adverse comment is received by January 21, 2014. If adverse comment is received, the Department of Defense will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
*
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), ATTN: Security Specialist, Mission Support, MSRS P-12, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150.
DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves non-substantive changes dealing with DoD's management of its Privacy Programs. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
It has been determined that this rule is not a significant rule. This rule does not (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive orders.
This rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
These amendments do not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
These amendments do 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, no Federalism assessment is required.
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 320 is amended as follows:
Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1986 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
(e)
(1) Exemptions: Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of the information, the individual will be provided access to the information exempt to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
When claimed, this exemption allows limited protection of investigative reports maintained in a system of records used in personnel or administrative actions.
(3) Reasons: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(2), the Director of NGA has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitation set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(i) From subsection (c)(3) and (c)(4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of NGA as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.
(ii) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of NGA or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
(iii) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of Federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.
(iv) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.
(v) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.
(vi) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore NGA is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view
(vii) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude NGA personnel from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.
(viii) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with NGA's ability to cooperate with law enforcement who would obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
(ix) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, DoD.
Direct final rule with request for comments.
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is updating the NGA Privacy Act Program by adding the (k)(2) exemption to accurately describe the basis for exempting the records in the system of records notice NGA-003, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Enterprise Workforce System. In this rulemaking, the NGA proposes to exempt portions of this system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil and administrative enforcement requirements. This direct final rule makes non-substantive changes to the NGA Program rules. These changes will allow the Department to add exemption rules to the NGA Privacy Program rules that will exempt applicable Department records and/or material from certain portions of the Privacy Act. This will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD's program by ensuring the integrity of the security and counterintelligence records by the NGA and the Department of Defense.
This rule is being published as a direct final rule as the Department of Defense does not expect to receive any adverse comments, and so a proposed rule is unnecessary.
The rule will be effective on January 28, 2014 unless adverse comment is received by January 21, 2014. If adverse comment is received, the Department of Defense will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
*
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Human Development Directorate, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150.
DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves non-substantive changes dealing with DoD's management of its Privacy Programs. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the
It has been determined that this rule is not a significant rule. This rule does not (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive orders.
This rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act systems of records within the Department of Defense. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
These amendments do not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
These amendments do not have substantial direct effects on the States,
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 320 is amended as follows:
Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat. 1986 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
(d)
(1) Exemptions: Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of the information, the individual will be provided access to the information exempt to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
When claimed, this exemption allows limited protection of investigative reports maintained in a system of records used in personnel or administrative actions.
(3) Reasons: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(2), the Director of NGA has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitation set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:
(i) From subsection (c)(3) and (c)(4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of NGA as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.
(ii) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of NGA or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.
(iii) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of Federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.
(iv) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.
(v) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.
(vi) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore NGA is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.
(vii) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude NGA personnel from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.
(viii) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with NGA's ability to cooperate with law enforcement who would obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.
(ix) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard issues this final rule to remove from its regulations
This final rule is effective November 19, 2013.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2013-0916 and are available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to
If you have questions on this rule, email or call Mr. Quentin Kent, Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance, Foreign and Offshore Vessel Division (CG-CVC-2), Coast Guard; email
The Coast Guard is amending its regulations in 33 CFR part 141, which govern the restrictions on the employment of personnel on units engaged in Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) activities, by removing an incorrect reference to the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC). The reference in 33 CFR 141.30(d) incorrectly provides that, for purposes of 33 CFR part 141, a TWIC alone may be accepted by an employer as sufficient evidence of the TWIC holder's status a U.S. resident alien,
The regulations in 33 CFR part 141 are authorized by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1301, et. al.), which mandates that the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard operates shall issue regulations which, in part, require the employment of U.S. citizens or resident aliens on any vessel, rig, platform, or other vehicle or structure engaged in OCS activities, unless certain exceptions apply. 43 U.S.C. 1356.
Subsequent to the implementation of the regulations in 33 CFR part 141, the Coast Guard published a final rule entitled, “Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials” on March 16, 2009, that went into effect on April 15, 2009. 74 FR 11196. In that rulemaking several provisions of 33 CFR part 141 were amended. In particular, the Coast Guard added paragraph (d) to 33 CFR 141.30, authorizing an employer to accept a TWIC alone as sufficient evidence of the TWIC holder's status as a U.S. resident alien. However, the preamble to this rulemaking did not provide a reason for adding paragraph (d) to 33 CFR 141.30. Paragraph (d) is incorrect because a TWIC may be issued to both U.S. resident aliens and non-resident aliens
Since OCSLA mandates that employers must employ only U.S. citizens or resident aliens on units engaged in OCS activities, any employer who hires a non-resident alien who has presented only a TWIC as proof of status as a U.S. resident alien, would not be in compliance with the OCSLA requirement. Additionally, authorizing a TWIC to be used in this manner is contrary to, and inconsistent with the definition for a U.S. “resident alien” found in § 141.10 where the term is defined as “an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20).”
To correct this inconsistency, the Coast Guard is removing 33 CFR 141.30(d) from its regulations and clarifies that only the provisions in 33 CFR 141.30(a) through (c) are acceptable for showing evidence of a person's status as a U.S. resident alien.
The Coast Guard is also removing a related TWIC definition in § 141.10 and a related TWIC recordkeeping reference in § 141.35(d).
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires the Coast Guard to provide public notice and seek public comment on substantive regulations. 5 U.S.C. 553. The APA, however, excludes certain types of regulations and permits exceptions for other types of regulations from this public notice and comment requirement. Under the APA “good cause” exception, an agency may dispense with the requirement for notice and comment if the agency finds that following APA requirements would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Coast Guard finds that notice and comment for this rulemaking is unnecessary because we are merely removing a provision that we mistakenly inserted into 33 CFR part 141 in a 2009 rulemaking and that is inconsistent with the governing statute (see discussion in section II. Basis and Purpose). Public notice of this change is unnecessary because such comments cannot affect, influence, or inform any Coast Guard action in implementing the removal of this provision because the Coast Guard cannot maintain a regulation that is inconsistent with its statutory authority.
Moreover, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists to implement this rule immediately upon publication in the
Section 141.10 contains the definitions that apply to part 141. A TWIC is defined as “an identification credential issued by the Transportation Security Administration according to 49 CFR part 1572.” We are removing this definition for the reasons explained in Part III.
Section 141.30 contains the regulation which lists the documents an employer can accept as evidence of a person's status as a U.S. resident alien. We are removing Section 141.30(d) for the reasons explained in Part III.
Section 141.35 states which records must be kept by employers as proof of eligibility for employment on the OCS. Section 141.35(a)(1) requires that an employer maintain a copy of a TWIC if that is the method of identification used by the employee to assert eligibility to work on the OCS. Since a TWIC is not a valid form of identification for purposes of part 141 as explained in Part III, we are removing “Transportation Worker Identification Credential” from § 141.35(a)(1). All other recordkeeping requirements will remain unchanged.
In addition, we will make a non-substantive change to § 141.30(c). The word “the” preceding the word “Naturalization” is removed as it is grammatically incorrect since only the word “a” should precede the word “Naturalization.”
We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of this final rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry.
Currently, part 141 permits an individual to present a valid TWIC as evidence of U.S. resident alien status for the purposes of employment on units engaged in OCS activities. The TWIC is unsuitable as evidence of U.S. resident alien status because the TWIC may be obtained by non-resident aliens.
Employers, therefore, cannot accept the TWIC as sufficient evidence that the potential employee is a U.S. resident alien. This final rule will remove the TWIC as proof of U.S. resident alien status for employment on units engaged in OCS activities, creating consistency with other requirements in part 141 that state that each employer engaged in OCS activities must employ only U.S. citizens or resident aliens, with limited exceptions.
The Coast Guard does not expect this final rule to burden industry with new costs. In addition to having no evidence that any employers have attempted to accept the TWIC alone to determine the immigration status of employees since the TWIC was added to the list in 2009, employers in the United States are required by the INA to use the Form I-9,
Because part 141 does not exempt employers from completing the Form I-9, the population directly affected by the final rule (i.e., employers and potential employees) will not incur any additional costs as a result of the final rule.
The benefits of this final rule include harmonization with the INA and clarification of the requirements to demonstrate U.S. resident alien status for the purpose of employment on units engaged in activities on the OCS. The inclusion of the TWIC to the list of documents acceptable to prove U.S. resident alien status in § 141.30 contradicts the intent of OCSLA. Removal of the reference to TWIC from the list will ensure employers and employees understand which documents can be accepted as proof of U.S. resident alien status.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The revisions in this rule do not require publication of an NPRM and, therefore, is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Although this rule is exempt, we have reviewed it for its potential economic impact on small entities. There is no cost to businesses, not-for-profit organizations, or government jurisdictions as a result of this rule, since other federal requirements would preclude the use of the TWIC as sole evidence of U.S. resident alien status. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Mr. Quentin Kent, at
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. In 43 U.S.C. 1356, Congress specifically granted to the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, the authority to issue regulations, which, in part, require the employment of U.S. citizens or resident aliens on any vessel, rig, platform, or other vehicle or structure engaged in OCS activities, unless certain exceptions apply. As this rule updates existing OCS personnel regulations, it falls within the scope of authority Congress granted exclusively to the Secretary of Homeland Security and States may not regulate within this category.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(a), (c) and (d) of the Instruction. This rule involves regulations that are editorial or procedural, regulations concerning the licensing of maritime personnel and regulations concerning manning and documentation of vessels. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under
Citizenship and naturalization, Continental shelf, Employment, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 141 as follows:
43 U.S.C. 1356; 46 U.S.C. 70105; 49 CFR 1.46(z).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is taking final action to approve new rules as submitted by the State of Montana on September 23, 2011. Montana adopted these rules on December 2, 2005 and March 23, 2006. These new rules meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's minor new source review (NSR) regulations. In this action, EPA is approving these rules as they are consistent with the CAA. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
This final rule is effective December 19, 2013.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0846. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, or
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials
(ii) The words
(iii) The words
(iv) The initials
(v) The initials
(iv) The words
EPA is taking final action to approve the Montana State Implementation Plan (SIP) and rules submitted to EPA on September 23, 2011. This submission contained revisions to ARM 17.8.744, and new rules I-VI, codified as ARM 17.8.1601, 17.8.1602, 17.8.1603, 17.8.1604, 17.8.1605, and 17.8.1606, pertaining to the regulation of oil and gas well facilities. The Montana Board of Environmental Review (Board) adopted these revisions to existing SIP revisions and new rules on December 2, 2005 and they became effective on January 1, 2006. This submission also contains new rules I-IX, codified as ARM 17.8.1701, 17.8.1702, 17.8.1703, 17.8.1704, 17.8.1705, 17.8.1710, 17.8.1711, 17.8.1712 and 17.8.1713 pertaining to the regulation of oil and gas well facilities. The Board adopted these revisions to existing SIP revisions and new rules on March 23, 2006 and they became effective on April 7, 2006. The new rules and revisions meet the requirements of the Act and EPA's minor NSR regulations.
EPA proposed action for the above SIP revision submittals on November 13, 2012 (77 FR 67596). We accepted comments from the public on this proposal from November 14, 2012, until December 13, 2012. A summary of the comments received and our evaluation thereof is discussed in section III below. In the proposed rule, we described our basis for the actions identified above. The reader should refer to the proposed rule, and sections IV and V of this preamble, for additional information regarding this final action.
EPA reviews a SIP revision submission for its compliance with the Act and EPA regulations. CAA 110(k)(3). We evaluated the submitted new and revised rules based upon the regulations and associated record that have been submitted and are currently before EPA. In order for EPA to ensure that Montana has a program that meets the requirements of the CAA, the State must demonstrate the program is as stringent as the Act and the implementing regulations discussed in this notice. For example, EPA must have sufficient information to make a finding that the new program will ensure protection of the NAAQS, and noninterference with the Montana SIP control strategies, as required by section 110(l) of the Act. The provisions in these submittals were not submitted to meet a mandatory requirement of the Act.
The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 CFR 51.160 require states to have legally
Section 110(l) of the CAA states: “[e]ach revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.”
The States' obligation to comply with each of the NAAQS is considered as “any applicable requirement(s) concerning attainment.” A demonstration is necessary to show that this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, including those for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO
The final action to approve the new and revised rules as described in section I of this preamble, hereafter referred to as “the program”, would establish a registration system for certain facilities that presently require a minor NSR air quality permit under the SIP regulations. The new and revised rules would establish a general registration system for oil and gas well facilities and would allow the owner or operator of an oil or gas well facility to register with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in lieu of submitting a permit application and obtaining a permit to construct or modify the source. Currently, with specific exemptions, the administrative rules adopted under the Clean Air Act of Montana and approved by the EPA into the SIP, require the owner or operator of sources of air pollution to obtain a permit prior to construction or modification.
Montana originally submitted these rules on October 16, 2006, and November 1, 2006 to EPA for inclusion into the SIP. EPA proposed action on these submittals on January 6, 2011 (76 FR 758). EPA had several concerns with the Program, as was explained in 76 FR 758. Montana withdrew the October 16, 2006, and November 1, 2006, submittals in March of 2011 and resubmitted the Program on September 23, 2011. The September 23, 2011, submittal contained a 110(l) demonstration, as well as other supplemental data, which addressed EPA's concerns that were raised in 76 FR 758.
In response to our November 13, 2012 proposal, we received comments from the following: Montana Petroleum Association, Inc. (MPA); True Oil LLC; and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).
Response: We acknowledge receipt of these comments and the support for our proposal for approval. We also acknowledge receipt of the comments submitted by MPA which are contained in
Response: We acknowledge receipt of these comments and the support for our proposal for approval.
Response: We acknowledge receipt of these comments and the support for our proposal for approval. EPA recognizes that approval of an oil and gas registration program is a priority for the State; EPA also indicates its support for registration/permit-by-rule programs as they provide efficiencies and environmental benefits. EPA commends MDEQ for periodically revising their SIP in order to adapt to environmental, economic and social changes, and recognizing the need for a more collaborative, flexible, and performance based regulatory strategy to meet the regulatory challenge posed by Montana's oil and gas industry. EPA also commends Montana's work in developing an approvable program that is consistent with CAA and regulatory requirements.
EPA evaluated the new rules and revisions, as described in section I of this preamble, using the following:
(1) The statutory requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(c), which requires states to include a minor NSR program in their SIP to regulate modifications and new construction of stationary sources within the area as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved;
(2) The regulatory requirements under 40 CFR 51.160, including section 51.160(a), which require that the SIP include legally enforceable procedures that enable a state or local agency to determine whether construction or modification of a facility, building, structure or installation, or combination of these will result in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy; or interference with attainment or maintenance of a national standard in the state in which the proposed source (or modification) is located or in a neighboring state; section 51.160(b), which requires states to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS; and
(3) The statutory requirements under CAA section 110(l), which provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, EPA will approve a SIP revision only after a state has demonstrated that such a revision will not interfere (“noninterference”) with attainment of the NAAQS, RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In this instance, EPA asked the State to submit an analysis showing that the new rules and revisions, as described in section I of this preamble, would not violate section 110(l) of the CAA (see docket); this is also referred to as a “demonstration of noninterference” with attainment and maintenance under CAA section 110(l). The scope and rigor of the demonstration of noninterference conducted in support of this notice is appropriate given the air quality status of the State, and the potential impact of the revision on air quality and the pollutants affected.
As EPA described in this preamble and in the proposed notice (77 FR 67596), the new rules and revisions we are taking final action to approve meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(c) and 40 CFR 51.160. In addition, the State's September 23, 2011, demonstration of noninterference indicates that incorporating the new rules and revisions, as described in section I of this preamble, will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
EPA is taking final action to approve the new and revised rules as submitted by Montana on September 23, 2011, based upon three criteria. First, the State provided sufficient information to determine that the requested revision to add the new oil and gas registration program to the Montana Minor NSR SIP will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and RFP as required by CAA section 110(l), or any other requirement of the Act; Second, the new rules comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires states to include a minor NSR program in their SIP to regulate modifications and new construction of stationary sources within the area as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved; Third, the new rules comply with 40 CFR 51.160.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this final 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 Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 21, 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
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(73) On September 23, 2011, the State of Montana submitted new rules to the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM). The submittal included new rules to ARM Chapter 17. The incorporation by reference in paragraphs (i)(A) and (i)(B) reflect the new rules.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Administrative Rules of Montana: 17.8.1601,
(B) Administrative Rules of Montana: 17.8.1701,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
On June 24, 2011, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted for Clean Air Act (CAA) State Implementation Plan (SIP) approval, revisions to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) rules: 3745-18-01, 3745-18-03 to 3745-18-52, 3745-18-54 to 3745-18-77, 3745-18-79, 3745-18-81 to 3745-18-89, and 3745-18-91 to 3745-18-94. The rule revisions primarily update facility information and remove SO
This rule is effective January 21, 2014, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 19, 2013. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0672, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9401,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
Ohio law requires a five year review of all regulations. Ohio conducted a review on OAC 3745-18 and made revisions throughout the rules. The rule revisions are primarily updating facility information and removing requirements that apply to shutdown facilities. Ohio EPA submitted the rule revisions to EPA on June 24, 2011. EPA's most recent approval for revisions to OAC 3745-18 was published in the
During Ohio's five year review, Ohio made revisions to rules: 3745-18-01, 3745-18-03 to 3745-18-52, 3745-18-54 to 3745-18-77, 3745-18-79, 3745-18-81 to 3745-18-89, and 3745-18-91 to 3745-18-94.
Numerous revisions to OAC 3745-18 were updates of existing facility information. Several facilities had changes in premise numbers. Several other facilities were updated with name changes. An emissions limit was updated for the Sunoco, Inc., Toledo Refinery. This limit is consistent with EPA's consent order 05CV2866. The updates to these facilities allow for consistent recordkeeping and easier compliance tracking.
Most of the substantial rule revisions were the removal of requirements for shutdown facilities from the SIP. Ohio's criteria for removing requirements for a facility from the SIP is that the facility has been permanently and enforceablely shutdown for at least five years. EPA and Ohio EPA are confident that all the facilities for which requirements are being removed from the SIP are permanently and enforceablely shut down. When confirming a shutdown facility, EPA relies on the State's database. EPA confirmed that all of the shutdown facilities are in Ohio EPA's database. Table 1 in EPA's September 2013 Technical Support Document (TSD), available in the docket for this rulemaking, shows the facilities that have been shut down with their shutdown dates. For the last third of Table 1, EPA was not able to confirm a shutdown date for the facilities. Ohio EPA confirmed that these facilities were shut down before the existence of the database and supplied information on the shutdown of these facilities in the last column of Table 1.
The last eight facilities in Table 1 of the TSD are still operating. However, Ohio EPA and EPA agree that it is appropriate to remove the SO
Table 2 in the TSD is a list of facilities that are still operating emission units applicable to the SIP, but have units that have shut down. Therefore, for clarity of the rule, it is appropriate to remove the SO
For the few cases where the facility still operates, but the emissions units are shut down, the permits have been revoked and new permits would need to be issued if the units ever restarted. EPA is confident that all facilities where SO
EPA is not taking action on selected paragraphs in OAC 3745-18-04. Paragraph OAC 37-18-04(D)(9), contains a typographical error that changes the testing method required in the paragraph. EPA is not taking action on this paragraph, so the version that was state effective on March 21, 2000 will remain in effect for the Federally approved SIP. Ohio sent an email on September 20, 2013 acknowledging this error. EPA is also not taking action on paragraphs OAC 37-18-04(D)(2), (D)(3), (D)(5), (D)(6), (E)(2), (E)(3), and (E)(4). These paragraphs have not been previously approved by EPA and are outside the cleanup intent of these SIP revisions.
EPA is approving OAC 3745-18-01, 3745-18-03, 3745-18-05 to 3745-18-52, 3745-18-54 to 3745-18-77, 3745-18-79, 3745-18-81 to 3745-18-89, 3745-18-91 to 3745-18-94, and parts of 3745-18-04. The revisions mainly remove the SO
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CCAA 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).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 January 21, 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. 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(160) On June 24, 2011, Ohio submitted numerous revisions to their SO
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Ohio Administrative Code Rules 3745-18-03 “Attainment dates and compliance time schedules.”, 3745-18-04 “Measurement methods and procedures.” except (D)(2), (D)(3), (D)(5), (D)(6), (D)(9), (E)(2), (E)(3), and (E)(4), 3745-18-05 “Ambient and meteorological monitoring requirements.”, 3745-18-06 “General emission limit provisions.”, 3745-18-07 “Adams County emission limits.”, 3745-18-08 “Allen County emissions limits.”, 3745-18-09 “Ashland County emission limits.”, 3745-18-10 “Ashtabula County emissions limits.”, 3745-18-11 “Athens County emission limits.”, 3745-18-12 “Auglaize County emission limits.”, 3745-18-13 “Belmont County emission limits.”, 3745-18-14 “Brown County emission limits.”, 3745-18-15 “Butler County emission limits.”, 3745-18-16 “Carroll County emission limits.”, 3745-18-17 “Champaign County emission limits.”, 3745-18-18 “Clark County emission limits.”, 3745-18-19 “Clermont County emission limits.”, 3745-18-20 “Clinton County emission limits.”, 3745-18-21 “Columbiana County emission limits.”, 3745-18-22 “Coshocton County emission limits.”, 3745-18-23 “Crawford County emission limits.”, 3745-18-24 “Cuyahoga County emission limits.”, 3745-18-25 “Darke County emission limits.”, 3745-18-26 “Defiance County emission limits.”, 3745-18-27 “Delaware County emission limits.”, 3745-18-28 “Erie County emission limits.”, 3745-18-29 “Fairfield County emission limits.”, 3745-18-30 “Fayette County emission limits.”, 3745-18-31 “Franklin County emission limits.”, 3745-18-32 “Fulton County emission limits.”, 3745-18-33 “Gallia County emission limits.”, 3745-18-34 “Geauga County emission limits.”, 3745-18-35 “Greene County emission limits.”, 3745-18-36 “Guernsey County emission limits.”, 3745-18-37 “Hamilton County emission limits.”, 3745-18-38 “Hancock County emission limits.”, 3745-18-39 “Hardin County emission limits.”, 3745-18-40 “Harrison County emission limits.”, 3745-18-41 “Henry County emission limits.”, 3745-18-42 “Highland County emission limits.”, 3745-18-43 “Hocking County emission limits.”, 3745-18-44 “Holmes County emission limits.”, 3745-18-45 “Huron County emission limits.”, 3745-18-46 “Jackson County emission limits.”, 3745-18-47 “Jefferson County emission limits.”, 3745-18-48 “Knox County emission limits.”, 3745-18-49 “Lake County emission limits.”, 3745-18-50 “Lawrence County emission limits.”, 3745-18-51 “Licking County emission limits.”, 3745-18-52 “Logan County emission limits.”, 3745-18-55 “Madison County emission limits.”, 3745-18-56 “Mahoning County emission limits.”, 3745-18-57 “Marion County emission limits.”, 3745-18-58 “Medina County emission limits.”, 3745-18-59 “Meigs County emission limits.”, 3745-18-60 “Mercer County
(B) February 7, 2011, “Director's Final Findings and Orders”, signed by Scott J. Nally, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, adopting the rules identified in paragraph (160)(i)(A) of this section.
(C) Ohio Administrative Code Rules 3745-18-01 “Definitions and incorporation by reference.”, 3745-18-54 “Lucas County emission limits.”, 3745-18-82 “Stark County emission limits.”, adopted on March 24, 2011, effective April 3, 2011.
(D) March 24, 2011, “Director's Final Findings and Orders”, signed by Scott J. Nally, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, adopting the rules identified in paragraph (160)(i)(C) of this section.
(a) * * *
(4) Notwithstanding the portions of this section that EPA has either disapproved or taken no action on, EPA has approved a complete plan addressing all counties in the State of Ohio. In addition, specific approved rules are listed in § 52.1870.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of portions of the El Toro Marine Corp Air Station Superfund Site (Site), located in Irvine, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final partial deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of California through the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions at these identified parcels under CERCLA have been completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This partial deletion pertains to all Site media, including soil and groundwater, of parcels I-A, II-A, III-A, II-J, II-Q, II-S, II-T, III-C, I-C, II-U, I-B, I-E, I-G, I-H, I-I, I-J, I-L, I-M, I-P, II-G, II-I, II-P, III-D, I-K, I-N, I-O, I-S, II-E, II-L, II-M, II-R, I-Q, I-R, II-B, II-K, and II-O of the Site. The current remaining areas of the Site will remain on the NPL and are not being considered for deletion as part of this action.
This direct final partial deletion is effective January 21, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 19, 2013. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final partial deletion in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1910-0010, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Mary Aycock, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Mail Code SFD81 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-2389, email:
EPA Region IX is publishing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion for the El Toro Marine Corp Air Station (Site), from the National Priorities List (NPL). This partial deletion pertains to all Site media, including soil and groundwater, of parcels I-A, II-A, III-A, II-J, II-Q, II-S, II-T, III-C, I-C, II-U, I-B, I-E, I-G, I-H, I-I, I-J, I-L, I-M, I-P, II-G, II-I, II-P, III-D, I-K, I-N, I-O, I-S, II-E, II-L, II-M, II-R, I-Q, I-R, II-B, II-K, and II-O of the Site. The properties proposed for deletion are shown in the map available in the partial deletion docket and will be referred to hereafter as “the properties proposed for deletion.” The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the El Toro Marine Corp Air Station is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, this action will be effective January 21, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 19, 2013. Along with this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion in the “Proposed Rules” section of the
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the properties proposed for deletion of El Toro Marine Corp Air Station and demonstrates how they meet the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to partially delete the Site parcels from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.
The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
The following procedures apply to the properties proposed for deletion:
(1) EPA has consulted with the state of California prior to developing this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion and the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion co-published in the “Proposed Rules” section of the
(2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion prior to their publication today, and the state, through the Department of Toxic Substances Control, has concurred on the partial deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion is being published in a major local newspaper, the Orange County Register. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
(4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the partial deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.
(5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a timely notice of
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for further response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.
The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the properties proposed for deletion from the NPL:
The former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (EPA ID: CA6170023208), (El Toro MCAS) covering approximately 4,712 acres in the City of Irvine, County of Orange, California is located at 33 degrees (°) 38 minutes (′) to 33°41′ north latitude,117°41′ to 117°45′ west longitude, Township 6 South, Range 6 West (T6S/R6W) (Sections 2-5, 7-11, 16-17, 20-21) and T5S/R8W (Sections 32-33, 35).
Development of former El Toro MCAS began in July 1942, when construction of a United States Marine Corps pilot's fleet operational training facility began on approximately 2,319 acres of land in Orange County, California. The Site was commissioned as El Toro Marine Corps Air Station on March 17, 1943. In 1950, the Station was selected for development as a master jet air station and permanent center for marine aviation of the west coast to support the operations and combat readiness of Fleet Marine Forces, Pacific. Between 1944 and 1986, additional land was acquired to bring the size of the on-station portion of the installation to 4,712 acres.
Major activities at the Site contributing to the generation of hazardous wastes included vehicle maintenance, ground support maintenance, aircraft maintenance, and aircraft corrosion control. Other waste generating activities included munitions disposal, pest control, fire protection training, and laboratory operations including photo development, non-destructive inspection, and fuel analysis. Wastes generated by the maintenance operations included spent solvents and waste oils (including TCE, TCA, MEK, toluene, and PD-680), fuels, greases removed from the spent solvents, and spent strippers. Aircraft washrack activities resulted in discharge of alkaline soaps, detergents, and small amounts of PD-680. Vehicle and aircraft waste discharge produced the greatest volume of industrial waste of any of the base activities.
A number of potentially contaminated areas were identified on the Site, including four landfills suspected of containing both hazardous and solid waste, and other areas where polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), battery acids, leaded fuels, and other hazardous substances were suspected of being dumped or spilled. A Remedial Investigation (RI) conducted by El Toro MCAS identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily trichloroethene (TCE), in groundwater that migrated more than three miles off base. The primary source of the groundwater contamination was two large aircraft hangars. Land irrigated by wells is located within three miles of the site; however, none of these wells are drinking water sources. Surface water flows into the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, located approximately eight miles from the base.
In recent years, portions of the Site were transferred to different governmental agencies. In 1998, the Bake Parkway/Interstate 5 public highway expansion project was completed resulting in the transfer of approximately 23 acres to the California Department of Transportation. In 2001, 896.7 acres in the northeast portion of the station were transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration.
The Site was decommissioned as an active base in July 1999. The parcels to be deleted from the NPL have all been transferred from the Department of the Navy (DON) to Heritage Fields LLC (Heritage Fields) under the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1995. Heritage Fields plans to build a combination of residential, commercial, retail and educational facilities on Site. In addition, Heritage Fields has transferred 1,387 acres to the City of Irvine to create the Orange County Great Park. The Orange County Great Park will be home to a world-class Olympic-style sports village and entertainment center, a new high school and neighborhood elementary schools, and infrastructure and support for a substantially expanded Irvine transportation center. Redevelopment efforts are on-going.
The Site was proposed to be placed on the NPL on June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23988); and was placed on the NPL on February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6154). In October 1990, the U.S. EPA (EPA), California Department of Health Services (CDPH) (the CDPH was the predecessor program to the California Department of Health Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the DON signed a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) which formalized the process for environmental response actions and the relative roles of the EPA, state agencies, and the DON under CERCLA and the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The FFA was signed by the EPA, the State of California, and the DON in October 1990.
Environmental Baseline Surveys (EBSs), which identify parcels of land for sale, lease, or needing further investigation, were completed in 1995 and 2003. The EBSs identified environmental factors and locations of concern (LOCs) where further evaluation and/or actions were ongoing or required. Once identified, these LOCs were reviewed by the DON, state regulatory agencies and EPA. Based upon this review, sites were either recommended for no further action (NFA) or for further sampling. Based upon the subsequent sampling, those sites either became NFA sites or proceeded to the more extensive Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) cleanup process.
The portions of the Site to be deleted from the NPL include 1,900.4 acres of contiguous property. All of these parcels have been transferred from the DON to Heritage Fields. Prior to transferring property at El Toro MCAS, the DON was required, pursuant to Section 102(h) of CERCLA, to document that all environmental impacts associated with the DON's activities on the Site had been thoroughly investigated and appropriate remedial actions have been taken to protect the public health, welfare, and the environment. DON presented this documentation in a series of successive Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) documents. In each case, the FOST described the LOCs on the property to be transferred and the investigation and remedial actions taken at those properties to obtain concurrence from the EPA, CDPH/DTSC and RWQCB. A total of 7 FOSTs were finalized for all parcels to be deleted between July 2005 and September 2012.
LOC site narratives where release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances occurred, but at concentrations that did not require a removal or remedial action because site conditions were found to be protective of both human health and the environment may be found in a tables appendix in the Deletion Docket. This appendix does not include LOCs that were only contaminated with petroleum, as these sites are not subject to CERCLA based on the petroleum exemption. In total, 112 such LOCs were thoroughly evaluated and recommended for no further action.
This partial deletion covers the following Site parcels: I-A, II-A, III-A, II-J, II-Q, II-S, II-T, III-C, I-C, II-U, I-B, I-E, I-G, I-H, I-I, I-J, I-L, I-M, I-P, II-G, II-I, II-P, III-D, I-K, I-N, I-O, I-S, II-E, II-L, II-M, II-R, I-Q, I-R, II-B, II-K, and II-O. A map identifying the areas to be deleted, as well as the areas to remain on the NPL, is available in the partial deletion docket.
Approximately 2,798 acres of the Site were covered by FOST #1, including 1,070.2 acres that EPA determined had not been impacted by hazardous waste and that therefore were not part of the NPL. These two areas of the Site were removed from the NPL through two clarification letters issued by EPA. Clarification Areas A, B, C, and D, consisting of 978.6 acres, were removed from the NPL through an EPA clarification letter dated October 27, 2005. Clarification Area E, consisting of 91.6 acres, was removed from the NPL through an EPA clarification letter dated March 21, 2006.
The unclarified portions of the FOST #1 area consisted of three Transfer Parcels: Transfer Parcels I-A, II-A, and III-A.
Transfer Parcel I-A was approximately 809.5 acres. This parcel contained 225 non-demolished buildings/structures/facilities including the units located in the Saddleback Terrace housing area. In addition, Parcel I-A contained IRP Site 20—Hobby Shop and a portion of IRP Site 25—Major Drainages.
IRP Site 20—Hobby Shop encompassed approximately 0.5 acre immediately northwest of the intersection of North 9th Street and West Marine Way and included Building 626. Beginning in 1967, the site was used as an auto shop for military personnel to service and repair privately owned vehicles. Kerosene was reportedly used to wash down the paved area at the site until approximately 1976. The wash runoff drained into a catch basin situated in the entry driveway and finally drained into an oil/water separator (OWS). From 1976 until closure of the Hobby Shop in 1999, a biodegradable soap was used in place of kerosene.
Site 20 originally consisted of four units:
• Unit 1—Shallow Drainage Swale (1-2 feet below grade), adjacent to the east side of Building 626.
• Unit 2—South Drainage Ditch, ran along North 9th Street
• Unit 3—Stained Area, small area adjacent to the northwest side of Building 626
• Unit 4—Inner Courtyard of Building 626, an entry driveway, and a front-sloping area adjacent to the drainage ditch along North 9th Street. The inner portion was paved with asphalt. The entry driveway was concrete and crossed over the drainage ditch. The front area was covered with grass with some bare spots and various trees.
Investigations at the IRP Site 20 included a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA), a Phase I RI, aerial photograph surveys in 1993, and a Phase II RI in 1996. In 1997, Units 2 and 3 were excluded from the site based on the CERCLA petroleum exemption, 42 U.S.C. 9601(14)(F). Sites containing only petroleum contamination were, and continue to be remediated under the oversight of the RWQCB).
Soil sampling identified VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), PCBs, and pesticides at the site, all below residential PRGs. Arsenic was detected at concentrations above the former El Toro MCAS background value. The RI of the site indicated that the site-related contamination was limited to the shallow soil interval.
The human health and ecological risk assessments showed that the contaminants present in the soil did not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Therefore, no remedial action was required. A Record of Decision (ROD) for NFA was signed on September 30, 1997. No risks are present at IRP Site 20 and no institutional controls are present.
No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set.
No operation and maintenance is required for this site.
IRP Site 25 encompassed approximately 22 acres and comprised the four major washes that flowed through former El Toro MCAS. These included Agua Chinon Wash, Bee Canyon Wash, Borrego Canyon Wash, and Marshburn Channel. Three of these drainages (Agua Chinon Wash, Bee Canyon Wash, and Borrego Canyon Wash) were continuations of natural washes that originated in the Santa Ana Mountains. Surface drainage from the hills and upgradient irrigated farmland combined with runoff generated from extensive paved surfaces at former El Toro MCAS. The on-station storm sewer system discharged to the drainage channels, which then flowed into San Diego Creek. San Diego Creek discharged into upper Newport Bay, about 7 miles downstream from its intersection with Marshburn Channel. These washes traversed Transfer Parcels I-A, II-A, and III-A, and also traversed property that was not part of FOST #1.
IRP Site 25 was constituted before the source of the regional VOC groundwater contamination had been identified as IRP Site 24 (which is not part of this deletion). IRP Site 25 was identified for a Phase II RI, but the drainages were investigated as part of the Phase I RI for IRP Sites 18 and 24 to evaluate the source of the off-site VOC groundwater plume. Potential contamination within the major drainages and San Diego Creek was assessed by analyzing surface water, sediment, soil, and soil gas samples. Except for the Borrego Canyon Wash, metals and pesticides were detected above former El Toro MCAS background concentrations in all drainages. Significant petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was detected at depths of 15 to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the southern end of Agua Chinon Wash, near the former El Toro MCAS boundary.
Within the Agua Chinon Wash, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were detected at depths up to 57 feet bgs. The RI of the site indicated that the site-related contamination was limited to sediment and surface water.
The human health and ecological risk assessments showed that the contaminants present in these media did not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Therefore, no remedial action was
No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set.
No operation and maintenance is required for this site.
Transfer Parcel II-A was approximately 1,439.6 acres. This parcel contained a golf course and 1,078 non-demolished buildings/structures/facilities which included the units located in San Joaquin, Vista Terrace, Navy/Marine (NAMAR), and Wherry housing areas. Transfer Parcel II-A included IRP Sites 6 and 19, and a portion of IRP Site 25 (described above).
IRP Site 6 encompassed approximately 3 acres bounded by taxiways to the north and west, a concrete aircraft parking apron to the east, and East Marine Way to the south. The site consisted of three units:
• Unit 1 was an area along the edge of a concrete parking apron where aircraft drop tanks were formerly drained of residual jet fuel and then cleaned prior to reuse.
• Unit 2 was a shallow drainage swale that extends from the north side of Building 727, west to a catch basin that eventually discharged into the Agua Chinon Wash. The catch basin received surface runoff and sediment from the site.
• Unit 3 was a flat, grass-covered area south of the drainage swale where drop tanks were stored.
From 1969 to 1983, aircraft drop tanks were transported to the site where the fuel remaining in the tanks was drained. Residual jet propulsion fuel, grade 5 (JP 5) in the tanks was drained to the concrete apron, and the combined fuel/rinse water ran onto the adjacent grassy area. In addition to fuel, waste lubricant oils from maintenance operations were also reportedly stored in drums and staged in the area.
Approximately 1,400 gallons of JP 5 fuel were reportedly drained from the drop tanks onto the concrete apron and washed onto the adjacent area. Portions of the unpaved areas at the site were also reportedly used for storing oil drums. It was estimated that approximately 300 gallons of waste oil leaked from these storage drums at the site.
Investigations conducted at IRP Site 6 included a Phase I remedial investigation (RI) and aerial photograph surveys in 1993, employee interviews in 1994, and a Phase II RI in 1996. During the investigations, VOCs, SVOCs, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were detected at concentrations below residential PRGs. The maximum arsenic concentration was detected at a depth of Property of 8-10 feet bgs and was above the former El Toro MCAS background concentration for arsenic. The RI of the site indicated that the site-related contamination was limited to the shallow soil interval.
The human health and ecological risk assessments indicated that the contaminants present in the soil did not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Therefore, no remedial action was required. A ROD for NFA was signed on September 30, 1997.
No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set.
No operation and maintenance is required for this site.
IRP Site 19 was within Transfer Parcel II-A and encompassed approximately 4 acres southwest of Buildings 404 and 414. Between 1964 and 1986, the site operated as a fuel-storage and fuel-dispensing area. The site consisted of six 20,000-gallon JP 5 fuel bladders in 4-foot-high earthen revetments and associated piping and fuel-dispensing equipment. The site originally consisted of four units:
• Unit 1, Northeast Stained Area
• Unit 2, Excavated Areas;
• Unit 3, Stained Area Around Excavations; and
• Unit 4, Pump Station (this area was added for the Phase II RI and then was removed under the CERCLA petroleum exclusion).
Various spills and leaks reportedly occurred during operation of the site. In one instance, an estimated 20,000 gallons of JP 5 were reportedly released after a bladder rupture. Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the soil beneath the ruptured bladder.
The fuel bladders were removed in 1986, and the soil was excavated to a maximum depth of 15 feet bgs in a 30-foot-square area beneath the location of the bladder rupture (Unit 2). The excavation was partially backfilled to a depth of approximately 11 feet in 1994. Prior to backfill, soil samples were collected within the excavated area, i.e., IRP Site 19. No chemicals of potential concern were detected at concentrations greater than EPA industrial PRGs. In 1996, the remaining excavation was backfilled to grade the surrounding area with clean fill material. An additional 19,000-square-foot area beneath the locations of the other bladders was also excavated in 1986 to a depth of approximately 2.5 feet. All of the buildings/structures/facilities at the site were removed following site closure and were replaced by a pump station and UST complex situated adjacent to the east side of the site.
Investigations conducted at the site included a Phase I RI and aerial photograph surveys in 1993, employee interviews in 1994, and a Phase II RI in 1996. The investigations indicated SVOCs at concentrations below residential PRGs, with the exception of benzo(a)pyrene, which was above the industrial PRG value. VOCs were detected at concentrations below residential PRGs. Arsenic was detected at concentrations above the industrial PRG value, and the maximum arsenic value was above the former El Toro MCAS background concentration.
The human health and ecological risk assessments showed that the contaminants present in the soil did not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. A ROD for NFA for Units 2 and 3 was signed on September 30, 1997. Unit 1 was excluded from the IRP under the CERCLA petroleum exclusion in 1995 (closed by RWQCB in a letter dated May 14, 1997), and Unit 4 was excluded from the IRP under the CERCLA petroleum exclusion in 1997 (Unit 4 was being addressed with a number of USTs and the associated area was therefore unsuitable for transfer and was not part of FOST #1).
No further response actions have been taken.
No operation and maintenance is required for this site.
A minor release of transformer oil containing PCBs
No risks are present at PCB T56 and no institutional controls are present.
The transformer was replaced and the concrete pad was removed. No further action was required.
No operation and maintenance is required for this site.
Transfer Parcel III-A was approximately 329.0 acres. This parcel contained 10 non-demolished buildings/structures/facilities, as well as a portion of IRP Site 13.
IRP Site 13 encompassed approximately 34,000 square feet and was bounded on the north by Former Tank Farm No. 2 and on the south by the storage yard for Building 242. The site was situated within Transfer Parcel III-A and Carve-Out (CO) III-B. The site was relatively flat, unpaved, and generally unvegetated. Site 13 consisted of two units: Unit 1 comprised the area southeast of Tank Farm No. 2 and Unit 2 comprised the area southwest of Tank Farm No. 2. Trucks were driven to the area southeast of the tank farm (Unit 1) for oil changes, and crank case oil was frequently drained onto the ground. From 1977 to 1983, approximately 7,000 gallons of waste oil were drained onto the ground. The oily soil was subsequently removed, and no visible evidence of the oily soil remained. A review of aerial photographs indicated heavy staining throughout the area between the tank farm and Building 242 (Unit 2), which persisted over the years of photographic record. It is likely that oil changes were also conducted in that area.
Investigations conducted at the site included an RFA, a Phase I RI and aerial photographic surveys in 1993, and employee interviews in 1994. VOCs, SVOCs, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and pesticides were detected at concentrations below residential PRGs. Arsenic was detected at concentrations above the industrial PRG from the surface to a depth of 80 feet bgs. The maximum arsenic concentration was below the former El Toro MCAS background concentration. Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) were detected at the soil surface and at a depth of 5 feet bgs. Based on the results of the Phase I RI investigation, a Phase II RI was not recommended. The RI of the site indicated that the site-related contamination was limited to the shallow soil interval.
The human health and ecological risk assessments showed that the contaminants present in the soil did not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. A ROD for NFA was signed on September 30, 1997.
No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set.
No operation and maintenance is required for this site. No deed restrictions were recommended for Site 13 due to chemicals present in the soil. However since the groundwater beneath Site 13 was contaminated by trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE; also perchloroethylene) due to Site 24—VOC source area, when the NFA ROD was signed on September 30, 1997, the use restrictions prohibiting drilling of wells and/or extraction of groundwater and allowing access for groundwater monitoring and maintenance of equipment associated with groundwater remediation were to be addressed in the ROD for Site 18 and Site 24. When the Final ROD for Site 18 and Site 24 was completed in 2002, the updated VOC plume and 500 foot buffer zone were no longer located beneath Site 13. Consequently, groundwater restrictions due to the Site 24 VOC plume were no longer applicable for Site 13.
Approximately 8 acres of El Toro MCAS were covered by FOST #2. This area consisted of four Transfer Parcels (II-J, II-S, II-T, and III-C), and a portion of one Transfer Parcel (II-Q). Transfer parcels II-J and II-Q did not contain any CERCLA LOCs. Transfer Parcel II-T was approximately 0.5 acres in size and contained one building/structure/facility (Building 761). Transfer Parcel III-C was approximately 1 acre in size and contained one building/structure/facility (Building 240). NFA determinations were made for all LOCs within Transfer Parcels II-T and III-C.
Transfer Parcel II-S was approximately 1.3 acres in size and included six buildings/structures/facilities (Buildings 374, 377, 447, 448, 566, and 726) and former Building 603 (demolished).
RFA 131, an engine test cell, was located within Transfer Parcel II-S near Building 447.
Near surface soils were removed in 1997.
DTSC concurred with NFA in a letter from July 1999. RWQCB concurred with NFA in June 2000.
No further response actions have been taken.
No operation and maintenance is required for this site.
Approximately 3.9 acres of El Toro MCAS were covered by FOST #3.
This area consisted of two Transfer Parcels referred to in FOST #3 as “Carve-Outs” (COs):
• CO I-C consisted of approximately 0.1 acre in the northeastern portion of the former base. This CO was created during preparation of the 2004 Finding of Suitability to Lease when a portion of an underground pipeline (Norwalk-El Toro Pipeline) was believed to exist within this area. However, based on a detailed review of the pipeline physical alignment, it was determined that no portion of the pipeline was within Transfer Parcel I-C. No buildings or utilities were located on the Transfer Parcel.
• CO II-U consisted of approximately 3.8 acres in the northeastern portion of the former base. No buildings or utilities were located on the CO.
A portion of the Norwalk-El Toro Pipeline was removed from CO II-U in the fall of 2006, with the exception of
The COs were evaluated during the initial phase of environmental assessment and the results were documented in the Final 2003 EBS. The EBS concluded that no hazardous substances were stored or released on the COs.
No further action was necessary in these areas.
No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set.
No operation and maintenance is required for this site.
Approximately 42.9 acres of El Toro MCAS were covered by FOST #4.
This area consisted of thirteen COs: COs I-B, I-E, I-G, I-H, I-I, I-J, I-L, I-M, I-P, II-G, II-I, II-P, III-D. COs I-L, I-M, I-P, II-G, II-I, and II-P did not contain CERCLA LOCs.
As these COs did not contain CERCLA LOCs, no remedial investigations were conducted.
No Further Action determinations were issued for all LOCs within COs I-B, I-E, I-G, I-H, I-I, I-J, and II-G. CO III-D contained a portion of IRP Site 13. All other LOCs in CO III-D received NFA determinations and no cleanup was required.
No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set.
No operation and maintenance is required for these sites.
Approximately 119.3 acres of El Toro MCAS were covered by FOST #5.
This area included nine COs: COs I-F, I-K, I-N, I-O, I-S, II-E, II-L, II-M, II-R, and CO Building 746. CO I-F is not part of this deletion request and will remain on the NPL. CO Building 746 is located within CO II-D and is not part of this partial deletion request and will also remain on the NPL. COs I-K, I-N, I-O, I-S contained only petroleum LOCs or no release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances occurred there.
As these COs did not contain CERCLA LOCs, no remedial investigations were conducted.
No Further Action determinations were issued for all LOCs within CO II-E and II-M. CO II-L contained a portion of IRP Site 25. All other LOCs in CO II-L received NFA determinations and no cleanup was required.
No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set.
No operation and maintenance is required for these sites.
CO II-R consisted of approximately 1.2 acres and was located in the southeast portion of the former base.
There was one pad-mounted transformer (PCB T74) at Building 457. Historically, disposal activities were conducted at this site, though the dates of these operations are unknown. A response action was required for releases of transformer oil containing PCBs at Building 457 (RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) Site 244).
While no remedial investigations were conducted under CERCLA, RFA Site 244/PCB T74 was evaluated under a RCRA Facility Assessment.
DTSC concurred with NFA for RFA 244 in a letter dated December 1998. EPA and DTSC concurred with NFA for PCB T74 in September 2003.
Shallow soil samples that were collected in the area affected by the PCB release identified PCBs in one of the seven samples collected. The transformer was replaced and removal of impacted soils was completed in 1997. The response action was completed and closed in December 1998. No evidence of a release was observed during the visual site inspections conducted for the 2003 EBS. Building 457 was subsequently demolished to its foundation.
No operation and maintenance is required for this site.
Approximately 356.81 acres of El Toro MCAS were covered by FOST #6.
This area included eleven COs: COs I-D, I-Q, I-R, II-B, II-K, II-N, II-O, III-B-1, III-B-2, III-E, and III-F. COs I-Q and I-R contained only petroleum LOCs and were therefore subject to the CERCLA petroleum exclusion, or no release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances occurred there. As a result, these COs are not discussed in this document. Additionally, COs I-D, II-N, III-B-1, III-B-2, III-E, and III-F are not part of this partial deletion request and will remain on the NPL.
As these COs did not contain CERCLA LOCs, no remedial investigations were conducted.
COs II-K contained a portion of IRP Site 25. All other LOCs in CO II-K received NFA determinations and no cleanup was required. All LOCs in CO II-O received NFA determinations and no cleanup was required.
No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set.
No operation and maintenance is required for these sites.
CO II-B consisted of approximately 6.73 acres located in the northeast portion of the former base.
TAA 130C was located northing of Building 130.
While no remedial investigations were conducted under CERCLA, TAA 130C was evaluated under a RCRA Facility Assessment. Sampling indicated low levels of arsenic and chlorinated pesticides.
TAA 130C received site closure concurrence from DTSC in March 2009. No further action was required.
Contaminated soil was excavated and confirmation soil samples were collected at TAA 130C in 2008.
No operation and maintenance is required for this site.
Approximately 151.06 acres of El Toro MCAS were covered by FOST #7. This area included three COs: COs II-F-1, II-Q, and II-V-1. There were no CERCLA LOCs within CO II-F-1 or CO II-V-1. As a result, COs II-F-1 and II-V-1 are not discussed in this document. Any contamination on these COs was, and continues to be remediated under the oversight of the RWQCB.
CO II-Q consisted of approximately 84.49 acres located in the central portion of the former base and contained buildings 114, 124, 125, 126, 127, 230, 231, 363, 372, 642, 658, 677, 698, 716, 747, 752, 763, 779, 903, 923, 938, 952, and 1804. CO II-Q also contained structures 396, 558, 559, 560, 561, 659, 904, 905, 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, and 911. The DON leased this CO to Heritage Fields, LLC, who subsequently assigned the lease for the majority of this CO to the City of Irvine. CO II-Q includes portions of IRP 4 and 25.
IRP Site 4 is located immediately southeast of Building 658, a former jet-engine testing facility. The site is bounded by 9th Street to the south, Building 658 to the north and west, and Tank Farm No. 5 to the east. The IRP Site 4 consists of two units: Unit 1 is an oil-stained area southeast of Building 658 which overlaps a concrete transformer pad, and Unit 2 is a drainage ditch which received runoff from a ferrocene spill.
The staining at Unit 1 was the result of oily discharges from Building 658, which were observed over an approximate 2-year period. The contamination at Unit 2 originated from an August 1983 spill, when the contents of a 500-gallon tank (wash water and residual jet fuel) reportedly overflowed during washing and spilled onto the ground, draining into a ditch adjacent to 9th Street. The spilled liquid reportedly contained approximately 5 gallons of ferrocene and a hydrocarbon carrier solution.
Investigations conducted at IRP Site 4 included a Phase I RI and aerial photograph surveys in 1993. VOCs and SVOCs were below residential PRGs in both units.
The human health and ecological risk assessments showed that the contaminants present in the soil did not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Therefore, no remedial action was required. The NFA ROD was signed on September 30, 1997.
No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set.
No operation and maintenance is required for this site.
Cleanup activities at El Toro MCAS have resulted in the remediation of all Site-related contamination such that restrictions on use and/or institutional controls were unnecessary. Accordingly, no Five-Year Reviews were required under CERCLA.
Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Community input has been sought by the DON throughout the cleanup process. The El Toro MCAS Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) serves as a focal point for the exchange of information about environmental restoration activities between the DON, regulatory agencies, and the local community. RAB members review technical reports and plans pertaining to the El Toro MCAS cleanup and provide input to the DON and the regulatory agencies. RAB members serve as volunteers and act as a liaison to the specific community they represent including various cities and homeowner associations in the vicinity of El Toro MCAS. All RAB meetings are open to the public and anyone interested may attend. They are held semi-annually on a Wednesday evening in April and November at the Irvine City Hall, One Civic Center Plaza.
Community involvement for the areas that are the subject of this document has occurred by soliciting public comment on various documents depending on the site's investigation and cleanup (if needed) process. All NFA decision documents were issued for 30-day public comment periods with comments, if any, addressed in the Responsiveness Summary of the Record of Decision. In addition, sites where non-time critical removal actions occurred provided public involvement with the issuance of the engineering evaluation/cost analysis for public comment.
Since there are a number of ongoing investigations and cleanup at El Toro MCAS, community involvement activities such as the biannual RAB meetings will continue to occur.
The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is necessary. EPA, in consultation with the State of California, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed on the properties proposed for deletion. Therefore, these portions of the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station meet the criteria of 40 CFR 300.425(e) and may be deleted from the NPL. The State of California, through the DTSC, concurred on this proposed deletion by letter dated February 1, 2013.
The EPA, with concurrence of the State of California through the Department of Toxic Substances Control, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting parcels I-A, II-A, III-A, II-J, II-Q, II-S, II-T, III-C, I-C, II-U, I-B, I-E, I-G, I-H, I-I, I-J, I-L, I-M, I-P, II-G, II-I, II-P, III-D,I-K, I-N, I-O, I-S, II-E, II-L, II-M, II-R, I-R, II-B, II-K, and II-O of the El Toro Marine Corp Air Station Site from the NPL.
Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective January 21, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 19, 2013. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of partial deletion before the effective date of the partial deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to partially delete and the comments
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193.
In Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 100 to 177, revised as of October 1, 2012, on page 242, in § 172.101, in the Hazardous Materials Table, in the entry for “Oxygen, compressed”, in column 10A, the letter “A” is added.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Interim final rule.
We, NMFS, are issuing an interim final regulation to conserve the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Atlantic sturgeon (
This interim final rule is effective on December 19, 2013. Comments on this interim final rule must be received by December 19, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN No. 0648-AY96, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
We will accept anonymous comments (enter “n/a” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
The interim final rule and other reference materials regarding this determination are available electronically at
Kimberly Damon-Randall, (978) 282-8485; Lynn Lankshear, (978) 282-8473, or Lisa Manning, (301) 427-8466.
As described in the two
Section 9(a)(1) of the ESA prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from: (A) Importing any endangered species into, or exporting any endangered species from the U.S.; (B) taking any endangered species within the United States or the U.S. territorial sea; (C) taking any endangered species upon the high seas; (D) possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, transporting, or shipping, by any means whatsoever, any endangered species that was illegally taken; (E) delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity, any endangered species; (F) selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered species; or (G) violating any regulation pertaining to endangered species or to any threatened species of fish or wildlife. The ESA defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm” is defined by regulation as any act which kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury of wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 222.102). The term “harm” is used in this rule as defined in the regulations.
The prohibitions listed under section 9(a)(1) of the ESA automatically apply when a species is listed as endangered but not when listed as threatened. When a species is listed as threatened, section 4(d) of the ESA requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to issue regulations, as deemed necessary and advisable, to provide for the conservation of the species. The Secretary may, with respect to any threatened species, issue regulations that prohibit any act covered under section 9(a)(1). Whether section 9(a)(1) prohibitions are necessary and advisable for a threatened species is largely dependent on the biological status of the species and the potential impacts of various activities on the species.
The Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Report (ASSRT, 2007), the Final Listing Determinations for Three Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Northeast Region (77 FR 5880; February 6, 2012), and the Proposed Protective Regulations for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Sturgeon (76 FR 34023; June 10, 2011) contain a thorough account of the status of the Gulf of Maine DPS and impacts to Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the Gulf of Maine DPS. In addition, new information has become available since publication of the proposed protective regulations for the Gulf of Maine DPS, as detailed below.
New tagging and tracking data, provided to us as a result of ongoing studies, indicates that Atlantic sturgeon tagged in the United States range in the marine environment from as far north as the St. Lawrence River, Canada (D. Fox, DSU, pers. comm.) to as far south as Cape Canaveral, FL (T. Savoy, CTDEP, pers. comm.). The description of the northern and southern extent of the marine range for the Gulf of Maine DPS was extended to include these areas, and it is described in detail in the final listing rule for the Northeast Region. Recent acoustic tracking data recovered from a receiver in the Back River, Maine, which is associated with the Kennebec River Estuary, also indicated the occurrence of Atlantic sturgeon in this river (G. Zydlewski, pers. comm.).
We solicited comments on the proposed rule from all interested parties including the public and other governmental agencies. Three comments were submitted on the action during the 60-day comment period from interested parties, including environmental and industry groups. In keeping with the intent of the Administration and Congress to provide continuing and meaningful dialogue on issues of mutual state and Federal interest, we contacted and invited comment from the relevant state agencies for Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts as well as the from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). All comments received on the proposed rule are summarized and addressed below.
Atlantic sturgeon are known to make extensive marine migrations and to make use of rivers other than their natal river (i.e., river of origin) (ASSRT, 2007). Atlantic sturgeon using the Presumpscot River and the Scarborough Marsh Complex are likely to be either migrants from the Kennebec Complex, sturgeon from one of the four endangered DPSs, sturgeons that originate from Canadian rivers (e.g., the St. John or St. Lawrence rivers), or a combination of all of these. We will consider this information provided by these comments when monitoring the status of Atlantic sturgeon in Maine and when completing 5-year status reviews of the listed DPSs. At this time, however, we do not have sufficient information to revise the current listing of particular DPSs.
Although not submitted as official comments to the proposed rule, NMFS became aware of new information on the Atlantic sturgeon's use of non-natal rivers during the public comment period. Researchers from Delaware State University (DSU) provided NMFS with new information on the occurrence of 105 acoustically tracked Atlantic sturgeon within tidal freshwaters of the Delaware and Hudson rivers (D. Fox, DSU, pers. comm.). These sturgeon were captured in marine waters near the mouth of the Delaware Bay where Atlantic sturgeon from different DPSs are known to mix. Genetic analysis of a tissue sample from each sturgeon identified the origin (by DPS) of the 105 sturgeon as: 58 New York Bight DPS sturgeon, 19 Chesapeake Bay DPS sturgeon, 16 South Atlantic DPS sturgeon, 11 Gulf of Maine DPS sturgeon, and 1 Carolina DPS sturgeon. In addition to genetic analyses, each fish was fitted with a tracking tag. Receivers placed in areas of the Delaware and Hudson rivers, including low-salinity waters (salinity values as low as 0.5 ppt), recorded the presence of the tagged fish within a certain distance of the receiver. Based on the data collected by the receivers for three field seasons (2009-2011), 35 of the 105 Atlantic sturgeon appeared one or more times within low-salinity waters (less than 0.5 ppt) of the Delaware or Hudson rivers. Comparing the tracking results and genetic results, 29 of the 35 Atlantic sturgeon belonged to the New York Bight DPS. The remaining six fish represented three other DPSs: 2 sturgeon from each of the Chesapeake Bay, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Maine DPSs. Of the 70 sampled and tagged Atlantic sturgeon that were not detected in tidal freshwater areas of the Delaware or Hudson rivers, 29 were New York Bight DPS sturgeon, 17 were Chesapeake Bay DPS sturgeon, 14 were South Atlantic DPS sturgeon, 9 were Gulf of Maine DPS sturgeon, and 1 was a Carolina DPS sturgeon. Thus, 50 percent of the New York Bight DPS sturgeon (29 of 58 captured) occurred in low-salinity waters of either the Delaware or Hudson rivers. In comparison, less than 20 percent of the non-New York Bight DPS sturgeon (2 of 19 Chesapeake Bay DPS, 2 of 16 South Atlantic DPS, and 2 of 11 Gulf of Maine DPS) occurred in low-salinity waters of the Delaware or Hudson rivers.
Individual-based assignment and mixed stock analyses of Atlantic sturgeon tissue samples have shown that Atlantic sturgeon tend to aggregate within the geographic region closest to their spawning river (Wirgin
We considered all of the information received during the public comment period, including the new information that became available but was not submitted as a public comment. We recognize that the information submitted for the 105 acoustically tracked Atlantic sturgeon (D. Fox, DSU, pers. comm.) has not been peer reviewed or published. We also considered that the information for individual-based assignment and mixed stock analyses of Atlantic sturgeon tissue samples (Wirgin
We had proposed to apply all of the section 9 prohibitions to the Gulf of Maine DPS with two exemptions: (1) Scientific research conducted on Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon within the riverine portion of its range and in accordance with accepted NMFS protocol(s); and, (2) salvage of dead and recovery of live stranded or injured Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon found within the riverine range of the Gulf of Maine DPS (76 FR 34023; June 10, 2011). All Atlantic sturgeon have the same marine range and appearance regardless of the DPS of origin (Stein
The available information suggests that Atlantic sturgeon in Gulf of Maine marine waters are predominantly Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon, and that the Atlantic sturgeon found in low-salinity waters of the Gulf of Maine DPS are more likely to be Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon than Atlantic sturgeon from another DPS. Nevertheless, the data collected for sturgeon in low-salinity waters of the Delaware and Hudson rivers indicates that Atlantic sturgeon will enter low-salinity waters of rivers that are not part of their DPS and the individual-based assignment and mixed stock analysis do not preclude the likelihood that Atlantic sturgeon will occur in the vicinity of non-natal rivers. Therefore, we concluded that sturgeon belonging to the New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina or South Atlantic DPSs may occur in waters of less than 20 ppt within rivers of the Gulf of Maine DPS. Since there is no way of visually identifying a sturgeon to its DPS, the proposed exemptions could result in the illegal take of Atlantic sturgeon listed as endangered. Consequently, this interim final rule applies all of the section 9 prohibitions to the Gulf of Maine DPS with no exceptions.
Removing the exemptions for certain scientific research and rescue/salvage activities will not change as a practical matter the ability to conduct these activities, nor will it change the conservation benefit of these regulations for the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. All researchers currently conducting scientific research for Atlantic sturgeon within Maine rivers and in the Merrimack River, MA have received authorization under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to continue their work. Therefore, removing the exemption for scientific research will not deter or prevent these ongoing scientific studies. Similarly, the authority to conduct salvage for Atlantic sturgeon from all five of the DPSs is currently authorized under a permit. Personnel that were already included on the permit when it pertained only to shortnose sturgeon (e.g., State of Maine personnel) were automatically authorized to also conduct salvage activities for Atlantic sturgeon when the permit was modified. Other qualifying individuals (e.g., hydropower personnel) can also be added to the salvage permit as authorized co-investigators. The salvage permit provides for broader participation in Atlantic sturgeon salvage activities than what would have been provided through the salvage exemption in the 4(d) rule. Lastly, the biological opinions to be completed under section 7 of the ESA for federally-managed fisheries and other activities subject to section 7 will include a provision for resuscitating sturgeon. Therefore, while the final 4(d) rule omits the exemption for resuscitation, the authority to conduct the activity will be provided elsewhere.
Based on the new information collected from sturgeon tracked in low-salinity waters of the Delaware and Hudson rivers and the individual-based assignment and mixed stock analysis, we removed the exemptions for scientific research and the salvage of dead, and the aiding of live, injured Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon. We are publishing this decision as an interim final rule and are allowing 30 days of public comment given that the changes made are based on the new information that was not submitted or posted as public comment on the proposed rule.
Genetic data and tagging information support the conclusion that the Gulf of Maine DPS includes all Atlantic sturgeon spawned in the watersheds extending from the Maine/Canadian border southward to include all watersheds draining into the Gulf of Maine as far south as Chatham, MA. The marine range, including coastal bays and estuaries, of Atlantic sturgeon belonging to the Gulf of Maine DPS extends from Hamilton Inlet, Labrador, Canada to Cape Canaveral, FL and overlaps with the marine range of Atlantic sturgeon that originate from the other four Atlantic sturgeon DPSs.
Because Atlantic sturgeon use both riverine waters and the marine environment, they are affected by a multitude of activities. Coast-wide commercial over-harvesting throughout the 19th century and most of the 20th century caused a precipitous decline in Atlantic sturgeon abundance for all of the U.S. Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. A coast-wide moratorium on harvesting Atlantic sturgeon was implemented in 1998 pursuant to Amendment 1 of the ASMFC Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic sturgeon (ASMFC, 1998). Retention of Atlantic sturgeon from the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) was prohibited by NMFS in 1999 (64 FR 9449; February 26, 1999). However, despite these prohibitions on directed fishing for and retention of incidentally caught Atlantic sturgeon, other anthropogenic activities continue to take Atlantic sturgeon. These include incidental bycatch in commercial fisheries, vessel strikes, activities affecting water quality, and habitat disturbances such as dredging.
Spawning has been confirmed only in the Kennebec Complex (i.e., the Kennebec and Androscoggin rivers). Spawning may be occurring in the Penobscot River, but this has not been confirmed. Atlantic sturgeon are captured in directed research projects in the Penobscot River and are observed in many other Maine rivers (e.g., the Saco River, including the Scarborough Marsh complex, the Presumpscot River, the Back River). These observations suggest that abundance of the Gulf of Maine
Despite the past impacts of exploitation, industrialization and population expansion, the DPS has persisted and is now showing signs of potential recovery (e.g., increased abundance and/or expansion into its historical range). In addition, some of the impact from the threats which facilitated its decline have been removed (e.g., directed fishing) or reduced as a result of improvements in water quality since passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA); removal of dams (e.g., the Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River in 1999); reductions in fishing effort in state and federal water, which may have resulted in a reduction in overall bycatch mortality; and the implementation of strict regulations on the use of fishing gear in Maine state waters that incidentally catch sturgeon. As indicated by the mixed stock analysis results, fish from the Gulf of Maine DPS are not commonly taken as bycatch in areas south of Chatham, MA (Wirgin and King, 2011). Of the 84 observed Atlantic sturgeon interactions with fishing gear in the Mid Atlantic/Carolina region, only 8 percent (e.g., 7 of the 84 fish) were assigned to the Gulf of Maine DPS (Wirgin and King, 2011). Tagging results also indicate that Gulf of Maine DPS fish tend to remain within the waters of the Gulf of Maine and only occasionally venture to points south (Eyler, 2006; Eyler, 2011).
Water quality within the Gulf of Maine has improved significantly since the mid-1970's in part due to mandates following implementation of the Clean Water Act and bans on certain pesticide use in the early 1970's (Davies and Tsomides, 1999; EPA, 2004; Lichter
A significant amount of fishing in the Gulf of Maine is conducted using trawl gear, which has been documented to have a lower mortality rate for Atlantic sturgeon than sink gillnet gear. Given the reduced level of threat to the Gulf of Maine DPS, the anticipated distribution of Gulf of Maine DPS fish predominantly in the Gulf of Maine, and the positive signs regarding distribution and abundance within the DPS, we concluded that the Gulf of Maine DPS is not currently endangered. However, studies have shown that Atlantic sturgeon can only sustain low levels of bycatch and other anthropogenic mortality (e.g., vessel strikes) (Boreman, 1997; ASMFC, 2007; Kahnle
Protecting the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic sturgeon from direct forms of take, such as physical injury or killing, whether incidental or intentional, will help preserve and recover the DPS. Likewise, protecting Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon from indirect forms of take, such as harm that results from habitat degradation, will help to reduce synergistic, negative effects from other stressors impeding recovery of the DPS. Therefore, we are extending the ESA section 9(a)(1)(A) through 9(a)(1)(G) prohibitions to all activities impacting the Gulf of Maine DPS throughout its range.
On July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), NMFS and the FWS (collectively, the “Services”) published a policy committing us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species range.
Based upon available information, we believe that the activities that may take Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeon include, but are not limited to: (1) Commercial and recreational fisheries; (2) scientific research and monitoring of Atlantic sturgeon, (3) emergency rescue/salvage of Atlantic sturgeon; (4) scientific research and monitoring directed at other species; (5) habitat altering activities affecting passage of adult sturgeon to and from spawning areas and availability of habitat for egg, larval or juvenile stages (6) entrainment and impingement of all life stages of Gulf of Maine DPS sturgeon during the operation of water diversions, dredging projects, and power plants; (7) activities impacting water quality for all life stages of Gulf of Maine DPS sturgeons such as discharge, dumping, or applications of toxic chemicals, pollutants, or pesticides into waters or areas that contain Gulf of Maine DPS sturgeons; (8) vessel strikes; and, (9) introduction or release of non-native species that are likely to alter the habitats of, or to compete for space or food, with Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeons.
This list is not exhaustive. It is intended to provide examples of the types of activities that are most likely to result in take of Gulf of Maine DPS Atlantic sturgeons and a violation of this rule. Whether a take results from a particular activity is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each incident. The fact that an activity may fall within one of these categories does not mean that the specific activity will cause a take. Due to such factors as location, timing, and scope, specific actions may not result in direct or indirect adverse effects on the species. Further, an activity not listed here may in fact result in a take. Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a take prohibited by this rule, and general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits, should be directed to the NMFS Northeast Regional Office (see
Section 9(a)(1)(A), 10(a)(1)(A), and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA provide the
A complete list of the references used in this final rule is available upon request or on our Web site (see
Whenever a species is listed as threatened, the ESA requires that we issue regulations as we deem necessary and advisable to provide for its conservation. Accordingly, the promulgation of ESA section 4(d) protective regulations is subject to the requirements of NEPA, and we have prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzing the 4(d) regulations and alternatives. The EA is available upon request, via our Web site (see
This interim final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. None of the public comments submitted to NMFS addressed this certification, and no new information has become available that would change this determination. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.
This interim final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to take into account any federalism impacts of regulations under development. It includes specific consultation directives for situations where a regulation will preempt state law, or impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments (unless required by statute). Pursuant to the Executive Order on Federalism, E.O. 13132, we provided notice of the proposed action and requested comments from appropriate state resource agencies of the states in which riverine range for the Gulf of Maine DPS occurs. No comments were received from the state agencies.
E.O. 12898 requires that Federal actions address environmental justice in decision-making process. In particular, the environmental effects of the actions should not have a disproportionate effect on minority and low-income communities. We have determined that this interim final rule will not have a disproportionately high effect on minority populations or low-income populations.
Section 307(c)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires that all Federal activities that affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone be consistent with approved state coastal zone management programs to the maximum extent practicable. NMFS has determined that this action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved Coastal Zone Management Programs of each of the states within the riverine range of the Gulf of Maine DPS. Letters documenting NMFS's determination, along with the proposed rule, were sent to the coastal zone management program offices in each affected state. A list of the specific state contacts and a copy of the letters are available upon request.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 223 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
(a)
(b) [Reserved]
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede existing airworthiness directive (AD) 2012-26-14 that applies to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan engines. AD 2012-26-14 currently requires removal from service of the high-pressure (HP) compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly before exceeding certain thresholds. Since we issued AD 2012-26-14, RRD developed a new silver-free nut that, if installed with a new HP compressor stages 1 to 6 disc assembly, would correct the unsafe condition identified in AD 2012-26-14. Therefore, we propose to supersede AD 2012-26-14 to restrict the applicability to engines exposed to silver plated nuts. Additionally, we are removing the terminating action statement from AD 2012-26-14 based on a comment received. This proposed AD would require removal from service of certain HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assemblies before exceeding certain thresholds. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly, which could lead to an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 21, 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 AD, contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: 49 0 33-7086-1200; fax: 49 0 33-7086-1212. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Robert Morlath, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238 7154; fax: 781-238 7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On December 27, 2012, we issued AD-2012-26-14, Amendment 39-17309 (78 FR 2195, January 10, 2013) (“AD 2012-26-14”) for RRD BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan engines. AD 2012-26-14 requires removal from service of the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly before exceeding certain thresholds. AD 2012-26-14 resulted from a report of silver chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking of the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly, identified during overhaul. We issued AD 2012-26-14 to prevent failure of the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly, which could lead to an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane. We set a separate compliance standard for engines operated under the Hawaiian Flight Mission. The different cycle limits are established because the Hawaiian Flight Mission profile was sufficiently different from the normal flight profile as to affect the cyclic loading on the life limited parts.
Since we issued AD 2012-26-14, RRD released new part number (P/N) components as a design fix for the issue described above.
We gave the public the opportunity to comment on AD 2012-26-14. We received two comments. The following presents the comments received, and the FAA's response to each comment.
Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that we include the P/Ns of the affected HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc
We partially agree. We agree with revising the Applicability paragraph of this proposed AD because RRD developed new P/N silver-free nuts, which, if installed with a new HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly, would correct the unsafe condition.
We disagree with identifying specific HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assemblies because this proposed AD applies to all HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assemblies that have had silver-plated nuts installed. We revised the Applicability paragraph to clarify that this proposed AD applies to all HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assemblies that were installed using nuts, P/N AS44862 or P/N AS64367.
SWA requested that we clarify paragraph (f) of AD 2012-26-14. The commenter stated that it is unclear if reinstalling disc assemblies having fewer cycles since new (CSN) than that required by paragraph (e) of AD 2012-26-14, is acceptable.
We agree. The intent of AD 2012-26-14 is to allow operation of the disc assembly up to the CSN specified in paragraph (e) of AD 2012-26-14. It is acceptable to reinstall disc assemblies that have fewer CSN than specified in paragraph (e) of AD 2012-26-14. Therefore, we removed the terminating action paragraph from this proposed AD.
We reviewed the relevant data and considered the comments received.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2012-26-14. This proposed AD would change the Applicability paragraph to specify the P/N nuts associated with reduced life and would also change paragraph (f) by removing language concerning the terminating action. This AD requires removal from service of certain HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assemblies before exceeding certain thresholds.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 255 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 20 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Prorated parts life will cost about $13,500 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,876,000.
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 have 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 that the 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 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.
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.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 21, 2014.
This AD supersedes AD 2012-26-14, Amendment 39-17309 (78 FR 2195, January 10, 2013).
This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan engines with high-pressure (HP) compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assemblies that were ever installed using nuts, part number (P/N) AS44862 or P/N AS64367.
This AD was prompted by a report of silver chloride-induced stress corrosion cracking of the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly, which could lead to an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For BR700-715A1-30 turbofan engines operated under the Hawaiian Flight Mission only, remove the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly from service before exceeding 16,000 flight cycles since new (CSN) or before further flight after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(2) For BR700-715A1-30, BR700-715B1-30, and BR700-715C1-30 turbofan engines (all flight missions except Hawaiian Flight Mission), remove the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly from service before
After the effective date of this AD, do not install an HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disk assembly into an engine, or an engine with an HP compressor stage 1 to 6 rotor disk assembly onto an aircraft, if the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disk assembly has ever been operated with nuts, P/N AS44862 or P/N AS64367, and has more CSN than specified in the applicable portion of the compliance section of this AD.
For the purpose of this AD, flight cycles is defined as the total flight CSN on the HP compressor stages 1 to 6 rotor disc assembly, without any pro-rated calculations applied for different flight missions.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19, to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Morlath, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238 7154; fax: 781-238 7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2012-0230, dated October 30, 2012. You may examine this MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: 49 0 33-7086-1200; fax: 49 0 33-7086-1212.
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rockwell Collins TPR-720 and TPR-900 Mode select (S) transponders that are installed on airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the identification that the TPR-720 and TPR-900 Mode S transponders respond intermittently to Mode S interrogations from both ground-based and traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS-) equipped airplanes. This proposed AD would require testing and calibration of the alignment of the transponders. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 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 Rockwell Collins, Inc., Collins Aviation Services, 350 Collins Road NE., M/S 153-250, Cedar Rapids, IA 52498-0001; telephone: 888-265-5467 (U.S.) or 319-265-5467; fax: 319-295-4941 (outside U.S.); email: techmanuals@rockwellcollins.com; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Roger A. Souter, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-4134; facsimile: 316-946-4107; email address:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
FAA surveillance and testing of Mode S transponders, associated with an upcoming change to the National Airspace System (NAS) ground-based system software, exposed a deficiency in the capability of the Rockwell Collins TPR-720 and TPR-900 series transponders to properly respond to Mode S interrogations from both ground-based radars and TCAS-equipped airplanes.
FAA and Rockwell Collins, Inc. investigated the deficiency with the transponders and determined that age and lack of depot-level maintenance may cause a shift in the sync phase reversal tolerance causing intermittent replies to the Mode S and TCAS II interrogations. The transponder receiver
This unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in possible misalignment issues with the transponders that could lead to increased pilot and air traffic controller workload as well as reduced separation of airplanes.
Rockwell Collins, Inc. issued Service Information Letter 13-1, 523-0821603-101000, Revision No. 1, dated October 24, 2013. The service letter describes procedures for testing the transponders for proper alignment.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require testing and calibration of the alignment of the TPR-720 and TPR-900 Mode S transponders.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4,000 products that are installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with 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 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 January 3, 2014.
None.
(1) This AD applies to the following Rockwell Collins, Inc. Mode S transponders that are installed on but not limited to the airplanes listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this AD:
(i) TPR-720: CPN 622-7878-001, 622-7878-020, 622-7878-120, 622-7878-200, 622-7878-201, 622-7878-301, 622-7878-440, 622-7878-460, 622-7878-480, 622-7878-901; and
(ii) TPR-900: CPN 822-0336-001, 822-0336-020, 822-0336-220, 822-0336-440, 822-0336-460, 822-0336-480, 822-0336-902.
(2) The products listed in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this AD may be installed on but not limited to the following airplanes, certificated in any category:
(i) Airbus Models A319, A320, A330, A340; and
(ii) Boeing Models B777, B747, MD-80, and DC-9.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by the identification that the TPR-720 and TPR-900 Mode S transponders respond intermittently to Mode S interrogations from both ground-based and traffic collision avoidance system equipped airplanes. We are issuing this AD to correct possible misalignment issues with the transponders that could result in increased pilot and air traffic controller workload as well as reduced separation of airplanes.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, unless already done.
Within the next 2 years after the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed every 4 years, send the TPR-720 and TPR-900 Mode S transponders to a certified repair facility for test and calibration to assure proper alignment following Rockwell Collins, Inc. Service Information Letter 13-1, 523-0821603-101000, Revision No. 1, dated October 24, 2013.
(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Roger A. Souter, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: 316-946-4134; facsimile: 316-946-4107; email address:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rockwell Collins, Inc., Collins Aviation Services, 350 Collins Road NE., M/S 153-250, Cedar Rapids, IA 52498-0001; telephone: 888-265-5467 (U.S.) or 319-265-5467; fax: 319-295-4941 (outside U.S.); email: techmanuals@rockwellcollins.com; Internet:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Model 228-212 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as main landing gear axle failure caused by initial fatigue cracking and small pre-damage by corrosion. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2014.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253, 82231 Wessling, Germany; telephone: +49-(0)8153-30-2280; fax: +49-(0)8153-30-3030. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4123; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2013-0209, dated September 10, 2013 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the main landing gear axle, possibly resulting in a runway excursion with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH issued Service Bulletin (SB) SB-228-300, Rev. 1.
For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time inspection of the MLG axle and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions.
RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH has issued Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB-228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 160 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $27,200, or $13,600 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 January 3, 2014.
None.
This AD applies to DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH 228-212 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear.
This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. This AD was prompted by a report of a main landing gear axle failure caused by initial fatigue cracking and detection of small pre-damage by corrosion. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct possible corrosion and cracking of the MLG axle, which could lead to failure of the MLG axle resulting in a runway excursion with consequent damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.
Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(2) of this AD:
(1) Inspect the MLG axle following the Accomplishment Instructions in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB-228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013, at the time specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i)
(ii)
(2) If, during the inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, any discrepancies are found outside the limits as specified in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB-228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013, before further flight, make all necessary corrective actions following the Accomplishment Instructions in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB-228-300, Revision 1, dated April 25, 2013.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2013-0209, dated September 10, 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) proposes to modify its regulations to establish time limits for the submission of requests for sampling, and comments on sampling in antidumping (AD) administrative reviews. The modifications to the time limits, if adopted, will more clearly prescribe the time for filing requests for sampling in AD administrative reviews, and the time for filing comments and rebuttal comments with respect to such requests. The modifications will provide sufficient opportunity for the Department to determine whether it will employ sampling in selecting respondents for individual examination when conducting administrative reviews in which a request for sampling is timely submitted.
To be assured of consideration, comments must be received no later than December 31, 2013.
All comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for inspection at Enforcement and Compliance's Central Records Unit (Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building) and online at
Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to IA ACCESS Helpdesk, at (202) 482-3150, email address:
Sapna Sharma at (202) 482-5285 or Shauna Biby at (202) 482-4267.
Under section 777A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Department is directed to determine the individual weighted average dumping margin for each known exporter and producer of subject merchandise. For administrative reviews, the requirement pertains to all exporters and producers that have been requested for review. However, when the number of producers/exporters (“companies”) involved in an antidumping (AD) review is so large that the Department finds it impracticable to examine each company individually, section 777A(c)(2) allows the Department to limit its examination to: (A) a sample of exporters, producers, or types of products that is statistically valid based on the information available to the administering authority at the time of selection, or (B) exporters and producers accounting for the largest volume of subject merchandise from the exporting country that can reasonably be examined. The Department has, to date, generally used option (B) in proceedings in which limited examination has been necessary. One consequence of this is that companies under investigation or review with relatively small import volumes have generally been effectively excluded from individual examination. Over time, this creates a potential enforcement concern in AD administrative reviews because, as exporters accounting for smaller volumes of subject merchandise become aware that they are effectively excluded from individual examination by the Department's respondent selection methodology, they may decide to lower their prices as they recognize that their pricing behavior will not impact the AD rates assigned to them. Sampling such companies under section 777A(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), is one way to address this enforcement concern. Accordingly, the Department is refining its practice with respect to the methodology for respondent selection in certain AD proceedings, which the Department is publishing elsewhere in this issue of the
To facilitate sampling in administrative reviews generally, the Department is proposing to amend section 351.301 of its regulations to establish time limits for filing requests for sampling in administrative reviews, and time limits for comments and rebuttal comments to be filed by interested parties with respect to any such requests for sampling. Currently, 19 CFR 351.301 sets forth the time limits for submission of factual information, including, more recently, specific time limits, time limits for certain submissions such as responses to questionnaires, and time limits for certain allegations. The Department proposes to modify 19 CFR 351.301 so that it also includes a specific time limit for interested parties to submit a request that the Department use sampling in selecting exporters or producers for individual examination. These time limits should ensure that parties may request the Department to sample, while allowing the agency to complete its proceedings in accordance with statutory deadlines.
In particular, the proposed rule will require a domestic interested party under 19 U.S.C. section 1677(9)(C), (D), (E), or (F), or an interested party under 19 U.S.C. section 1677(9)(A) that is subject to the administrative review, to file its request for the Department to conduct sampling under 19 U.S.C. section 1677f-1(c)(2)(A), along with its comments on data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within seven (7) days after the Department releases the CBP data to interested parties, unless otherwise specified. The rule proposes that the submission include: (1) A request that the Department conduct sampling; and (2) factual information and comments on whether this factual information provides a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the average export prices and/or dumping margins for the largest exporters differ from such information that would be associated with the remaining exporters. Under the proposed rule, if an interested party were to submit a request for the Department to conduct sampling, all other interested parties will then have a ten-day comment period and a five-day rebuttal period to comment on the sampling request.
The proposed rule is intended to establish a time limit for sampling requests in administrative reviews which would provide the Department with sufficient time to conduct the sampling and complete the administrative review under its statutory deadlines. In addition, the rule is intended to provide parties with sufficient time to examine the information related to sampling and provide comment to the Department that would in turn allow the Department to make an informed decision on whether to use sampling in any particular administrative review.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Department has prepared the following IRFA to analyze the potential impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities.
The policy reasons for issuing this proposed rule are discussed in the preamble of this document, and not repeated here.
This proposed rule is intended to alter the Enforcement and Compliance's regulations for AD proceedings; specifically, to set forth deadlines for submitting requests for sampling in AD administrative reviews pursuant to 19 U.S.C. section 1677f-1(c)(2)(A), and comments and rebuttal comments pertaining to such requests for sampling.
The legal basis for this rule is 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202 note; 19 U.S.C. 1303 note; 19 U.S.C. 1671
The proposed rules will apply to all persons submitting a request for sampling to the Department in AD administrative reviews. This could include exporters and producers of merchandise subject to AD proceedings and their affiliates, importers of such merchandise, and domestic producers of like products.
Exporters and producers of subject merchandise are rarely U.S. companies. Some producers and exporters of subject merchandise do have U.S. affiliates, some of which may be considered small entities under the appropriate Small Business Administration (SBA) small business size standard. The Department is not able to estimate the number of exporters and producer domestic affiliates that may be considered small entities, but anticipates, based on its experience in these proceedings, that the number will not be substantial.
Importers may be U.S. or foreign companies, and some of these entities may be considered small entities under the appropriate SBA small business size standard. The Department does not anticipate that the proposed rules will impact a substantial number of small importers because importers of subject merchandise who are not also producers and exporters (or their affiliates) rarely submit requests for administrative review and rarely submit factual information in the course of the Department's AD proceedings, and those that do tend to be larger entities.
Some domestic producers of like products may be considered small entities under the appropriate SBA small business size standard. Although it is unable to estimate the number of producers that may be considered small entities, the Department does not anticipate that the number affected by the proposed rule will be substantial. Frequently, domestic producers that bring a petition account for a large amount of the domestic production within an industry, so it is unlikely that these domestic producers will be small entities.
In sum, while recognizing that exporter and producer affiliates, importers, and domestic producers that submit information in AD proceedings will likely include some small entities, the Department, based on its experience with these proceedings and the participating parties, does not anticipate that the proposed rule would impact a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule will establish a time limit for interested parties to request that the Department conduct sampling in AD administrative reviews pursuant to 19 U.S.C. section 1677f-1(c)(2)(A). In particular, the proposed rule will require a domestic interested party under 19 U.S.C. section 1677(9)(C), (D), (E), or (F), or an interested party under 19 U.S.C. section 1677(9)(A) that is subject to the administrative review, to file its request for the Department to conduct sampling under 19 U.S.C. section 1677f-1(c)(2)(A), along with its comments on data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within seven (7) days after the Department releases the CBP data to interested parties. This will not amount to a significant burden as the submitter will have to make a submission requesting that the Department conduct a review based upon sampling whenever it wishes that the Department conduct sampling in the context of its AD administrative reviews.
The Department analyzed two alternatives to this proposed action. The first alternative, the preferred alternative, would establish time limits for the submission of requests for sampling. Under this preferred alternative, parties would incur no economic impact because the proposed provisions are purely administrative in
The second alternative, the “no action” alternative, would set forth a proposed methodology for sampling in AD and CVD proceedings, without providing regulated parties with any guidance on the timing and process by which to request sampling in the agency's proceedings. This alternative would either create no economic impact, or slightly negative impacts to the regulated community due to the increased confusion generated as a result of the lack of guidance and process for requesting sampling. Although this alternative was considered, it was not selected because it does not serve the Department's objectives of creating certainty and clarity for participants in AD and CVD proceedings.
This rule does not require a collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Antidumping, Business and industry, Cheese, Confidential business information, Countervailing duties, Freedom of information, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated, 19 CFR part 351 is proposed to be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202 note; 19 U.S.C. 1303 note; 19 U.S.C. 1671
(d)
(1) For antidumping duty administrative reviews, all submissions from parties to the proceeding wishing to request that the Department conduct sampling in selecting respondents for individual examination under section 777A(c)(2)(A) of the Act are normally due no later than 7 days after the Department releases to interested parties data from Customs and Border Protection pertaining to entries of merchandise subject to the review. The request for the Department to use sampling in the review must include the following information:
(i) A request that the Department conduct sampling with respect to the exporters subject to the review; and
(ii) Factual information and comment upon whether the factual information presented provides a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the average export prices and/or dumping margins for the largest exporters differ from such information that would be associated with the remaining exporters subject to the review.
(2) Interested parties wishing to comment on the request for sampling must submit comments within 10 days from the date of receipt of the request for sampling.
(3) Interested parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments addressing comments submitted under paragraph (d)(2) of this section must submit such comments within 5 days from the due date for submitting comments in paragraph (d)(2).
Social Security Administration.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
We propose to revise the criteria in the Listing of Impairments (listings) that we use to evaluate cases involving hematological disorders in adults and children under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). The proposed revisions reflect advances in medical knowledge, our adjudicative experience, and information we received from medical experts and the public.
To ensure that your comments are considered, we must receive them no later than January 21, 2014.
You may submit comments by one of three methods—Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to Docket No. SSA-2010-0055 so that we may associate your comments with the correct regulation.
1.
2.
3.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Cheryl A. Williams, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
We propose to:
• Revise and expand the introductory text to the hematological disorders body system for both adults (section 7.00) and children (section 107.00);
• Revise and reorganize the listings in this body system to update them and to make the adult and childhood rules more consistent; and
• Add criteria to the adult rules for establishing disability under the listings
We last issued final rules making comprehensive revisions to the hematological disorders listings on December 6, 1985.
• We propose to update current listing 7.08, which provides transfusion criteria for spontaneous hemorrhage (bleeding) in hemophilia. It does not reflect the current standard of care, because physicians now use other treatments for this type of bleeding.
• We propose to update current listing 7.17, which addresses bone marrow and stem cell transplantation only for aplastic anemias. Other hematological disorders, such as sickle cell disease, may now be treated with bone marrow or stem cell transplantation.
We are also proposing changes to the current listings to reflect the considerable adjudicative experience we have gained since we issued the 1985 rules. Some of these proposals also reflect information we received at outreach conferences from people who have hematological disorders, their family members, physicians who treat hematological disorders, and advocates who represent people who have these disorders. These proposals also take into consideration recommendations we received in public comments in response to a previous notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which we explain in more detail below.
On November 27, 2001, we published an NPRM proposing revisions to both the listings for hematological disorders and the listings for malignant neoplastic diseases.
Based on the information we received from these activities, we published a notice on November 15, 2004, withdrawing the 2001 proposed rules for hematological disorders.
We propose to use only broad categories of hematological disorders in the listings instead of the mixture of specific hematological disorders and broad categories of hematological disorders that are in the current listings. We believe that it would be better to use only broad categories throughout this body system so that we can include more types of hematological disorders. We also propose to remove some of the current listings and revise the criteria of others.
The following chart shows the headings of the current listings for evaluating hematological disorders in adults and the name of the proposed listing, or the proposed listing under which we would evaluate the disorder that is currently listed:
We also propose to replace the current introductory text with updated and expanded guidance that reflects the proposed listings. The following chart shows the headings of the current and proposed sections of the introductory text:
The following is a detailed explanation of the proposed changes to the introductory text:
In this new section, we explain which hematological disorders we evaluate under these listings and which we evaluate under the listings in other body systems.
In this new section, we explain the evidence we need to establish the existence of a hematological disorder. In proposed sections 7.00B1 and B2, we provide two methods for establishing the existence of the disorder when we have a copy of definitive laboratory test results. In proposed section 7.00B3, we provide an additional method for establishing the existence of the disorder when we do not have a copy of definitive laboratory test results.
In proposed section 7.00B1, we explain that a laboratory report of a definitive test that establishes a hematological disorder, signed by a physician, is sufficient to document that you have a hematological disorder. As an alternative, we also explain in proposed section 7.00B2 that, if we have a copy of the laboratory report of a definitive test that establishes a hematological disorder, but a physician has not signed it, we also require a report from a physician confirming that the person has the hematological disorder. We need this statement because our rules require evidence from an “acceptable medical source” to establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment, and a physician is the only such source we can accept for hematological disorders.
In proposed section 7.00B3, we explain how we can establish the existence of a hematological disorder when we do not have a copy of the laboratory report of a definitive test. Under section 7.00B3, we need a persuasive report from a physician that a positive diagnosis of the person's hematological disorder was confirmed by appropriate laboratory analysis or other diagnostic method(s). We also explain that to be persuasive, the report must state that the person has had the appropriate definitive laboratory test or tests for diagnosing the disorder and provide the results, or explain how the diagnosis was established by other diagnostic techniques consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice.
We propose to remove the information in current section 7.00B because it primarily discusses medically acceptable imaging techniques. These techniques would apply to the proposed listings primarily to establish the presence of certain complications of hematological disorders, such as blood clots. There are many other types of laboratory tests and clinical findings we may need to establish a hematological disorder and the nature of any complications. We do not believe it would be practical or necessary to include them all in the introductory text of the proposed listings. We propose to remove, rather than expand, the limited guidance in current section 7.00B.
Current section 7.00B also includes two sentences that explain how we establish “chronicity.” We would no longer need this rule because we do not use the term “chronicity” in any of the proposed listings. Instead, we provide specific criteria in each proposed listing for which we need evidence of chronicity. For example, in some of the proposed listings we require a certain number of events (such as hospitalizations) directly associated with the person's hematological disorder occurring at least 30 days apart and within a 12-month period.
In proposed section 7.00B4, we explain that we will make every reasonable effort to obtain the results of appropriate laboratory testing. We also explain that we will not purchase tests of clotting factors, bone marrow aspirations, or bone marrow biopsies. We will not purchase these tests because obtaining, handling, or evaluating the blood or tissue samples may be too complex, invasive, or costly.
In this new section, we describe hemolytic anemias and provide examples of these disorders. We propose to evaluate all hemolytic anemias under listing 7.05 instead of listing only sickle cell disease or its variants.
In proposed section 7.00C2, we address a concern raised at our meetings on sickle cell disease: That some hospitalizations are for complications of sickle cell disease, and that our adjudicators should recognize and consider such hospitalizations when determining whether a person's impairment meets current listing 7.05B. Since we also have requirements for hospitalizations in the proposed listings, we propose to address this concern by providing examples of common complications of hemolytic anemias (including sickle cell disease) that could result in hospitalization. These examples include some of the complications that we term “major visceral episodes” in current section 7.00C. We also specify that the hospitalizations do not all have to be for the same complication, such as a painful (vaso-occlusive) crisis. The three hospitalizations we require in proposed
In proposed section 7.00C3, we explain that the hemoglobin measurements required in proposed listing 7.05C do not have to occur when the person is free of complications of his or her hemolytic anemia. The frequency of very low hemoglobin measurements required in the proposed listing provides a way for finding disability without considering the person's complications because it would establish a hemoglobin level associated with serious chronic anemia.
We propose a new listing 7.05D for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia major. In proposed section 7.00C4, we define the term “transfusion-dependent” as it is widely used in the medical community to emphasize that transfusion dependency is necessary to sustain life. We exclude prophylactic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion for sickle cell disease because we do not consider this therapy to be of equal medical significance to transfusion-dependent thalassemia.
In this new section, we propose to use a more inclusive term, “disorders of hemostasis,” to reflect the criteria in proposed listing 7.08. We provide examples of these disorders, which include coagulation defects.
We propose to remove the guidance in current section 7.00D about prophylactic therapy because this guidance would no longer be applicable in light of proposed listing 7.08. Prophylactic therapy for coagulation defects is usually self-administered and does not reflect the requirement in proposed listing 7.08 that the disorder result in hospitalization.
In proposed section 7.00D2, we provide examples of common complications of disorders of hemostasis that may result in hospitalization or contribute to functional limitations. We explain that surgery is a complication in disorders of hemostasis if it requires treatment with factor infusions or anticoagulant medication to control bleeding or coagulation in connection with the surgery.
Proposed listing 7.10, Disorders of bone marrow failure, includes several hematological conditions that we now list separately: Myelofibrosis (current listing 7.10), granulocytopenia (current listing 7.15), and aplastic anemia (current listing 7.17). We name these conditions as examples of disorders of bone marrow failure to emphasize that we still include them in the proposed hematological disorders listings. In proposed section 7.00E2, we provide examples of common complications of disorders of bone marrow failure that may result in hospitalization or contribute to functional limitations. As we do for other hematological disorders that require hospitalizations, we specify in 7.00E2 that the hospitalizations in proposed listing 7.10A do not all have to be for the same complication. We also provide that we will consider other types of systemic infections that may result in hospitalizations. As we explain below in our summary of proposed listing 7.10A, we would include viral and fungal infections because they can have the same impact as bacterial infections required in current listing 7.10B.
In this section, we explain that under proposed listing 7.17, we will consider a person to be disabled for 12 months from the date of bone marrow or stem cell transplantation, or we may consider a person to be disabled for a longer period if he or she has any serious post-transplantation complications, such as graft-versus-host (GVH) disease. The proposed rule is consistent with how we evaluate bone marrow and stem cell transplantation in other body systems.
We are proposing new listing 7.18 to evaluate repeated complications of hematological disorders, including those complications listed in 7.05, 7.08, and 7.10 that do not have the requisite findings for those listings, or other complications. Under listing 7.18, the complications listed in 7.05, 7.08, and 7.10 that do not have the requisite findings for those listings, or the other complications the person has that are not contained in those specific listings, must result in “significant, documented symptoms or signs.” The person must also have a marked limitation in at least one of three broad areas of functioning. We explain each part of this listing in detail in proposed section 7.00G. We modeled listing 7.18 after a number of listings in the immune disorders body system (14.00), and we based the rules in proposed section 7.00G on the rules in section 14.00I of the introductory text of the immune disorders body system.
Proposed listing 7.18 requires a marked limitation of activities of daily living; a marked limitation in maintaining social functioning; or a marked limitation in completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace. In proposed section 7.00G4, we use essentially the same definition of “marked” as we use in section 14.00I5, but we are not including the description of “marked” as “more than moderate but less than extreme.” Instead, we would use an explanation based on the language describing the rating scale for mental disorders in current §§ 404.1520a(c)(4) and 416.920a(c)(4). This rating scale describes “marked” as the fourth point on a five-point rating scale. We explain that we would not require our adjudicators to use such a scale, but that “marked” would be the fourth point on a scale of “no limitation, mild limitation, moderate limitation, marked limitation, and extreme limitation.” With this guideline, it would be unnecessary to state that “marked” falls between “moderate” and “extreme.” In proposed sections 7.00G5, 7.00G6, and 7.00G7, we explain what we mean by “activities of daily living,” “social functioning,” and “completing tasks in a timely manner.” We based these proposed sections on current sections 14.00I6, 14.00I7, and 14.00I8 in our immune system listings.
In this section, we explain how we consider the effects of the symptoms of hematological disorders on a person's ability to function. Except for a reference to section 7.00 instead of section 14.00, this paragraph would be identical to section 14.00H in our immune system disorders body system.
Several of our current hematological listings include a requirement for events (pain crises, transfusions, or infections) within the 5 months or 12 months before we adjudicate a claim. We propose similar requirements in several of the proposed hematological listings, but also propose several changes. In proposed section 7.00I, we would explain that under listings 7.05, 7.08, and 7.10A, we require a specific number of events within a consecutive 12-month period and that when we use such criteria, the 12-month period must occur within the period we are considering in
We propose to remove several current hematological listings:
• Current listing 7.02, for chronic anemia. We would evaluate anemia that results from an underlying hematological disorder under the appropriate proposed listing for the disorder or under the functional criteria in proposed listing 7.18. We would also remove the guidance in current section 7.00A for evaluating impairments caused by anemia “according to the ability of the person to adjust to the reduced oxygen[-]carrying capacity of the blood.” This guidance does not consider that a person who can adjust to his or her anemia may have other serious complications that could be disabling. We provide examples of these other complications in proposed sections 7.00C, 7.00D, and 7.00E, the sections of the proposed introductory text that describe the major categories of hematological disorders in the proposed listings. As we have already mentioned, some proposed listings establish the presence of chronic anemia that meets the requirement of three hospitalizations within 12 months spaced 30 days apart, essentially replacing the “chronicity” requirement in current section 7.00B.
• Current listings 7.05D for sickle cell disease, 7.09 for polycythemia vera, and 7.10A for myelofibrosis with chronic anemia. These listings are reference listings. Reference listings are redundant because they are met by satisfying the criteria of other listings, and we are removing them from our listings as we update the body systems.
• Current listing 7.06, for chronic thrombocytopenia. We would include thrombocytopenia under proposed new listing 7.08, “Disorders of hemostasis.”
• Current listing 7.07 for hereditary telangiectasia. Hereditary telangiectasia is a disorder that may result in bleeding from defects in the blood vessels in various organs. We believe it is more appropriate to evaluate hereditary telangiectasia under the body system where this bleeding occurs, such as the digestive body system (for example, listing 5.02) or the neurological body system (for example, listing 11.04).
• Current listing 7.10C for myelofibrosis with intractable bone pain. We believe it is more appropriate to evaluate this impairment under the criteria for the affected body system.
• Current listing 7.15, for chronic granulocytopenia. We would include granulocytopenia under proposed new listing 7.10, “Disorders of bone marrow failure.”
While incorporating the disorders from several of the foregoing listings into other proposed listings, we also propose either to revise the criteria in the current listing or replace it with new criteria. Two changes would be common to several listings that include criteria for episodic events (for example, painful crises or hospitalizations): We would require at least 30 days between these events to ensure that we are evaluating separate events, and we would require that these events occur within a relevant 12-month period, consistent with our rules in other body systems.
The following is a detailed explanation of the changes we are proposing to the hematological disorder listings for evaluating hematological disorders in adults that need further explanation.
In addition to expanding the scope of current listing 7.05A, we propose to make the following changes:
We would add a requirement for the treatment of documented painful crises with parenteral (intravenous or intramuscular) narcotic medication. Physicians usually provide this treatment (in outpatient or inpatient settings) only for crises they cannot alleviate with initial treatment, such as oral narcotics or non-narcotic medications. We believe that the proposed requirement for parenteral narcotic medication will confirm the severity of the crisis and provide a more objective measure than the requirement in the current listing.
We would also require at least 6 painful crises treated with parenteral narcotic medication in a 12-month period, instead of the three in the 5-month period prior to adjudication in the current listing. We believe the need for parenteral narcotic medication on such a frequent basis is indicative of recurring severe pain that prevents a person from working for the required 12-month duration. We based the change in frequency of painful crises on our adjudicative experience and the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice. Although people who have painful crises less frequently than 6 times in a 12-month period may be limited in functioning, we believe they are not precluded from engaging in any gainful activity.
We would consider a person with hemolytic anemia who has less severe painful episodes or other complications that result in functional limitations under proposed listing 7.18, which we describe in detail below.
In addition, people who have severe painful episodes may have impairments that meet proposed listing 7.05B. Proposed listing 7.05B corresponds to current listing 7.05B in that it would include people who have three hospitalizations in a 12-month period because of their hemolytic anemia. We would revise the current listing as follows:
We explain that the hospitalization can be for any complication of hemolytic anemia, which, as we explain in proposed section 7.00C2, would include painful crises. We believe that three hospitalizations in a 12-month period establish hemolytic anemia of listing-level severity because complications of hemolytic anemia that require hospitalization are generally more serious and involve longer recovery periods than those treated solely in outpatient settings. We also specify in the introductory text that the three hospitalizations do not have to be for the same complication.
We would include criteria for hospitalizations similar to current listing 7.05B but specify that each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours. We believe a hospitalization period of at least 48 hours is indicative of a severe complication of hemolytic anemia, and would more clearly define our intent in the current rule for an “extended hospitalization.” We would include the hours the person spends in the emergency department immediately before hospital admission as part of his or her hospitalization. We would include these hours in the emergency department because the person is likely to be receiving the same intensity of care as he or she will receive in the hospital.
In proposed listing 7.05C, we would require hemoglobin measurements
Current listing 7.05C requires a persistence of a hematocrit of 26 percent or less, which is comparable to a hemoglobin measurement of approximately 8.5 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or less. We believe that hematocrit or hemoglobin at these levels does not necessarily correlate with an inability to do any gainful activity. Instead, the proposed listing would require a hemoglobin measurement of 7.0 g/dL or less. We believe a hemoglobin measurement at this level provides a better description of a listing-level impairment because many people who have this finding will have related problems, such as an abnormal heartbeat, shortness of breath with mild exertion, and significant fatigue. We also believe that the frequency of the hemoglobin measurements in the proposed listing provides a way for finding a person to be disabled without having to consider the person's specific complications since it establishes a hemoglobin level associated with serious chronic anemia.
Even though we are proposing a specific laboratory finding for evaluating anemia in proposed listing 7.05C, we would also consider anemia under proposed new listing 7.18. Proposed listing 7.18 will allow us to make an individualized determination about disability for people whose impairments do not meet proposed listing 7.05.
This proposed listing corresponds to current listing 7.06, “Chronic thrombocytopenia (due to any cause),” and current listing 7.08, “Coagulation defects (hemophilia or similar disorder).” We would evaluate thrombocytopenia and coagulation defects under this proposed listing because they are both disorders of hemostasis. The proposed listing would also cover any other hypo- or hypercoagulation disorder.
We believe that the criterion in proposed 7.08 for complications requiring at least three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart is a more accurate medical description of listing-level thrombocytopenia than the current requirements for platelet counts and spontaneous bleeding. Some people who have thrombocytopenia that satisfies the criteria in the current listing for platelet counts repeatedly below 40,000/mm
The requirement for transfusions in current listing 7.08 is out of date. Instead of blood transfusions, physicians now use blood-clotting factor VIII, factor IX, or other factor components to treat uncontrolled bleeding in hemophilia. A person usually receives intensive treatment with factor in a hospital if he or she cannot control a bleed with factor through outpatient treatment or self-care. We believe that the requirement for hospitalization will confirm the severity of the bleeding episode and provide an objective measure. Similarly, the requirement for hospitalization would be an objective measure for other complications of disorders of hemostasis, such as thromboses (blood clots) that result from a hypercoagulation disorder.
We would use the criteria in proposed listing 7.18 to evaluate hemostasis disorders that do not meet the criteria of proposed listing 7.08 but that cause complications that affect a person's functioning. For example, proposed listing 7.18 would include some people who have joint deformity (arthropathy) from repeated bleeding into a joint. We may also use the criteria in the musculoskeletal listings to evaluate the effects of joint deformity.
This proposed listing corresponds to current listings 7.10, “Myelofibrosis (myeloproliferative syndrome),” 7.15, “Chronic granulocytopenia (due to any cause),” and 7.17, “Aplastic anemias.” We would evaluate myelofibrosis, granulocytopenia, and aplastic anemias, as well as any other disorder of bone marrow failure, under the proposed listing. We would also evaluate aplastic anemias and other disorders of bone marrow failure treated with bone marrow or stem cell transplantation under proposed listing 7.17.
In proposed listing 7.10A, we would require three hospitalizations within a 12-month period (and occurring at least 30 days apart) for complications of a disorder of bone marrow failure (such as systemic infections). As we noted earlier in our explanation of proposed section 7.00E, in proposed 7.10A we would broaden the criterion in current listing 7.10B to include systemic viral and fungal infections. Systemic viral and fungal infections that must be treated in the hospital are as serious as systemic bacterial infections. People who have episodes of systemic infections that do not meet the requirement in proposed listing 7.10A may qualify under proposed listing 7.18.
We propose to remove current listing 7.10C because intractable bone pain is rare in myelofibrosis. When a person has this symptom, we would be able to evaluate his or her impairment under proposed listing 7.18. We can also use an appropriate listing in the musculoskeletal body system, as we make clear in proposed section 7.00J1.
Current listing 7.17 is for aplastic anemias treated with bone marrow or stem cell transplantation. We would broaden this listing to include all hematological disorders treated with these transplantation procedures. We would consider the person disabled until “at least” 12 months from the date of transplantation. The phrase “at least” would provide our adjudicators with the flexibility to consider the person disabled for a period longer than 12 months from the date of transplantation if the evidence justifies it. After that period, we would evaluate any residual impairment(s) under the criteria for the affected body system.
As we have already noted, we propose a new listing based on repeated complications of any hematological disorder together with functional limitations that result from the disorder. We modeled this proposed listing after several listings in our immune disorders
With one exception, the proposed childhood introductory text and listings are the same as the proposed adult rules, apart from minor differences such as referring to children instead of adults. The reasons we gave earlier for changing or removing current criteria for adults also apply to the childhood criteria.
We are not proposing a listing for children like proposed listing 7.18 for adults. Instead, we would use our current childhood rules for evaluating functional equivalence to the listings.
Under the Act, we have full power and authority to make rules and regulations and to establish necessary and appropriate procedures to carry out such provisions.
If we publish these proposed rules as final rules, they will remain in effect for five years after the date they become effective, unless we extend them or revise and reissue them.
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this NPRM, we invite your comments on how to make them easier to understand.
For example:
• Would more, but shorter, sections be better?
• Are the requirements in the rules clearly stated?
• Have we organized the material to suit your needs?
• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
• What else could we do to make the rules easier to understand?
• Do the rules contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format make the rules easier to understand, (for example, grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing)?
We will not use these rules until we evaluate public comments and publish final rules in the
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that these proposed rules meet the requirements for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Thus, OMB reviewed them.
We certify that these proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect only individuals. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
These proposed rules do not impose new or affect any existing reporting or recordkeeping requirements and are not subject to OMB clearance.
We consulted the following references when we developed these proposed rules:
We included these references in the rulemaking record for these proposed rules and will make them available for inspection by interested persons who make arrangements with the contact person identified above.
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we propose to amend 20 CFR chapter III, part 404, subpart P as set forth below:
Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b), and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
The revisions read as follows:
8. Hematological Disorders (7.00 and 107.00): (
A.
1. We evaluate non-malignant (non-cancerous) hematological disorders, such as hemolytic anemias (7.05), disorders of hemostasis (7.08), and disorders of bone marrow failure (7.10), which disrupt the normal development and function of white blood cells, red blood cells, platelets, and blood-clotting factors.
2. We evaluate malignant (cancerous) hematological disorders, such as lymphoma, leukemia, and multiple myeloma, under the appropriate listings in 13.00, except for lymphoma associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, which we evaluate under 14.08E.
B.
1. A laboratory report of a definitive test that establishes a hematological disorder, signed by a physician; or
2. A laboratory report of a definitive test that establishes a hematological disorder that is not signed by a physician
3. When we do not have a laboratory report of a definitive test, a persuasive report from a physician that a positive diagnosis of your hematological disorder was confirmed by appropriate laboratory analysis or other diagnostic method(s). To be persuasive, this report must state that you had the appropriate definitive laboratory test or tests for diagnosing your disorder and provide the results, or explain how your diagnosis was established by other diagnostic method(s) consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice.
4. We will make every reasonable effort to obtain the results of appropriate laboratory testing you have had. We will not purchase complex, costly, or invasive tests, such as tests of clotting factors, bone marrow aspirations, or bone marrow biopsies.
C.
1.
2. The hospitalizations in 7.05B do not all have to be for the same complication of the hemolytic anemia. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications of hemolytic anemia that may result in hospitalization include osteomyelitis, painful (vaso-occlusive) crisis, pulmonary infections or infarctions, acute chest syndrome, pulmonary hypertension, chronic heart failure, gallbladder disease, hepatic (liver) failure, renal (kidney) failure, nephrotic syndrome, aplastic crisis, and cerebrovascular accident (stroke).
3. For 7.05C, we do not require hemoglobin to be measured during a period in which you are free of pain or other symptoms of your disorder. We will accept hemoglobin measurements made while you are experiencing complications of your hemolytic anemia.
4.
D.
1.
2. The hospitalizations in 7.08 do not all have to be for the same complication of a disorder of hemostasis. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications that may result in hospitalization include uncontrolled bleeding requiring multiple factor concentrate infusions or platelet transfusions, anemia, thromboses, and embolisms. We will also consider any surgery that you have to be a complication of your disorder of hemostasis if you require treatment with factor infusions or anticoagulant medication to control bleeding or coagulation in connection with your surgery.
E.
1.
2. The hospitalizations in 7.10A do not all have to be for the same complication of bone marrow failure. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications that may result in hospitalization include uncontrolled bleeding, anemia, and systemic bacterial, viral, or fungal infections.
3. For 7.10B,
F.
G.
1. When we use the functional criteria in 7.18, we consider all relevant information in your case record to determine the impact of your hematological disorder on your ability to function independently, appropriately, effectively,
2.
3. To satisfy the functional criteria in 7.18, your hematological disorder must result in a “marked” level of limitation in one of three general areas of functioning: Activities of daily living, social functioning, or difficulties in completing tasks due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace. Functional limitation may result from the impact of the disease process itself on your mental functioning, physical functioning, or both your mental and physical functioning. This limitation could result from persistent or intermittent symptoms, such as pain, severe fatigue, or malaise, resulting in a limitation of your ability to do a task, to concentrate, to persevere at a task, or to perform the task at an acceptable rate of speed. (
4.
5.
6.
7.
H.
I.
J.
1. These listings are only examples of common hematological disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity. If your disorder does not meet the criteria of any of these listings, we must consider whether you have a disorder that satisfies the criteria of a listing in another body system. For example, we will evaluate hemophilic joint deformity or bone or joint pain from myelofibrosis under 1.00; polycythemia vera under 3.00, 4.00, or 11.00; chronic iron overload resulting from repeated RBC transfusion (transfusion hemosiderosis) under 3.00, 4.00, or 5.00; and the effects of intracranial bleeding under 11.00 or 12.00.
2. If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your impairment(s) medically equals a listing. (See §§ 404.1526 and 416.926 of this chapter.) Hematological disorders may be associated with disorders in other body systems, and we consider the combined effects of multiple impairments when we determine whether they medically equal a listing. If your impairment(s) does not medically equal a listing, you may or may not have the residual functional capacity to engage in substantial gainful activity. We proceed to the fourth, and, if necessary, the fifth steps of the sequential evaluation process in §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. We use the rules in §§ 404.1594, 416.994, and 416.994a of this chapter, as appropriate, when we decide whether you continue to be disabled.
7.01 Category of Impairments, Hematological Disorders
7.05
A. Documented painful (vaso-occlusive) crises requiring parenteral (intravenous or intramuscular) narcotic medication, occurring at least six times within a 12-month period with at least 30 days between crises.
B. Complications of hemolytic anemia requiring at least three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart. Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, which can include hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization. (See 7.00C2).
C. Hemoglobin measurements of 7.0 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or less, occurring at least three times within a 12-month period with at least 30 days between measurements.
D. Transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia major (see 7.00C4).
7.08
7.10
A. Complications of bone marrow failure requiring at least three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart. Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, which can include hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization. (See 7.00E2.)
B. Transfusion-dependent myelodysplastic syndromes or aplastic anemias (see 7.00C4).
7.17
7.18
A. Limitation of activities of daily living (see 7.00G5).
B. Limitation in maintaining social functioning (see 7.00G6).
C. Limitation in completing tasks in a timely manner due to deficiencies in concentration, persistence, or pace (see 7.00G7).
13.00 Malignant Neoplastic Diseases
K.
2.
c.
ii. We evaluate the complications and residual impairment(s) from chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) under the appropriate listings, such as 13.05A2 or an appropriate listing in 7.00.
3.
Part B
A.
1. We evaluate non-malignant (non-cancerous) hematological disorders, such as hemolytic anemias (107.05), disorders of hemostasis (107.08), and disorders of bone marrow failure (107.10), which disrupt the normal development and function of white blood cells, red blood cells, platelets, and blood-clotting factors.
2. We evaluate malignant (cancerous) hematological disorders, such as lymphoma, leukemia, and multiple myeloma under the appropriate listings in 113.00, except for lymphoma associated with human
B.
1. A laboratory report of a definitive test that establishes a hematological disorder, signed by a physician; or
2. A laboratory report of a definitive test that establishes a hematological disorder that is not signed by a physician
3. When we do not have a laboratory report of a definitive test, a persuasive report from a physician that a positive diagnosis of your hematological disorder was confirmed by appropriate laboratory analysis or other diagnostic method(s). To be persuasive, this report must state that you had the appropriate definitive laboratory test or tests for diagnosing your disorder and provide the results, or explain how your diagnosis was established by other diagnostic method(s) consistent with the prevailing state of medical knowledge and clinical practice.
4. We will make every reasonable effort to obtain the results of appropriate laboratory testing you have had. We will not purchase complex, costly, or invasive tests, such as tests of clotting factors, bone marrow aspirations, or bone marrow biopsies.
C.
1.
2. The hospitalizations in 107.05B do not all have to be for the same complication of the hemolytic anemia. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications of hemolytic anemia that may result in hospitalization include dactylitis, osteomyelitis, painful (vaso-occlusive) crisis, pulmonary infections or infarctions, acute chest syndrome, pulmonary hypertension, chronic heart failure, gallbladder disease, hepatic (liver) failure, renal (kidney) failure, nephrotic syndrome, aplastic crisis, and cerebrovascular accident (stroke).
3. For 107.05C, we do not require hemoglobin to be measured during a period in which you are free of pain or other symptoms of your disorder. We will accept hemoglobin measurements made while you are experiencing complications of your hemolytic anemia.
4.
D.
1.
2. The hospitalizations in 107.08 do not all have to be for the same complication of a disorder of hemostasis. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications that may result in hospitalization include uncontrolled bleeding requiring multiple factor concentrate infusions or platelet transfusions, anemia, thromboses, and embolisms. We will also consider any surgery that you have to be a complication of your disorder of hemostasis if you require treatment with factor infusions or anticoagulant medication to control bleeding or coagulation in connection with your surgery.
E.
1.
2. The hospitalizations in 107.10A do not all have to be for the same complication of bone marrow failure. They may be for three different complications of the disorder. Examples of complications that may result in hospitalization include uncontrolled bleeding, anemia, and systemic bacterial, viral, or fungal infections.
3. For 107.10B,
F.
G.
H.
I.
1. These listings are only examples of common hematological disorders that we consider severe enough to result in marked and severe functional limitations. If your disorder does not meet the criteria of any of these listings, we must consider whether you have a disorder that satisfies the criteria of a listing in another body system. For example, we will evaluate hemophilic joint deformity under 101.00; polycythemia vera under 103.00, 104.00, or 111.00; chronic iron overload resulting from repeated RBC transfusion (transfusion hemosiderosis) under 103.00, 104.00, or 105.00; and the effects of intracranial bleeding under 111.00 or 112.00.
2. If you have a severe medically determinable impairment(s) that does not meet a listing, we will determine whether your impairment(s) medically equals a listing. (See § 416.926 of this chapter.) Hematological disorders may be associated with disorders in other body systems, and we consider the combined effects of multiple impairments when we determine whether they medically equal a listing. If your impairment(s) does not medically equal a listing, we will also consider whether it functionally equals the listings. (See § 416.926a of this chapter.) We use the rules in § 416.994a of this chapter when we decide whether you continue to be disabled.
107.01 Category of Impairments, Hematological Disorders
107.05
A. Documented painful (vaso-occlusive) crises requiring parenteral (intravenous or
B. Complications of hemolytic anemia requiring at least three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart. Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, which can include hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization. (See 107.00C2.)
C. Hemoglobin measurements of 7.0 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or less, occurring at least three times within a 12-month period with at least 30 days between measurements.
D. Transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia major (see 107.00C4).
107.08
107.10
A. Complications of bone marrow failure requiring at least three hospitalizations within a 12-month period and occurring at least 30 days apart. Each hospitalization must last at least 48 hours, which can include hours in a hospital emergency department immediately before the hospitalization. (See 107.00E2.)
B. Transfusion-dependent myelodysplastic syndromes or aplastic anemias (see 107.00C4).
107.17
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice to reopen the public comment period.
On August 23, 2013, we published in the
For the proposed rule published on August 23, 2013 (78 FR 52467), written submissions must be received by the Department on or before November 26, 2013.
Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via U.S. mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
•
•
Carlos Martinez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W104, Washington, DC 20202-6132. Telephone: 202-260-1440.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On June 24, 2011, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency submitted for Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP) approval, revisions to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) rules: 3745-18-01, 3745-18-03 to 3745-18-52, 3745-18-54 to 3745-18-77, 3745-18-79, 3745-18-81 to 3745-18-89, and 3745-18-91 to 3745-18-94. The rule revisions primarily update facility information and remove SO
Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0672, by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this
Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9401,
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to amend certain provisions of the Fluorinated Gas Production source category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. The proposed changes would reduce the level of detail in which emissions were reported, establish a new set of default global warming potentials, eliminate the mass-balance emission calculation method, and clarify the emission factor method. We are also proposing confidentiality determinations for the new and substantially revised reporting requirements of the Fluorinated Gas Production source category.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the
Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address:
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather lists the types of facilities that the EPA is now aware could be potentially affected by the reporting requirements. Other types of facilities not listed in the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A or the relevant criteria in subpart L. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the preceding
The first section of this preamble contains background information regarding the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), an overview of the proposed amendments, and information on when the amendments would become effective, how this rule affects confidentiality determinations, and how this proposed rule relates to other GHG reporting notices. This section also discusses the EPA's use of our legal authority under the Clean Air Act to collect data under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, hereinafter referred to as the “GHG Reporting Rule” or “Part 98.”
The second section of this preamble describes in detail the changes that are being proposed, presents the EPA's rationale for the proposed changes, and identifies issues on which the EPA is particularly interested in receiving public comments.
Finally, the third section of the preamble discusses the various statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this proposed rulemaking.
The GHG Reporting Rule was published in the
The EPA is proposing these rule amendments under its existing CAA authority provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the 2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section 114 provides the EPA broad authority to require the information proposed to be gathered by this rule because such data would inform and are relevant to the EPA's carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions.
In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations under its authorities provided in sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA for the proposed new or substantially revised data elements that would be reported under this proposed rule. As mentioned above, CAA section 114 provides the EPA authority to obtain the information in Part 98. Section 114(c) requires that EPA make publicly available information obtained under section 114 except for information which is not emission data and which qualifies for confidential treatment. The Administrator has determined that this action (proposed amendments and confidentiality determinations) is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA.
The EPA is proposing to amend certain provisions of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule that affect fluorinated gas production facilities. The proposed amendments include the following changes:
• Revision of the reporting requirements to allow more aggregated reporting to address potential disclosure concerns (see Section II.A.1 of this preamble).
• Proposal of a revised set of default global warming potentials (GWPs) for fluorinated greenhouse gases (fluorinated GHGs).
• Removal of the option to use the mass-balance approach.
• Clarification of the emission factor approach.
• Various technical corrections.
These amendments would apply to reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart L (subpart L) that occurs in calendar year 2015 and subsequent years. This would include reporting of information for reporting year 2014 and subsequent reporting years. It would also include reporting of certain information for reporting years 2011 and 2012, and to reporting of that information for
In this notice, we are proposing confidentiality determinations for proposed new or substantially revised subpart L data elements. The EPA has previously proposed confidentiality determinations for subpart L data elements (77 FR 1434, January 10, 2012), which did not cover the new or substantially revised data elements that the EPA is proposing in the present action. The proposed confidentiality determinations for these data elements together with our rationale are discussed in detail in Section II.D of this preamble. In addition, the proposed amendments would delete certain existing subpart L reporting requirements, while continuing to require that records be kept of these elements. Should the EPA finalize the deletion of these data elements, the EPA will not take final action on the previously proposed confidentiality determinations for the deleted data elements.
On September 11, 2013, the EPA proposed a rule titled, “Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and Proposed Confidentiality Determinations under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program” (78 FR 55994; hereinafter referred to as the proposed Inputs rule). In that proposed rule, the EPA proposed to add a requirement for certain reporters under 24 subparts, including subpart L, to use an EPA-provided inputs verification tool. For these subparts, the designated inputs to emission equations for which reporting was deferred to 2015 and disclosure concerns have been identified would be entered into the inputs verification tool. In addition, these inputs would be kept by the facilities as records for five years.
Both the proposed Inputs rule and this proposed rule are proposing changes to the subpart L reporting requirements. A redline/strikeout version of the subpart L regulatory text that reflects both sets of proposed changes is available in the docket for this rulemaking. While both sets of changes are intended to address disclosure concerns, the reporting elements that are proposed to be amended generally differ. The proposed Inputs rule would amend and/or remove a number of reporting elements that are inputs to emission equations. This proposed rule would amend and/or remove other reporting requirements. In some cases, the two proposed rules are proposing changes to the same provisions, e.g., because those provisions contain several data elements, some of which are inputs, and some of which are not. For example, the proposed Inputs rule is proposing to remove the data element “mass” from 40 CFR 98.126(b)(6) through (b)(8). This rule is proposing to remove these paragraphs altogether, because the remaining data elements (chemical formulas of reactants, products, and by-products) are no longer useful without the corresponding masses. (The rationale for these and the other proposed amendments to the subpart L reporting requirements is discussed in Section II.A.3 of this preamble.)
On January 10, 2012, the EPA published proposed determinations regarding whether the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program data elements in eight subparts of Part 98, including subpart L, would or would not be entitled to confidential treatment under the CAA (77 FR 1434). In that proposed rule, the EPA proposed that the chemical identities and quantities of the fluorinated GHG emissions at the process level, reported under subpart L, are “emission data.” Under section 114(c) of the CAA, “emission data” are not eligible for confidential treatment and must be made publicly available.
The EPA received two comments on that proposed rule related to subpart L. These commenters, the American Chemistry Council and 3M Company, raised concerns that the release of certain data elements that the EPA proposed to classify as emission data (and that therefore would not be eligible for treatment as confidential business information), would reveal “trade secrets.” Both commenters stated that the disclosure of the identity and quantities of the fluorinated GHGs emitted at the process level, from either process vents or fugitive sources, would reveal “trade secrets” regarding individual chemical production processes. 3M stated that process-level emission data provides specific information on reactants, by-products, and products that would provide competitors with a detailed understanding of 3M's manufacturing process. They noted that competitors with knowledge of fluorine chemistry could use such information to identify the particular manufacturing pathways used by 3M. They asserted that competitors could then duplicate these processes without having to incur research and development costs, putting 3M at a “competitive [dis]advantage.”
The American Chemistry Council and 3M Company also expressed concern that the disclosure of the identity and quantity of emissions at the process level could violate export control regulations. Specifically, the commenters stated that the release of some data elements would make available to the public information that is subject to Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that prohibit public disclosure for reasons of “national security, anti-terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation, and chemical and biological weapons security.” The commenters stated that the EAR and ITAR control not only export of products, but also export of technical knowledge, such as the design of a product and production information, and that the release of process-level emission data may provide such insight into the design of a product or production information that is export-controlled. The commenters stated that if the EPA attempted to protect export-controlled information from disclosure by implementing “an export control plan,” this would be in conflict with EPA's position that emission data cannot be withheld from the public under the CAA.
Following receipt of the public comments on the proposed CBI determinations, the EPA proposed and promulgated temporary, less detailed reporting requirements for reporting years 2011 and 2012 (77 FR 51477,
The EPA received two written comments on the alternatives presented in the memorandum. In addition, the EPA discussed alternative reporting options with fluorinated gas producers and other stakeholders. These comments and discussions are summarized further in the “Rationale” Section II.A.3 of this preamble.
Following review of the comments submitted on the proposed confidentiality determinations (77 FR 1434, January 10, 2012) and the memorandum entitled “Potential Future Subpart L Options,” and considering discussions with stakeholders, the EPA is proposing to permanently amend the subpart L reporting requirements to require reporting at a less aggregated level beginning in calendar year 2015. Specifically, we are proposing to require owners and operators of facilities producing fluorinated gases to report (1) emissions by fluorinated GHG group (chemical type) at the process level for each generically defined production or transformation process, and (2) emissions by chemical at the facility level for certain fluorinated GHG emissions.
Fluorinated GHG emissions would be reported by chemical at the facility level when (a) the fluorinated GHG was emitted in quantities above 1,000 mtCO
These changes would apply only to emissions from production and transformation processes; emissions from venting of container heels and destruction of previously produced fluorinated GHGs would be reported by chemical and by process as required by the 2010 Final Rule.
In addition to the changes above, we are proposing to replace the requirements to report process-specific emission factors, activity data, and destruction efficiencies with a requirement to identify, as a range, the level by which the emissions of each process are reduced or controlled, e.g., by destruction devices. We are also proposing to remove the requirement that facilities report the following data elements: The contents, locations, and functions of the streams analyzed under the scoping speciation (40 CFR 98.126(a)(3) and (a)(4)). In addition, we are proposing to revise the set of default GWPs used to calculate and report CO
As discussed in Section II.A.7 of this preamble, all of these changes would apply to (previously deferred) reporting for Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 2013, as well as to reporting in future years. The amendments would not change other requirements of Part 98, including the requirement under 40 CFR 98.3(g) that data used to calculate GHG emissions for each process be retained as records.
The EPA is also proposing to remove the option to use a mass-balance approach from the calculation and monitoring requirements of the rule. No facilities are currently using this approach. With this change, facilities would still be able to use the emission factor and emission calculation factor approaches to monitor, calculate, and report their fluorinated GHG emissions.
As discussed above in Section II.A.1 of this preamble, certain subpart L reporters have raised concerns regarding reporting and potential disclosure of “trade secrets” and “business sensitive information.” We believe that these reporters have raised legitimate concerns regarding the potential disclosure of this information and the possible consequences to the reporting businesses. Based on our evaluation of these concerns and potential reporting alternatives, we are proposing amendments to subpart L that would address these concerns while continuing to collect the data necessary to inform the development of future GHG policies and programs. To enable the EPA to evaluate future GHG policies and programs, reporting should allow the EPA to understand the magnitudes and growth rates of emissions of different chemicals from different sources and to identify and analyze potential approaches to reducing emissions of these chemicals from these sources. In addition, reporting should enable the EPA to verify reported emissions. The proposed amendment would continue to meet these objectives, while at the same time addressing the potential disclosure concerns discussed above.
The EPA has considered a range of reporting options including varying levels of aggregation for the source of the emissions and for the fluorinated GHGs (chemicals) emitted. The levels of aggregation considered for the emission source included reporting by process and emissions type, by process type and subtype, and by facility. The levels of aggregation considered for the fluorinated GHGs included reporting by speciated fluorinated GHG, by fluorinated GHG group, or in terms of total CO
As discussed further in Sections II.A.3.a and II.A.3.b of this preamble, both process-specific and chemical-specific reporting are important to understanding sources of emissions and assessing approaches to reduce emissions. Process-specific emissions information allows the EPA to identify processes with high potential for emission reductions as well as measures to achieve those reductions.
In their comments on the proposed confidentiality determinations and in subsequent communications, fluorinated gas producers have repeatedly stated that reporting, and subsequent disclosure, of chemical-specific emissions at the process level would provide insight into manufacturing methods that would enable competitors to gain a competitive advantage. After careful consideration of these comments, the EPA agrees with the fluorinated gas producers' assertion that chemical-specific, process-specific emissions may in some cases provide a detailed chemical “fingerprint” of a process that could enable competitors to deduce how that process works to produce a particular product. One producer (3M) explained that, for example, a competitor with expertise in fluorine chemistry may be able to analyze speciated emissions and identify reactants, by-products, intermediates, and products. By examining the ratios of these emissions, the competitor may be able to deduce process conditions (e.g., reaction temperatures or whether or not a catalyst was used) based on publicly available equilibrium constant data.
To address this concern while continuing to meet the objectives of the GHG Reporting Rule, the EPA is proposing to replace the current reporting of chemical-specific emissions at the process level with a reporting requirement that combines two levels of reporting. The proposed two-level reporting, which is discussed in more detail below, would avoid the potential disclosure concerns discussed above while retaining reporting of important information on emissions at both the process and chemical levels.
We believe that this proposal, by addressing the business-related concerns raised by commenters, would also address the concerns they raised regarding export control requirements. We request comment on whether or not this is the case.
The first level of proposed reporting is reporting of emissions by generically identified process (as discussed below), emission type (i.e., vents vs. leaks), and fluorinated GHG group. While such reporting would provide less detail than the 2010 Final Rule on the chemicals emitted, the product of each process, and emissions from individual process vents, it would preserve key data to inform the development of GHG policies and programs. First, such reporting would enable the EPA to identify processes and emission types with high or quickly changing emissions. As stated in the 2009 Final Rule (74 FR 56311), identifying such processes is important because they may have the most potential for future reductions. Second, reporting by process, emission type, and fluorinated GHG group would help the EPA to identify and analyze reduction options. This is because reduction options are implemented at the process level and for specific emission types. Finally, process-level reporting is helpful for verifying emissions because it can allow comparison of emission rates among similar processes and because it can facilitate duplication of emissions calculations, which are performed at the process level.
Because the EPA agrees with commenters' concern that reporting the product of each process could lead to the disclosure of the identity of intermediates, and that such disclosure could in turn reveal information on how certain products are made, the EPA is proposing to identify processes generically rather than by the product of the process.
This method for identifying each process would supply useful information on the nature of the process without actually identifying the product of the process. For example, reporting the process type would enable the EPA to ascertain whether and how emission levels may vary across process types and thereby enable us to identify particular process types as having more potential for reductions. It would also permit the tracking of emissions from the same process from year to year. Moreover, it is generally consistent with the definition of “process” in subpart L.
One drawback of generically identifying processes is that this approach would not allow the EPA to compare processes making the same product (including intermediates) across different facilities. While some products are produced at only one facility, several are produced at multiple facilities. The EPA believes that the proposed amendment is nevertheless appropriate despite this drawback, because the information that can be obtained by comparisons of types of processes across different facilities remains useful for the purposes of the GHGRP. Nevertheless, the EPA requests comment on alternative identification strategies that would avoid this drawback.
The EPA is proposing to establish five chemical types or groups into which
The EPA considered including fluorinated acetates and fluorinated formates in this group. However, the fluorinated acetates whose atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs have been studied often have lifetimes of months rather than days and GWPs in the 10s, significantly different from those of the compounds that would be included in this group. Fluorinated formates have still larger atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs. Thus, the EPA is proposing to include fluorinated acetates and fluorinated formates in the “other fluorinated GHG” group discussed below.
While multiple studies have indicated that unsaturated HFCs have short atmospheric lifetimes and low GWPs, fewer studies have been performed on unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs and fluorinated ketones. Thus, the lifetimes and GWPs of unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and fluorinated ketones are less certain. The EPA requests comment on the likely variability of the lifetimes and GWPs of unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs and fluorinated ketones and on whether or not these compounds should be included in the very-short-lived group or in the “Other fluorinated GHG” group, discussed below.
The advantage of requiring reporting by these fluorinated GHG groups is that it would address the disclosure concerns described above by avoiding the disclosure of the identities of the individual species that are emitted from production and transformation processes while still providing general information on the GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes of the emissions. General knowledge of the GWPs of the chemicals emitted is critical for distinguishing between processes emitting many tons of a low-GWP chemical and processes emitting a few tons (or kilograms) of a high-GWP chemical. While the CO
In comments on the Options Memorandum, 3M expressed concern that reporting of emissions by generically identified process, emission type, and fluorinated GHG group could still disclose “trade secret information.” 3M was specifically concerned that such reporting could reveal the number and types of process steps associated with a product when a facility made only one product or when a facility added a product between one year and the next. In the former case, the commenter stated that a competitor could determine production throughput based on the CO
While the EPA takes these concerns very seriously, some of the commenter's concerns appear to stem from competitors' potential use of the subpart L data in combination with production volumes reported under subpart OO. Production volumes reported under subpart OO have been determined to be CBI
If the concern regarding the number of process steps relates to the characterization of each process as a reaction, distillation, or packaging process, one option would be to drop this characterization and to identify the process only as a production process, a transformation process where no fluorinated GHG reactant is produced at another facility, or a transformation process where one or more fluorinated GHG reactants are produced at another facility. The process would still be tagged with a letter or number that could be used to identify it from year to year. One disadvantage of this approach is that it would not show whether or how emission levels varied by process subtype. It would, however, still provide information on how emission levels varied by process type. Going further, the identification of the process as a production process or as one of the two types of transformation processes could also be dropped. However, if facilities did not identify emissions that come from transformation processes that transform fluorinated GHGs produced at other facilities, we would lose our ability to distinguish between these “downstream” emissions and the “upstream” emissions that result from the production and transformation of fluorinated gases produced on site. This would interfere with our ability to analyze the impacts of upstream vs. downstream policies. Nevertheless, we would retain critical information on the magnitudes and trends of emissions from each process. We request comment on these options.
In the event that disclosing the number of process steps is demonstrated to be a concern even if processes are identified only by a letter or a number, the EPA is requesting comment on the option of requiring facilities to report total emissions, by fluorinated GHG
The second part of the proposed approach, reporting by chemical at the facility level, would supplement the process-specific reporting discussed above with chemical-specific reporting of fluorinated GHGs emitted from fluorinated gas production in quantities above a certain threshold. As explained in more detail below, the EPA is proposing a threshold of 1,000 mtCO
For subpart L, information on the identities and characteristics of GHGs is particularly important. First, the range of GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes spanned by the fluorinated GHGs is large. Lifetimes range from a few days (e.g., for several unsaturated fluorocarbons) to thousands of years (e.g., for saturated perfluorocarbons), while GWPs range from less than one (e.g., for several unsaturated fluorocarbons) to above 20,000 (e.g., for SF
Second, chemical-specific reporting at the facility level would provide a useful check on the CO
Third, fluorinated gas producers are a significant source for many fluorinated GHGs, and for some fluorinated GHGs, they are the only source. This makes them especially important in efforts to verify national and global emissions using atmospheric measurements. (Most fluorinated GHGs lack significant natural sources.)
Finally, chemical-specific reporting is consistent with GHG Inventory reporting under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which encourages chemical-specific reporting. Under the UNFCCC, other countries report chemical-specific emissions from comparable fluorinated gas production facilities. For example, in 2013 and previous years, Belgium's GHG inventory reported emissions from “an electrochemical synthesis (electro-fluorination) plant, which emits, or has emitted SF
In comments on the Options Memorandum and in discussions with the EPA, fluorinated gas producers stated that even at the facility level, chemical-specific reporting could disclose “trade secret . . . information.” Several producers cited the (relatively rare) case in which a fluorinated gas production facility produces only one final product, in which case facility-level information may be the same as process-specific information. One producer, 3M, noted that even for facilities producing multiple products, chemical-specific reporting at the facility level could provide information to competitors on process inputs since some of the chemicals could be unique and obviously attributable to a specific product.
On the other hand, 3M observed that for some facilities and under some reporting approaches, it was possible that chemical-specific reporting of certain chemicals would not be a concern. 3M pointed to Belgium's reporting of emissions from its electrochemical synthesis plant as an example. 3M observed that the plant reports chemical-specific emissions for certain fluorinated GHGs, including those covered by the Kyoto Protocol and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
While the EPA believes that reporting of chemical-specific emissions at the facility level would in most cases address the potential disclosure concerns described above associated with reporting of chemical-specific emissions at the process level, the EPA finds it plausible that in some cases, individual reporting of the full suite of emitted fluorinated GHGs at the facility level could disclose detailed process information. To address disclosure concerns associated with reporting all emissions by chemical while retaining information on fluorinated GHGs that are emitted in significant quantities, the EPA is proposing that facilities be required to report emissions of a fluorinated GHG by chemical when emissions of that fluorinated GHG exceed 1,000 mtCO
A cutoff of 1,000 mtCO
Where a facility produces only one fluorinated gas, the EPA is proposing that it be required to report emissions only by fluorinated GHG group unless the emissions consist of a major fluorinated GHG constituent of the fluorinated GHG product and that product is sold or transferred to another person. In this case, the facility would be required to report emissions of the major fluorinated GHG constituents of the product, which the EPA proposes to define as constituents of the product that individually account for more than 1 percent of the product by mass. The EPA is proposing this exception because where products are sold or otherwise transferred to other persons, those persons, who could presumably include competitors, could identify the major constituents of the product simply by chemically analyzing it. Thus, identifying the chemical species of the major constituents of the product when they are emitted would not provide any additional information to competitors on the product or the methods used to produce it. The EPA is proposing to limit this reporting to major constituents because information on constituents that comprise less than 1 percent of the product is (1) more difficult to obtain through chemical analysis, and (2) more likely to disclose detailed information regarding reactants, intermediates, and by-products of the processes used to make the product. This is because such reactants, intermediates, and by-products may occur as low-concentration impurities in the product. The EPA requests comment on this proposal and on whether and how it might disclose detailed information about the process.
The EPA also requests comment on whether this exception from chemical-specific reporting should be expressed in terms of the number of processes at a facility rather than the number of products, since a facility that produced one fluorinated gas product but also transformed one or more fluorinated gases would be reporting emissions from multiple processes.
The 2010 Final Rule and the temporary subpart L reporting provisions both include default GWPs that enable fluorinated gas production facilities to calculate and report emissions in CO
We are proposing to replace these default GWPs with five default GWPs that would significantly increase the precision and accuracy of the CO
The default GWPs would be assigned to the fluorinated GHG groups the EPA is proposing for process-specific reporting: (1) Fully fluorinated GHGs, (2) saturated HFCs, (3) saturated HFEs and saturated HCFEs, (4) unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and fluorinated ketones, and (5) other GHGs. The proposed default GWPs for these fluorinated GHG groups are listed in Table 2 of this preamble.
As discussed in Section II.A.3.a of this preamble, the compounds within each group exhibit similar atmospheric lifetimes and radiative behavior, meaning that their GWPs fall into a relatively limited range. This permits default GWPs to be established with more precision than is possible with larger or more diverse sets of fluorinated GHGs.
For each group, we have taken the average GWP of the group, rounding it to one or two significant figures. For example, to determine the default GWP for fully fluorinated GHGs, we determined the average GWP of all fully fluorinated fluorocarbons in either the revised Table A-1, or, for compounds not included in the revised Table A-1, in the Comprehensive Review. The average GWP for the fully fluorinated fluorocarbons is equal to 9,857. This provided the default GWP of 10,000 for fully fluorinated compounds.
This approach is expected to result in an unbiased estimate of the GWP of each fluorinated GHG group because, at the present time, the GWPs of the fluorinated GHGs on Table A-1 are not expected to be any lower or higher, on average, than the GWPs of the fluorinated GHGs that are not on Table A-1. However, for the “Other fluorinated GHG” group, which is a “catch-all” category for fluorinated GHGs that do not fit into any other group, it is possible that newly synthesized types of compounds could have GWPs significantly different from the GWPs of the types of compounds that are currently in the group. Given this uncertainty, we are requesting comment on two alternatives. One option would be to establish a default GWP for this group that is equal to the average of the known GWPs of the current members of this group plus one standard deviation. This would result in a default GWP of 300 rather than 100 for the “Other fluorinated GHG” group. Another option would be to adopt a default GWP for this group based on the average of the GWPs of all fluorinated GHGs, i.e., 2000. This would recognize that the uncertainty associated with the GWPs of newly synthesized compound types may exceed that associated with the GWPs of the compound types currently identified as belonging to the “other fluorinated GHG” group. However, while adopting a GWP of 2000 would decrease the likelihood of underestimating the GWPs of new types of compounds, it would significantly overestimate the GWPs of the compound types that have been identified as belonging to this group to date.
For the group including very short-lived, unsaturated compounds, we are proposing to establish a default GWP of one to simplify calculations, although the average GWP for the group is actually 0.4.
The EPA also requests comment on the sets of chemicals selected as the bases for the default GWPs. First, we are requesting comment on the fluorinated GHG groups proposed here. Do they capture most of the variability in GWPs exhibited by fluorinated GHGs? If not, what alternative fluorinated GHG groups would capture this variability? Could facilities easily determine to which fluorinated GHG group a particular fluorinated compound belonged?
Second, we are requesting comment on the individual chemicals whose GWPs are used to establish GWPs for each fluorinated GHG group. We are specifically interested in comments on how to treat compounds with relatively high or low GWPs for their groups (i.e., outliers). Within the group of fully fluorinated GHGs, relatively high GWPs are generally a consequence of a compound's radiative efficiency (or, more precisely, the ratio of the compound's radiative efficiency to its molecular weight), which is in turn influenced by the compound's inclusion of bonds other than C-F bonds (e.g., S-F or N-F bonds in SF
To develop the proposed defaults, we have included outliers where we could not rule out the possibility that such outliers may also occur among the fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs we wish to estimate through the use of defaults. Thus, to estimate the default GWP for fully fluorinated GHGs, the EPA did not include SF
We are also requesting comment on whether fluorinated GHGs that contain chlorine should be included in the “other fluorinated GHG” group or in the fluorinated GHG groups in which chemically similar fluorinated GHGs that do not contain chlorine are included. While most chlorine-containing GHGs are regulated under the EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Regulations and are therefore excluded from the definition of
As discussed above, the Comprehensive Review GWPs are likely to be the basis of the GWPs in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), which is expected to be completed this year. To the extent that AR5 updates or corrects the GWPs for some GHGs that are included in the Comprehensive Review (but are not included in Table A-1), we are proposing to use those updated values in our calculations of default GWPs for the final rule. (If AR5 includes GWPs rounded to zero, one, or two, we would use the corresponding updated radiative efficiencies and/or atmospheric lifetimes to calculate more precise updated GWPs and use those more precise GWPs to calculate the relevant default(s).) We request comment on this approach.
Differences between proposed default GWPs and the default GWPs in the subpart L temporary reporting provisions. The approach proposed in today's action differs from the approach taken under the temporary subpart L reporting provisions in two respects. First, the temporary subpart L reporting provisions give facilities the option to use their best estimate of a GWP for a compound lacking a GWP on Table A-1, as long as that estimate is based on the information described in 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1)(vi)(A)(
There are several reasons why we are not proposing to allow facilities to use best-estimate GWPs in today's action. When we promulgated the temporary provisions, we had not collected as much information on the GWPs of fluorinated GHGs as we now have. Since we have collected this additional information and issued a NODA seeking public comment on potential chemical-specific GWPs, we now have a stronger basis for making generalizations regarding the atmospheric impacts of fluorinated GHG groups, particularly the five for which we are proposing default GWPs in this action. Dividing the set of fluorinated compounds into five rather than two sets also allows us to set default GWPs with more precision. Thus, the key reason for allowing facilities to develop and apply their own GWPs, which is that such estimates could be significantly more accurate and precise than default GWPs, no longer applies to the extent that it once did. Furthermore, the use of best-estimate GWPs has significant drawbacks.
These drawbacks include the lack of transparency of best-estimate GWPs to EPA and the public and the lack of consistency of best-estimate GWPs across facilities emitting the same chemical. These drawbacks were acceptable in the context of the temporary reporting provisions, which were intended only to provide interim emissions estimates while the EPA addressed the disclosure issues raised by commenters, but they pose significant concerns for long-term reporting. Under the temporary provisions, neither best-estimate GWPs nor the data and analysis used to support them are reported to the EPA; thus, the reliability of this data and analysis, and the accuracy of the resulting GWPs, are difficult to ascertain. This could lead to the use of poorly supported, incorrect GWPs. In addition, allowing facilities to use their own best estimates of GWPs could result in different facilities using different GWPs for the same compound, reducing the comparability of emissions estimates across facilities. In contrast, establishing consistent default GWPs for compounds for use by multiple facilities would allow the EPA to compare emissions across facilities and to better characterize emission trends.
With respect to subpart L, the proposed Inputs rule addresses the use of activity data, emission factors, and destruction efficiencies as inputs to emissions calculations. In addition to being used as inputs, these data elements provide information that is useful for policy analysis for the fluorinated gas production source category. Specifically, they help EPA to identify processes with a large potential for future reductions and reduction technologies that are highly effective. On the one hand, processes that are relatively uncontrolled are likely to have a larger potential for future reductions than those that are already highly controlled. On the other hand, high levels of control imply the use of highly effective reduction technologies. Destruction efficiencies indicate the
The proposed requirement for facilities to report, as a range, the level of control of each process would directly address this issue. We are proposing four ranges into which facilities would bin the level of control of processes. These ranges are shown in Table 3 of this preamble.
The ranges are designed to provide useful information on the level of control for each process while also protecting detailed information regarding the mass of material removed from the process (e.g., as one or more by-products) and vented to the destruction device or atmosphere. Each range of reductions corresponds to a range of uncontrolled emissions that spans a factor of four or more, resulting in a large zone of uncertainty around the masses of vented process streams. At the same time, however, the ranges are small enough to distinguish between highly controlled processes, processes with intermediate levels of control, and processes that are relatively uncontrolled.
The uncertainty created by the ranges of reduction levels would be in addition to the uncertainty around the masses of vented process streams that would result from reporting emissions by fluorinated GHG group rather than by individual chemical. The GWPs for each fluorinated GHG group have relative standard deviations ranging from 40 percent (for fully fluorinated GHGs) to over 100 percent (for all the other fluorinated GHG groups), resulting in similar uncertainty ranges for chemical-specific emissions (both controlled and uncontrolled). Given the uncertainty associated with reporting by fluorinated GHG group, we are considering requiring facilities to report their precise level of reduction for each process rather than the range of that reduction. This would provide more detailed information regarding the reduction and may actually be simpler than placing the level of reduction in a range. One potential issue regarding this approach is that the level of uncertainty (around the masses of vented process streams) that results from reporting emissions by fluorinated GHG group is relatively low (i.e., a relative standard deviation of less than 50%) for some groups (e.g., fully fluorinated GHGs), which could result in disclosure concerns for facilities that make one product. We request comment on this alternative.
The EPA also considered requiring facilities to indicate simply whether or not each process is controlled. However, for processes that are completely uncontrolled, this approach raises issues similar to those raised by reporting the precise level of reduction. This is because, for uncontrolled processes, the level of reduction would be precisely specified as zero. In the approach we are proposing, a facility with uncontrolled emissions from a process would bin that process in the zero- to 75-percent controlled category, whose corresponding uncontrolled emissions span a factor of four. However, we request comment on requiring facilities to indicate only whether or not each process is controlled.
To calculate the level of reductions, we are proposing that facilities consider both the destruction efficiency (DE) and the downtime (or uptime) of the destruction device. Downtime can have a large impact on the effective destruction efficiency of destruction devices; for example, a device with a nominal DE of 99.99 percent that experiences 5 percent downtime will have an effective destruction efficiency of 95 percent. The level of reductions or effective destruction efficiency would be equated to one minus the ratio between the actual emissions from the process (i.e., accounting for any controls) and the uncontrolled emissions from the process (i.e., the emissions that would have occurred in the absence of controls), expressed in CO
Because we are proposing to remove the option to use the mass-balance approach, and because very few facilities have used this approach to date, our preference is not to require reporting of the effective destruction efficiency for processes whose emissions were estimated using the mass-balance approach. However, we request comment on this.
In addition to emissions from fluorinated gas production and transformation processes, facilities covered by subpart L are required to report emissions of each fluorinated GHG from destruction of previously produced fluorinated GHGs and from venting of residual fluorinated GHGs from containers (40 CFR 98.126(g) and (h)). The commenters did not include these data elements among those that they identified as posing a risk of revealing trade secrets or violating export control laws regulations. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing to amend the reporting of these emissions. The EPA notes that these data elements would include the identification of the fluorinated GHG products being destroyed or vented. As discussed above, competitors can assess the contents of a fluorinated gas producer's final products (unlike intermediates) simply by purchasing the products and analyzing their contents.
In the final rule published on August 24, 2012, the EPA deferred detailed reporting of reporting year (RY) 2011 and 2012 emissions under subpart L until March 31, 2014 (or, if the data element was deferred under the Inputs rule, until the date set forth for that data element at 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(vii) and Table A-7 of subpart A). In the Proposed 2013 Revisions Rule, we proposed to further defer detailed reporting of RY 2011, 2012, and 2013 emissions until March 31, 2015. Instead of requiring facilities to report their RY 2011, 2012, and 2013 emissions at the level of detail specified in the 2010 Final Rule, we are today proposing to require facilities to report those emissions at the level of detail specified in this rule.
When subpart L reporters submit their full annual reports for RY 2011, 2012, and 2013, we are also proposing to require them to report emissions using the Table A-1 GWPs in effect on the reporting deadline as specified in 40 CFR 98.3(b), and the default GWPs established through this rulemaking. This would ensure that the emissions reported under subpart L for RY 2011, 2012, and 2013 are based on the same GWPs as emissions reported for subsequent reporting years, avoiding the appearance of trends that are caused solely by inconsistent GWPs. In the Proposed 2013 Revisions Rule, the EPA proposed to apply the GWPs proposed in that rule to emissions reported for Reporting Years 2010, 2011, and 2012. However, as noted in the Proposed 2013 Revisions Rule, we cannot apply revised GWPs with any precision to the less detailed subpart L reports received under the August 24, 2012 rule that deferred full subpart L reporting, because those reports do not include chemical-specific emissions data (78 FR 19834).
The 2010 Final Rule included three methods for calculating emissions of fluorinated GHGs from fluorinated gas production:
(1) The process-vent specific emission factor method, which requires facilities to conduct emissions testing to determine an emission factor for the vent;
(2) The process-vent specific emission calculation factor method, which requires facilities to use certain engineering calculation or assessment methods to calculate an emission factor for the vent and which may be applied to batch processes and to continuous process vents with emissions of less than 10,000 mtCO2e, and
(3) The mass-balance method, which requires facilities to track and measure the fluorine-containing compounds that are added to or removed from the process, including reactants, by-products and products, to determine emissions from the process.
We are proposing to remove the mass-balance method. As observed in the preamble to the 2009 proposed rule and 2010 Final Rule, the mass-balance method requires very precise and accurate concentration and flow measurements in order to provide a reasonably precise and accurate estimate of emissions. For this reason, facilities that wish to use the mass-balance method are required to review the accuracy and precision of their measurement systems and to calculate the absolute and relative errors of the estimates that they would develop using the mass-balance method. If these calculations show that the absolute and relative errors would fall above certain limits for a process, facilities are not allowed to use the mass-balance method for that process. However, at least one facility that believed it was eligible to use the mass-balance method calculated an impossible result (negative emissions) when it attempted to use this method. This indicates that the error limits (which should have prohibited such a result) may be difficult to calculate and apply. Without the error limits, the mass-balance method is not viable. Finally, only two facilities reporting emissions in 2012 or 2013 indicated that they had used the mass-balance method to estimate emissions from any process, and both facilities indicated that they were no longer using this method when contacted by the EPA. Thus, we do not expect that the removal of this method will result in a significant burden for subpart L reporters. However, we request comment on this issue, on the proposed removal of the mass-balance method, and on the rationale presented here.
Our intent is that facilities submitting reports in 2015 of RY 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014 emissions estimated using the mass-balance method would be able to refer to its provisions even after it is removed from subpart L. We are proposing to revise subpart L to inform interested parties that the full text of the mass-balance method is available as part of the 2010 final rule (75 FR 74774, 74832-74837, 74843-74845). Another option would be to include the full text of the mass-balance method as an appendix to part 98. We are seeking comment on whether that option would have any advantages over referring interested parties to the 2010 final rule.
Because two facilities have used the mass-balance method to estimate their emissions during previous reporting years, we are proposing to retain certain reporting requirements associated with that approach (i.e., for purposes of reporting RY 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 emissions in 2015) as well as the corresponding recordkeeping requirements. However, we are proposing to remove several other reporting elements for the mass-balance method. In some cases, we are proposing to remove these elements because they involve reporting emissions by chemical and by process,
The EPA is proposing to amend subpart L to clarify that facilities using the emission factor approach to estimate their emissions are required, in future testing, to test for any fluorinated GHG identified in the scoping speciation, and to report emissions of all fluorinated GHGs that are identified in the scoping speciation. Emissions that fall below the detection limit of the measurement technology would be required to be reported at one half of that limit. (Note that if the emissions of a particular fluorinated GHG fell below 1,000 mtCO
As noted in the April 12, 2010 proposed rule, one of the purposes of the scoping speciation is “to identify by-products to measure in subsequent emissions testing to develop emission factors” (75 FR 18674). However, the regulatory text in the 2010 Subpart L Final Rule did not explicitly require facilities to include the fluorinated GHGs identified under the scoping speciation in the testing. This amendment would address that oversight. Due to the high GWPs of many fluorinated GHGs, even fluorinated GHGs that are emitted only at trace concentrations (i.e., in concentrations of less than 0.1 percent of the emissions stream) can account for significant CO
In addition, we are proposing to remove and reserve 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1)(vi), which establishes a process under which facilities may request, for fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs are not included in Table A-1, to use provisional GWPs for their preliminary calculation of emissions under 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1). We established this process in recognition of the fact that the default GWP value that is currently provided for these calculations, 2000, would overestimate emissions from process vents in some cases, inappropriately requiring facilities to perform stack tests for these vents. With the establishment of five default GWPs, which would allow considerably more precise estimates of CO
We are also proposing a technical correction to Equation L-33 of subpart L. Equation L-33 is used to determine the mass of fluorinated GHG emitted from venting of residual fluorinated GHGs in containers, when pressure is the monitored parameter. Although the current Equation L-33 includes the appropriate basis for the estimate, i.e., a form of the ideal gas law, the equation is not solved for the desired variable, the mass of residual gas in the container, in kilograms. The EPA is proposing a new Equation L-33 that directly calculates this variable. Because the amended equation is based on the same input parameters as the current equation, the correction does not result in additional requirements.
In addition, the EPA is proposing a technical clarification to 40 CFR 98.124(c)(2) of subpart L. Paragraph (c)(2) includes a term or acronym, “RSD,” that is not defined within the rule. The EPA has added the term “relative standard deviation (RSD)” in the second sentence in 40 CFR 98.124(c)(2) to clarify the meaning of the term in the regulatory text.
We are also proposing changes to subpart A to harmonize subpart A reporting with subpart L reporting for fluorinated gas production facilities. These include changes to 40 CFR 98.2(b)(1), which establishes the set of gases to include in the threshold calculation, 40 CFR 98.2(b)(4), which includes Equation A-1 for calculating CO
In this action, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for each of the 15 reporting data elements proposed to be added or substantially revised, as previously discussed in Section II.A of this preamble. To make these determinations, the EPA is using the same approach that the EPA previously used for the 2011 final CBI rule (76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011). Specifically, the EPA is assigning each of these 15 data elements to one of 11 direct emitter data categories,
Based on its evaluation of these 15 data elements, the EPA is proposing that each data element be assigned to one of the following direct emitter data categories:
• Emissions.
• Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier.
• Facility and Unit Identifier Information.
• Unit/Process “Static” Characteristics that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations.
• Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations
In the 2011 final CBI rule (76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011), the EPA made categorical determinations that all data elements assigned to the “Emissions,” “Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier,” and “Facility and Unit Identifier Information” data categories meet the definition of “emission data” in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i) and, thus, are not entitled to confidential treatment. Among the 15 proposed new or substantially revised reporting data elements, the EPA is proposing, as shown in Table 4A of this preamble, that seven data elements be assigned to the “Emissions” data category, four data elements be assigned to the “Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier” category, and 1 data element be assigned to the “Facility and Unit Identifier Information” data category, thereby applying the categorical confidentiality determinations made for these categories in the 2011 final CBI rule to each of these reporting data elements. This proposal is not changing, nor soliciting comment on, the determination that these three data
The EPA is proposing to assign two proposed new data elements to the “Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics that are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” category and one proposed new data element to the “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” category. In the 2011 final CBI rule, the EPA determined that the data elements in these categories are not “emission data” (as defined at 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)). However, instead of categorical determinations, the EPA made confidentiality determinations for individual data elements assigned to these categories. In proposing these determinations, the EPA considered the confidentiality criteria at 40 CFR 2.208, in particular whether release of the data is likely to cause substantial harm to the business's competitive position. See 40 CFR 2.208(e)(1). The EPA is therefore following the same approach in this
Table 4B of this preamble lists the proposed new data elements that the EPA proposes to assign to these data categories and presents the EPA's rationale for proposing to determine that none of these data elements qualifies as CBI.
The EPA is requesting comment on two aspects of these confidentiality determinations. First, the EPA seeks comment on the proposed data category assignment for each of these data elements in Tables 4A and 4B. We specifically seek comments identifying which proposed new data elements may be incorrectly assigned, a detailed explanation of why they may be incorrectly assigned, and a recommendation regarding the data category to which they should be assigned.
Second, for those data elements assigned to the direct emitter data category without categorical confidentiality determinations (i.e., the data elements in Table 4B), the EPA seeks comment on the individual confidentiality determinations we are proposing for these data elements. We specifically request comment, including detailed rationale and supporting information, on whether the data element does or does not qualify for confidential treatment.
This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
This action does not increase information collection burden. These proposed amendments to subpart L reduce the level of detail with which emissions are reported and therefore could potentially reduce the reporting burden. The OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements for subpart L under 40 CFR part 98 under the provisions of the
Further information on the EPA's assessment on the impact on burden can be found in the 2013 Amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule for the Fluorinated Gas Production Source Category Cost Memo in docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of these proposed rule amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects fluorinated gas producers, none of which are small entities.
Further, the EPA took several steps to reduce the impact of 40 CFR part 98 on small entities when developing the final GHG Reporting Rules in 2009 and 2010. For example, the EPA determined appropriate thresholds that reduced the number of small businesses reporting. In addition, the EPA conducted several meetings with industry associations to discuss regulatory options and the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping and reporting. Finally, the EPA continues to conduct significant outreach on the GHG reporting program and maintains an “open door” policy for stakeholders to help inform the EPA's understanding of key issues for the industries.
The proposed rule amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, the proposed rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Facilities subject to the rule include fluorinated gas producers. None of the facilities currently known to undertake these activities is owned by a small government. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
This action does not have federalism implications. It 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. For a more detailed discussion about how Part 98 relates to existing state programs, please see Section II of the preamble to the final Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (74 FR 56266, October 30, 2009).
The proposed amendments apply to facilities that produce fluorinated gases. They would not apply to governmental entities unless the governmental entity owns a facility that produces fluorinated gases. We are not aware of any governmental entities that would be affected. This regulation also does not limit the power of States or localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, the EPA did consult with State and local officials or representatives of State and local governments in developing subpart L, promulgated on December 1, 2010. A summary of the EPA's consultations with State and local governments is provided in Section VIII.E of the preamble to the 2009 final rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed amendments apply to facilities that produce fluorinated gases. They would not have tribal implications unless the tribal entity owns a facility that produces fluorinated gases. We are not aware of any tribal facilities that would be affected. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the EPA decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment because it is a rule addressing information collection and reporting procedures.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Greenhouse gases, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 98 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401,
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) Calculate the annual emissions of CO
(4) Sum the emissions estimates from paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this section for each GHG and calculate metric tons of CO
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
(E) Each fluorinated GHG (as defined in § 98.6), including those not listed in Table A-1 of this subpart, except fluorinated gas production facilities must comply with § 98.126(a) rather than this paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(E).
(vi) When applying paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section to fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated heat transfer fluids, calculate and report CO
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c)
(1) Each fluorinated gas production process.
(2) Each fluorinated gas transformation process that is not part of a fluorinated gas production process and where no fluorinated GHG reactant is produced at another facility.
(3) Each fluorinated gas transformation process that is not part of a fluorinated gas production process and where one or more fluorinated GHG reactants are produced at another facility.
(d)
(e)
(f) You must report the total mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted (in metric tons) from:
(1) Each fluorinated gas destruction process that is not part of a fluorinated gas production process or a fluorinated gas transformation process and all such fluorinated gas destruction processes combined.
(2) Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs from containers returned from the field.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
For fluorinated gas production and transformation processes, you must calculate the fluorinated GHG emissions from each process using the emission factor or emission calculation factor method specified in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, as appropriate. For destruction processes that destroy fluorinated GHGs that were previously “produced” as defined at § 98.410(b), you must calculate emissions using the procedures in paragraph (f) of this section. For venting of residual gas from containers (e.g., cylinder heels), you must calculate emissions using the procedures in paragraph (g) of this section.
(a)
(b)
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(v)
(vi) [Reserved]
(g) * * *
(1)
(2) * * *
(ii)
(iv) Calculate annual emissions of each fluorinated GHG from venting of residual fluorinated GHG from containers using Equation L-34 of this section.
(h)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) Mass balance monitoring. Mass balance monitoring was available for reporting years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 only. The mass balance monitoring provisions may be found at 75 FR 74774, 74843-74845 (December 1, 2010).
(c) * * *
(1)
(2)
(5)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(1)
(2)
(i) Provide a number, letter, or other identifier for the process.
(ii) Indicate whether the process is a fluorinated gas production process, a fluorinated gas transformation process where no fluorinated GHG reactant is produced at another facility, or a fluorinated gas transformation process where one or more fluorinated GHG reactants are produced at another facility; and
(iii) Indicate whether the process could be characterized as reaction, distillation, or packaging (include all that apply).
(iv) For each generically-identified process and each fluorinated GHG group, report the methods used to determine the mass emissions of that fluorinated GHG group from that process from vents, i.e., mass-balance, process-vent-specific emission factor, or process-vent-specific emission calculation factor.
(v) For each generically-identified process and each fluorinated GHG group, report the method(s) used to determine the mass emissions of that fluorinated GHG group from that process from equipment leaks, unless you used the mass balance method for that process.
(3)
(4)
(i) For each fluorinated GHG with emissions of 1,000 metric tons of CO
(ii) Aggregate and report the total GWP-weighted emissions of all other fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG group for the facility as a whole, in metric tons of CO
(5)
(6)
(i) Each fluorinated gas destruction process that is not part of a fluorinated gas production process or a fluorinated gas transformation process and all such fluorinated gas destruction processes combined.
(ii) Venting of residual fluorinated GHGs from containers returned from the field.
(7)
(b)
(1) If you calculated the relative and absolute errors under the former § 98.123(b)(1), the overall absolute and relative errors calculated for the process under the former § 98.123(b)(1), in tons and decimal fraction, respectively.
(2) The method used to estimate the total mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams (specify the former § 98.123(b)(4) or (15)).
(c) Reporting for emission factor and emission calculation factor approach. For processes whose emissions are determined using the emission factor approach under § 98.123(c)(3) or the emission calculation factor under § 98.123(c)(4), you must report the following for each generically-identified process.
(1) [Reserved]
(3) For each fluorinated GHG group, the total GWP-weighted mass of all fluorinated GHGs in that group emitted from all process vents combined, in metric tons of CO
(4) For each fluorinated GHG group, the total GWP-weighted mass of all fluorinated GHGs in that group emitted from equipment leaks in metric tons CO
(e)
(h) * * *
(1) The mass of the residual fluorinated GHG vented from each container size and type annually (metric tons).
(k)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Identify all products and processes subject to this subpart. Include the unit identification as appropriate, along with
(2) Monthly and annual records, as applicable, of all analyses and calculations conducted as required under § 98.123, including the data monitored under § 98.124, and all information reported as required under § 98.126.
(3) Identify all fluorinated GHGs with emissions of 1,000 metric tons CO
(4) Calculations used to determine the total GWP-weighted emissions of fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG group for each process, in metric tons CO
(b)
(c)
(3) The data and calculations used to determine the fractions of the mass emitted consisting of each reactant (FER
The additions read as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule; notice of intent.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete portions of the El Toro Marine Corp Air Station Superfund Site (Site) located in Irvine, California, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of California, through the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, have determined that all appropriate response actions at these identified parcels under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
This partial deletion pertains to all Site media, including soil and groundwater, of parcels I-A, II-A, III-A, II-J, II-Q, II-S, II-T, III-C, I-C, II-U, I-B, I-E, I-G, I-H, I-I, I-J, I-L, I-M, I-P, II-G, II-I, II-P, III-D, I-K, I-N, I-O, I-S, II-E, II-L, II-M, II-R, I-Q, I-R, II-B, II-K, and II-O. The remaining areas of the Site will remain on the NPL and are not being considered for deletion as part of this action. Maps identifying the area to be deleted and the area of the Site to remain on the NPL are available for review in the partial deletion docket.
Comments must be received by December 19, 2013.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Superfund Records Center, Mail Stop SFD-7C, 95 Hawthorne Street, Room 403, San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone: (415) 820-4700. Hours: Mon. thru Fri.—8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Heritage Park Regional Library, Reference Section, 14361 Yale Street, Irvine, CA 92714. Phone: (949) 936-4040. Hours: Mon. thru Thu.—10 a.m. to 9 p.m., Sat.—10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Sun.—12 p.m. to 5 p.m.
Mary Aycock, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Mail Code SFD81, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's
For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Partial Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS.
Reopening of comment period.
On September 17, 2013, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) held a public meeting concerning inward leakage performance requirements for the class of NIOSH-certified non-powered air-purifying particulate respirators approved as half-facepiece respirators for protection from particulate-only hazards. The purpose of this meeting was to share information and to seek stakeholder feedback, in identified topic areas, concerning the development of inward leakage performance standards. Questions concerning the identified topics of specific interest were included in the meeting notice published in the
Stakeholder comments to the questions included in the notice of September 4, 2013 (78 FR 54432) must be received by 11:59 p.m. ET on December 31, 2013.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Colleen Miller, NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236; (412) 386-4956 (this is not a toll free number) or email
Questions for stakeholders regarding the development of inward leakage performance standards for half-mask air-purifying particulate respirators were published in the
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by December 19, 2013 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by December 19, 2013 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement and Initial Study.
The Epic Discovery Project is intended to enhance summer activities in response to the USDA Forest Service Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011. Heavenly Mountain Resort (Heavenly) proposes to improve year-round, recreation opportunities within the developed portions of the ski area on National Forest System lands using existing facilities and infrastructure to meet the expanding needs and expectations of visitors to Lake Tahoe, better support the year-round local economy of the South Lake Tahoe area, and connect a diverse group of visitors to our national forest with recreation and educational opportunities to further inspire passion and excitement for the outdoors. The summer activities are designed to suit a wide range of visitors from the casual sightseer to the avid mountain adventurer. A key component of the project proposal is a unique and comprehensive environmental education and interpretive component that is woven into the entire experience. This project is a joint project between the USDA Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (Forest Service), Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), and California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region (Lahontan). The joint environmental document will use information taken where appropriate from the Heavenly Mountain Resort Master Plan Amendment Final EIR/EIS/EIS certified in 2007. The project is located at Heavenly within El Dorado and Alpine Counties, CA and Douglas County, NV, adjacent to South Lake Tahoe. The TRPA Governing Board will use the EIS/EIS/IS when they consider the amendment of the existing Ski Area Master Plan to add the Epic Discovery projects.
Submit comments on or before December 20, 2013.
The meeting dates are: Wednesday, December 4, 2013, 9:30 a.m., Stateline, NV; and Wednesday, December 18, 2013, 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., South Lake Tahoe, CA.
Please send your written comments to: Heavenly Epic Discovery Project, TRPA, P.O. Box 5310, Stateline, NV 89449, Attention: David Landry, or email:
The meeting locations are:
1. TRPA Advisory Planning Commission Hearing, TRPA Board Rooms, 128 Market Street, Stateline, NV 89449.
2. Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.
Matt Dickinson, NEPA Contract Coordinator, USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, at (530) 543-2769 or
Adventure Peak will continue to serve as the primary access portal and hub for most of the proposed Epic Discovery activities. However, the Project will extend activities beyond Adventure Peak to provide natural resource-based recreation in the East Peak Lake Basin to the east and the Sky Meadows Basin to the west. All three activity centers will be linked by a combination of ski lifts, hiking trails, zip line or similar conveyances, and summer roads for the visitors' enjoyment and convenience.
The Forest Service will review and consider for decision certain activities contained in the proposal that lie outside of the Lake Tahoe Region (Carson River watershed), and are, therefore, not subject to the review and action by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Similarly, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will review and consider for decision one proposed activity (the Forest Flyer Alpine Coaster), not currently accepted for review and decision by the Forest Service.
The following specific projects are proposed to help Heavenly fulfill its objective of making the resort a more diverse and encompassing year-round facility capable of meeting the seasonal needs of its guests.
• Mid Station Zipline Canopy Tour—Top of Gondola/Adventure Peak Area, An interpretive zipline canopy tour will be implemented in the area between the gondola mid-station and the top station to the east of the gondola alignment.
• Sky Cycle Canopy Tour—Top of Gondola/Adventure Peak Area, An aerial activity known as the Sky Cycle Canopy Tour will be implemented in an area between the gondola top station and the gondola mid-station to the west of the gondola alignment. It will allow visitors the opportunity to traverse the area by pedaling individual bicycle-like devices that are suspended from a cable in the air.
• Forest Flyer Alpine Coaster—Top of Gondola/Adventure Peak Area, The Forest Flyer Alpine Coaster is an activity that allows users on individual sleds to descend on a raised track through the forest and natural rock formations. The Forest Flyer is proposed to be located a short distance to the north and west of the existing tubing lift.
• Infill Activities—Top of Gondola/Adventure Peak Area, A number of smaller individual activities will be sited in and around the existing and proposed activities to infill between the larger activities and create a critical mass of activities. The infill activities include interpretive trails, interactions with interpretive specialists, disc golf, a smaller-scaled zipline or ropes course, gold/gem panning, a mountain bike skills park and bouldering-type activities for children.
• Mountain Bike Park—East Peak Lake Basin, A new mountain bike park will be located in the East Peak Basin area. It will be lift-served and utilize the Comet Express and the Big Easy lifts. The park will include a combination of existing summer roads and new single-track type trails. It will be approximately 9-10 miles in total length. New trails will be four feet wide with a one-foot wide shoulder on either side for a total cross-section width of six feet.
• East Peak Zipline Canopy Tour—East Peak Lake Basin, A multi-stage guided zipline canopy tour will begin near the top of the Big Easy lift and end with a zip over East Peak Lake near the base of the Dipper Express lift. It will generally traverse the hillside between Von Schmidt's Trail and the East Peak Lodge and Lake.
• East Peak Lake Water Activities—East Peak Lake Basin, Water-oriented activities on and around the existing East Peak reservoir will include kayaking, canoeing, other small boats without engines and fishing.
• Interpretive Activities at East Peak Lodge—East Peak Lake Basin, The existing East Peak Lodge and Deck will be seasonally converted into an interpretive education center. It will continue to provide restrooms, First Aid and food and beverage services. No other physical modifications to the lodge or deck are planned.
• East Peak Lodge Hiking Trail—East Peak Lake Basin, A new segment of hiking trail will be implemented that connects the Top of the Gondola area with East Peak Lodge. It will allow visitors the opportunity to hike back and forth between the two activity centers. It will be built to Forest Service trail standards.
• Sky Meadows Zipline Canopy Tour—Sky Meadows Basin, A multi-stage guided zipline canopy tour will begin near the top of the Tamarack Express lift and end near the base of Sky Express lift. It will generally traverse the hillside known as the Ski Ways. It will be similar in nature to the Mid-Station Zipline Canopy Tour, however, it will take advantage of a different landscape type and slope condition to provide a uniquely different experience for users. It will consist of a series of canopy-level ziplines between platforms constructed in and around existing trees or using a pre-fabricated steel pole if a suitable tree does not exist in the vicinity.
• Sky Meadows Ropes Course—Sky Meadows Basin, A self-guided ropes course consisting of a series a series of platforms and rope walkways/bridges will be located between Sky Deck and the base of the Sky Express lift. It will incorporate existing mature trees into the layout. Where a suitable tree is not available along the route to support a landing platform, individual steel or wooden columns may be installed to support the platform.
• Ridge Run Lookout Tower and Observation Deck—Sky Meadows Basin, Develop a new observation tower near the existing Ridge Run Overlook. It will resemble a historic Forest Service Fire Lookout Tower and used for scenic views and interpretive education regarding the Forest Service's historic and modern role in managing the forests, including fire. The tower will be approximately 400-500 square feet in area and a maximum of 25-30 feet in height and will offer views of High Meadows and Free! Peak as well as Lake Tahoe.
• Interpretive Activities at Sky Deck—Sky Meadows Basin, The existing Sky Deck facility will provide a small interpretive education center, restrooms, First Aid and food and beverage facility. The existing facility will be seasonally modified to provide information and exhibits. No other physical modifications to the lodge or deck are necessary.
• Mountain Excursion Tour—Top of Gondola/Adventure Peak Area, East Peak Lake Basin, and Sky Meadows Basin, A Mountain Excursion Tour will connect the three activity centers and will offer guided tours to various locations around the upper mountain. It will consist of Heavenly operated vehicles that will make continuous loops to pick up and drop off visitors at each center. They are intended to provide an enjoyable connection between the centers in a vehicle that is appropriate for mountain travel.
• Connecting Hiking Trails Between Activities—Connecting hiking trails between the activities will be developed to facilitate safe and efficient movement by visitors between the activities. The trails will be laid out in the field and constructed consistent with Forest Service trail standards for this type of use. Interpretive opportunities along the
• Mountain Bike Trail Connectors—Two separate mountain bike connections are planned. They will be free of charge and open to the general public as key connections to the larger network of trails in and around Heavenly and the surrounding public lands. The first trail connection is intended to connect the East Peak Mountain Bike Park to the Tahoe Rim Trail. The second trail connection is intended to connect the mountain to Heavenly Village.
• Emergency Gondola Snow Cat Evacuation Route—Gondola Alignment, In order to safely evacuate the gondola during emergency situations, Heavenly proposes to selectively clear trees at a limited number of strategic access points located from the Gondola Mid-Station down along the gondola line for emergency snow cat access. The access route will only be used in times of operational emergencies and will not be used on a regular basis.
Maps and a more specific project description can be found on the LTBMU Web site at:
Cumulative Watershed Effects/Water Quality. The EIS/EIS/IS will evaluate potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed projects that focus on Heavenly Valley Creek where a TMDL is in place for suspended sediment and Daggett Creek watersheds where a majority of the projects are sited.
Biological Resources. The EIS/EIS/IS will evaluate potential impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species (e.g., American marten, Tahoe draba, Whitebark pine) known to occupy habitat within the Heavenly special use permit boundary. The evaluation will also address potential effects to migratory birds, noxious weeds/invasive species, and Forest Service management indicator species.
Scenic Resources. The EIS/EIS/IS will evaluate potential impacts to designated TRPA and Forest Service scenic resources and from viewpoints within adjacent recreational sites (e.g., Van Sickle State Park).
Transportation and Parking. Using trip generation methodology developed for the Project, the EIS/EIS/IS will evaluate potential impacts to US Highway 50, local roadways and intersections during peak hour traffic conditions. The analysis will discuss the Project's parking needs and identify strategies to accommodate new demand.
Air Quality and Climate Change. Using results from the transportation analysis, the EIS/EIS/IS will evaluate potential impacts to applicable air quality standards and greenhouse gas emissions.
Recreation. The EIS/EIS/IS will evaluate potential impacts to existing recreation resources that may occur from the expansion of summer uses at Heavenly. Specifically, the analysis will identify whether the Project may affect recreational quality and opportunities (including changes to person at one time capacity) available on National Forest System lands.
This NOP/NOI initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the EIS/EIS/IS. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a manner that they are useful in the lead agency's preparation of this EIS/EIS/IS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. However, comments submitted anonymously will also be accepted and considered. If applicable, responses should include the name of a contact person at your agency or organization.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by December 20, 2013. The draft EIS/EIS/IS is expected in August 2014 and the final EIS/EIS/IS in January 2015. Two public scoping meetings are being held to provide you with an opportunity to learn more about the proposed action and to express oral comments about the content of the EIS/EIS/IS, in addition to providing opportunity to submit written comments. The scalping meetings will be held at the times and locations listed in the
This project will follow the new objection procedures as directed by 36 CFR 218. The objection process provides an opportunity for members of the public who have participated in opportunities for public participation provided throughout the planning process to have any unresolved concerns receive an independent review by the Forest Service prior to a final decision being made by the responsible official. Only those who provided specific written comments during opportunities for public comment are eligible to file an objection.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of Meeting.
The Agricultural Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF) will meet to continue discussions on critical air quality issues in relation to agriculture. Special emphasis will be placed on obtaining a greater understanding about the relationship between agricultural production and air quality. The meeting is open to the public, and a draft agenda is included in this notice.
The AAQTF meeting will convene at 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday and Thursday, December 4-5, 2013, and conclude at 5:00 p.m. each day. A public comment period will be held on December 5. Individuals wishing to make oral presentations should contact Greg Johnson at (503) 273-2424 or email:
Written material intended for AAQTF member consideration prior to the
The meeting will be held at USDA Log Lodge, 302 Log Lodge Road, Beltsville, Maryland 20705.
Questions and comments should be directed to Dr. Greg Johnson, Designated Federal Official, USDA, NRCS, 1201 Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1000, Portland, Oregon 97232; telephone: (503) 273-2424; fax: (503) 273-2401; or email:
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Additional information concerning AAQTF, including any revised agendas for the December 4-5, 2013, meeting that occurs after this
The timing of events in the agenda is subject to change to accommodate changing schedules of expected speakers or extended discussions.
This meeting is open to the public. At the discretion of the Chair, members of the public may provide oral presentations during the meeting. Those persons wishing to make oral presentations should notify Greg Johnson no later than November 22, 2013. Those wishing to distribute written materials at the meeting (in conjunction with spoken comments) must bring 35 copies of the materials with them. Written materials for distribution to AAQTF members prior to the meeting must be received by Dr. Johnson no later than November 26, 2013.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Greg Johnson). USDA prohibits discrimination in its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by USDA. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2000 (voice and TDD).
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments on this notice must be received by January 21, 2014.
Michele L. Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5162-South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-1078, FAX: (202) 720-8435 or email:
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to:
Michele L. Brooks, Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-1078, FAX: (202) 720-8435 or email
•
•
•
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Rebecca Hunt, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 205-3660, FAX: (202) 720-8435 or email:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of availability of a Record of Decision.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SFEIS) related to RUS's consideration of potential agency actions that would facilitate a proposal from Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA) for the restart and commercial operation of Healy Unit #2, a power generation facility at the Healy Power Plant (Healy Plant) in Healy, Alaska. The SFEIS was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
To obtain copies of the ROD or for further information, contact: Deirdre M. Remley, Environmental Protection Specialist, RUS, Water and Environmental Programs, Engineering and Environmental Staff, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 1571, Washington, DC 20250-1571, Telephone: (202) 720-9640 or email:
Healy Unit #2 is currently owned by the Alaska Industrial and Export Authority (AIDEA), but is located on GVEA land. Unit #2 was built to work in conjunction with Healy Unit #1, a generation unit that has been owned and operated by GVEA since 1967. Unit #2 is currently in warm layup and has not generated power since 2000. GVEA proposes to purchase Unit #2, prepare it for commercial production, and operate the unit for the remainder of its operational life. GVEA is seeking administrative actions and financing from RUS to facilitate the restart of Unit #2 and for improvements to the Healy Plant, which include installing additional emissions control to both Unit #1 and Unit #2. Unit #1 is a 25 MW coal-fired boiler and Unit #2 is a 50 MW coal-fired boiler that was constructed in the late 1990s with funding from DOE and AIDEA.
The decision documented in RUS's ROD is that RUS agrees to consider, subject to additional engineering and financial review, administrative actions and financing that would facilitate GVEA's restart of Unit #2 at the Healy Power Plant. Details regarding RUS' regulatory authority, rationale for the decision, and compliance with applicable regulations are included in the ROD.
RUS published an NOI in the
RUS has considered and concurred with GVEA's purpose and need for the proposal to restart Unit #2, and RUS has evaluated the potential impacts of this proposal on the human environment and finds that the SFEIS is consistent with Federal regulations and meets the standard for an adequate statement. The Proposed Action to facilitate the restart of Unit #2 of the Healy Plant is RUS's selected alternative.
Department of Commerce.
Notice of Membership on the Departmental Performance Review Board.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C., 4314(c)(4), Department of Commerce (DOC) announces the appointment of persons to serve as members of the Departmental Performance Review Board (DPRB). The DPRB provides an objective peer review of the initial performance ratings, performance-based pay adjustments and bonus recommendations, higher-level review requests and other performance-related actions submitted by appointing authorities for Senior Executive Service (SES) members whom they directly supervise, and makes recommendations based upon its review. The term of the new members of the DPRB will expire December 31, 2015.
Denise A. Yaag, Director, Office of
The names and position titles of the members of the DPRB are set forth below by organization:
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 1, 2013, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated the first sunset reviews of the antidumping duty (“AD”) orders on sodium nitrite from Germany and the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Based on the notice of intent to participate and adequate substantive response filed by the domestic interested party, and the lack of response from any respondent interested party, the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these AD orders, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department finds that revocation of the AD orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.
Effective: November 19, 2013.
Lori Apodaca or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4551 or (202) 482-5193, respectively.
On August 27, 2008, the Department published the AD orders on sodium nitrite from Germany and the PRC.
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The merchandise subject to these orders is sodium nitrite in any form, at any purity level. In addition, the sodium nitrite covered by these orders may or may not contain an anti-caking agent. Examples of names commonly used to reference sodium nitrite are nitrous acid, sodium salt, anti-rust, diazotizing salts, erinitrit, and filmerine. The chemical composition of sodium nitrite is NaNO2 and it is generally classified under subheading 2834.10.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The American Chemical Society Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) has assigned the name “sodium nitrite” to sodium nitrite. The CAS registry number is 7632-00-0.
While the HTSUS subheading, CAS registry number, and CAS name are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
A complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
The Department determines that revocation of the AD orders on sodium nitrite from Germany and the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, with the following dumping margin magnitudes likely to prevail:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 1, 2013, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty order on laminated woven sacks from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Department finds that revocation of this countervailing duty (CVD) order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of net countervailable subsidies at the rates in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Toni Page, 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) 482-1398.
The CVD order on laminated woven sacks from the PRC was published on August 7, 2008.
19 CFR 351.218 (e)(1)(ii)(A) states that the Department will normally conclude that respondent interested parties have provided adequate response to a notice of initiation where it receives complete substantive responses from respondent interested parties accounting on average for more than 50 percent, on a volume basis (or a value basis, if appropriate), of the total exports of the subject merchandise to the United States over the five calendar years preceding the year of publication of the notice of initiation. Moreover, in a sunset review of a CVD order, the Department will normally conduct a full review only if it receives adequate responses from domestic and respondent interested parties and a complete substantive
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The merchandise covered by this order is laminated woven sacks which are bags or sacks consisting of one or more plies of fabric consisting of woven polypropylene strip and/or woven polyethylene strip, regardless of the width of the strip; with or without an extrusion coating of polypropylene and/or polyethylene on one or both sides of the fabric; laminated by any method either to an exterior ply of plastic film such as biaxially-oriented polypropylene (BOPP) or to an exterior ply of paper that is suitable for high quality print graphics. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order was revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the CVD order on laminated woven sacks from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the following net countervailable subsidy rates:
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Notice of an open meeting.
The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee (RE&EEAC) will hold a meeting on December 3, 2013. The meeting is open to the public and the room is disabled-accessible. Public seating is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis.
December 3, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting must notify Ryan Mulholland at the contact information below by 5:00 p.m. EST on Wednesday, November 27, 2013, in order to pre-register for clearance into the building. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4830, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Ryan Mulholland, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-4693; email:
The December 3, 2013 meeting of the RE&EEAC will consist of presentations from four subcommittees—finance, U.S. competitiveness, trade policy, and trade promotion—on each subcommittee's work thus far, particularly a
A limited amount of time, from 3:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m., will be available for pertinent brief oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to five minutes per person. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Mr. Mulholland and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EST on Wednesday, November 27, 2013. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to bring at least 20 copies of their oral comments for distribution to the participants and public at the meeting.
Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the RE&EEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, c/o: Ryan Mulholland, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce, Mail Stop: 4053, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Wednesday, November 27, 2013, to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of RE&EEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days of the meeting.
Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products (certain nickel-plated, flat-rolled steel) from Japan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are listed in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Pursuant to requests from interested parties, we are postponing for 60 days the final determination and extending provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. Accordingly, we intend to make our final determination not later than 135 days after publication of this preliminary determination in the
Dena Crossland or David Cordell, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3362 or (202) 482-0408, respectively.
The diffusion-annealed, nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products included in this investigation are flat-rolled, cold-reduced steel products, regardless of chemistry; whether or not in coils; either plated or coated with nickel or nickel-based alloys and subsequently annealed (
Imports of merchandise included in the scope of this investigation are classified primarily under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7212.50.0000 and 7210.90.6000, but may also be classified under HTSUS subheadings 7210.70.6090, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7219.90.0020, 7219.90.0025, 7219.90.0060, 7219.90.0080, 7220.90.0010, 7220.90.0015, 7225.99.0090, or 7226.99.0180. The foregoing HTSUS subheadings are provided only for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.
The Department has conducted this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. Because one of the selected mandatory respondents, Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire, we have preliminarily determined to apply adverse facts available to this respondent.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The preliminary weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain nickel-plated, flat-rolled steel from Japan, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
The Department intends to disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than seven days after the date of the issuance of the last verification report in this proceeding.
In accordance with section 774 of the Act, the Department will hold a public hearing, if timely requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by an interested party.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such
On October 28, 2013, Toyo Kohan requested that in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (135 days after publication of the preliminary determination), and agreed to extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a six-month period.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our preliminary affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value. Because the preliminary determination in this proceeding is affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of certain nickel-plated, flat-rolled steel from Japan before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination. Because we are postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of the publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the ITC will make its final determination no later than 45 days after our final determination.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The Board of Overseers of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Board) will meet in open session on Monday, December 9, 2013. The purpose of this meeting is to review and discuss the work of the private sector contractor, which assists the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in administering the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (Award), and information received from NIST and from the Chair of the Judges' Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in order to make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as the Board deems necessary.
The meeting will be held on Monday, December 9, 2013 from 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time until 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the
Robert Fangmeyer, Acting Director, Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1020, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1020, telephone number (301) 975-2360, or by email at
15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Board will meet in open session on Monday, December 9, 2013 from 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time until 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The Board is composed of 12 members selected for their preeminence in the field of organizational performance excellence and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Board consists of a balanced representation from U.S. service, manufacturing, nonprofit, education, and health care industries. The Board includes members familiar with the quality improvement operations and competitiveness issues of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, health care providers, and educational institutions. Members are also chosen who have broad experience in for-profit and nonprofit areas. The purpose of this meeting is to review and discuss the work of the private sector contractor, which assists the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in administering the Award, and information received from NIST and from the Chair of the Judges' Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in order to make such suggestions for the improvement of the Award process as the Board deems necessary. The Board shall make an annual report on the results of Award activities to the Director of NIST, along
Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Board's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda. On December 9, 2013 approximately one-half hour will be reserved in the afternoon for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about 3 minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the Baldrige Web site at
All visitors to the National Institute of Standards and Technology site will have to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Nancy Young no later than Monday, December 2, 2013, and she will provide you with instructions for admittance. Non-U.S. citizens must also submit their passport number, country of citizenship, title, employer/sponsor, address and telephone. Ms. Young's email address is
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Applications for four new scientific research permits, two permit modifications, and three research permit renewals.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received nine scientific research permit application requests relating to Pacific salmon, sturgeon, rockfish, and eulachon. The proposed research is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management and conservation efforts. The applications may be viewed online at:
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the applications must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the applications should be sent to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232-1274. Comments may also be sent via fax to 503-230-5441 or by email to
Rob Clapp, Portland, OR (ph.: 503-231-2314), Fax: 503-230-5441, email:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Chinook salmon (
Steelhead (
Sockeye salmon (
Chum salmon (
Coho salmon (
Eulachon (
Green sturgeon (
Rockfish (
Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is seeking to renew permit 1484 for a period of five years. The current permit has been in place for five years with one amendment; it expires on December 31, 2013. Under the new permit, the WDNR would conduct research that would
The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (KCDNRP) is seeking to renew a five-year permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. They would sample fish in four Puget Sound sub-basins (Snoqualmie, Lake Washington, Duwamish, and Puyallup) in King County, Washington. The purposes of the study are to: (1) Evaluate the effectiveness of restoration actions, (2) better understand the importance of off-channel habitats in providing habitat, and (3) assess salmonid habitat status and trends in small streams with varying degrees of land use. The research would benefit listed species by guiding future restoration projects so they might provide the greatest benefit to listed species. The KCDNRP proposes to capture fish using beach seines, fyke nets, minnow traps, and both backpack- and boat-operated electrofishing. The captured fish would be anaesthetized, identified to species, allowed to recover, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended consequence of the proposed activities.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is seeking to renew a five-year permit to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, HCS chum salmon, and PS steelhead. The USGS's research may also cause them to take listed eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sampling sites would be in the Cedar, Dungeness, Nooksack, Skagit, Skykomish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, and Stillaguamish river systems of the Puget Sound. The purpose of the study is to identify and assess Pacific lamprey distribution in these watersheds. The research would benefit the listed species by providing managers with information about their distribution and numbers. The main benefactor of this research would be Pacific lamprey because the information generated by the research would be used to help guide conservation measures and land-use activities in ways that conserve lamprey and their habitat; however, because the listed species also use that habitat, any such measures would also benefit them. The USGS proposes to capture fish using backpack electrofishing and seines. Sampling would target silt-mud substrates that are preferred habitats for juvenile lamprey. The research would take place during the late summer and fall before peak lamprey emigration. Electrofishing methods would be modified to target juvenile lamprey and would thus be unlikely to affect, let alone harm, other fish species. A subsample of the captured lamprey would be measured and weighed (up to 30 per site) and up to five fish per site may be tissue sampled or sacrificed. All other fish (including all listed fish) would immediately be released at the capture site. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed species being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the proposed activities.
The ICF International (ICFI) is seeking to modify a five-year permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. The researchers would conduct sampling in the Snohomish River estuary. The purpose of the study is to measure restored habitat functionality in the wake of the Smith Island dike breaching. The researchers would gauge species abundance and examine juvenile salmonid age classes during peak outmigration. This research would benefit the affected species by providing data to guide future estuarine habitat restoration and enhancement projects. The ICFI proposes to capture fish using hand-held beach seines and dip nets. Fish would be identified to species, measured, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to modify a 2-year research permit to annually take adult and juvenile HCS chum, PS Chinook salmon, and PS steelhead, and adult PS/GB bocaccio. The researchers may also take adult PS/GB canary rockfish and PS/GB yelloweye rockfish—species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. Sampling would take place throughout the Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Hood Canal. The purpose of the study is to determine how much genetic variation exists between coastal and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin DPS populations of bocaccio, canary rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. The research would benefit rockfish by increasing our understanding of the connectivity (or lack thereof) between rockfish populations in the Puget Sound and populations on the outer coast. The NWFSC proposes to capture fish using hook and line equipment at depths of 50-100 meters along rocky bottom habitat. Fish would slowly be reeled to the surface to reduce barotrauma. All salmon and steelhead would be immediately released at the capture site. All captured ESA-listed rockfish would be measured, sexed, have a tissue sample taken, floy tagged, and returned to the water via rapid submersion techniques. If an individual of these species is captured dead or deemed nonviable, it would be retained for genetic analysis. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) is seeking a five-year research permit to annually take all individuals from all the salmonid species listed at the beginning of this notice along with S green sturgeon. They may also take S eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. All take for salmon and steelhead would be subadult and adults, and all take for green sturgeon and eulachon would be adult. The surveys would range from the northern California to the Washington coast in coastal waters shallower than 1,000 meters. The purpose of the study is to collaborate with gear researchers and fishermen to develop devices and or methods for reducing bycatch in West Coast groundfish trawl fisheries. The research would benefit listed fish by determining the best ways to reduce bycatch. The PSMFC proposes capturing fish using mid-water and bottom trawls. Fish would be identified to species, have a tissue or scale sample taken, and be released. The researchers do not
The Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) is seeking a five-year permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and juvenile and adult PS steelhead. The sampling would take place in selected stream channels and floodplain areas throughout the Stillaguamish River watershed in Washington State. The purpose of the study is to classify by water type approximately 25 miles of stream channel in selected sub-basins and floodplain areas of the Stillaguamish River with the intent of verifying and updating Washington Department of Natural Resources, Snohomish County, and United States Forest Service stream classifications and hydrological layers. This research would benefit the affected species by improving regulatory protection of sensitive aquatic habitats for ESA listed Chinook and steelhead, improving our knowledge of Chinook habitat use (and thereby informing various recovery strategies), and identifying significant habitat restoration opportunities. The WFC proposes to capture fish using beach seines, fyke nets, and minnow traps. Fish would be anesthetized, identified to species, measured to size class, have a tissue sample taken, and released. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The WFC is seeking a five-year permit to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in selected stream channels and floodplain areas throughout the Kitsap and Snoqualmie sub-basins in Washington State. The purpose of the study is to classify existing channels by water type and thereby validate and update Washington Department of Natural Resources, and affected county and city, stream classifications and hydrological layers. This research would benefit the affected species by filling data gaps regarding fish passage impediments (tidegates, culverts, etc.) and providing fish species composition and distribution—information needed to identify, prioritize, and implement restoration projects. The WFC proposes to capture fish using backpack electrofishing. Fish would be identified to species, have a tissue sample taken (only steelhead in the Kitsap sub-basin), and released. Once fish presence is established, either through visual observation or electrofishing, electrofishing would be discontinued. Surveyors would proceed upstream until a change in habitat parameters is encountered, where electrofishing would be continued. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
The Oregon State University (OSU) is seeking a two-year permit to annually take juvenile LCR, PS, and UCR Chinook salmon; CR chum salmon; LCR coho salmon; and LCR, MCR, PS, SRB, and UCR steelhead. The OSU research may also cause them to take adult S eulachon—a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The sampling would take place in multiple locations in the Puget Sound (Stillaguamish, Skykomish, Duwamish, and Nisqually watersheds), Washington coast (Sol Duc, Queets, Quinault, Chehalis, and Willapa watersheds), and Columbia River basin (Cowlitz, Klickitat, Yakima, Wenatchee, Spokane, and Palouse watersheds). The purpose of the study is to determine the taxonomic status of Pacific Northwest coastal populations of Speckled Dace based on genetic and morphological data. The genetic sequence data would be used to better understand the historical biogeography of coastal Speckled Dace, improve the understanding of how coastal streams contribute to local species diversity and endemism, and to compare coastal to inland Speckled Dace populations. The research would benefit the listed species by providing information on their distribution, but the main benefactor of this research would be speckled dace by providing taxonomical and distributional data for that species. The OSU proposes to capture fish using small seine nets, dip nets, and minnow traps. All non-target species and listed salmon and steelhead would immediately be released after capture. The researchers do not propose to kill any of the listed salmonids being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the activities.
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Notice of 90-day petition finding, request for information.
We (NMFS) announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list 19 species and 3 subpopulations of sharks as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for 9 species:
Information and comments on the subject action must be received by January 21, 2014.
You may submit comments, information, or data on this document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2013-0519, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Copies of the petition and related materials are available upon request from the Director, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or online at:
Maggie Miller, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8403.
On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from the WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under the ESA and to designate critical habitat under the ESA. Copies of this petition are available from us (see
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531
Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, “the Services”) policy (DPS Policy) clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).
ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and USFWS (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. When evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, we must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).
At the 90-day stage, we evaluate the petitioner's request based upon the information in the petition including its references, and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioner's sources and characterizations of the information presented, if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more
To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species at issue faces extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species at issue (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).
Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.
Many petitions identify risk classifications made by non-governmental organizations, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (
In this petition the petitioner relies almost exclusively on the risk classifications of the IUCN as the source of information on the status of each petitioned species. All of the petitioned species are listed as “endangered” or “critically endangered” on the IUCN Redlist and the petitioner notes this as an explicit consideration in offering petitions on these species. However, as mentioned above, species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent, and data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, we instead consider the information on threats identified by the petitioners, as well as the data on which they are based, as they pertain to each petitioned species.
With the exception of the North Pacific subpopulation of basking shark (
The petition clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved. The petition also contains a narrative justification for the recommended measure and provides limited information on the species' and subpopulations' geographic distribution, habitat use, and threats. For a number of the species and subpopulations, the petitioner fails to provide any information on past and present numbers or population status. A synopsis of our analysis of the information provided in the petition and readily available in our files is provided below.
Based on the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, we find that 20 of the 21 petitioned shark species constitute taxonomically valid species eligible for listing under the ESA.
The introductory threats discussion is general, with only occasional references to specific petitioned species and subpopulations with the threats later repeated in the species-specific section (discussed below). Some of the general threats discussion are not clearly or causally linked to the petitioned species (e.g., discussion of dead zones yet no identification that these occur in the petitioned species' ranges; discussion of the threat of climate change with a focus on coral reef habitat loss when only one petitioned species was identified as found on coral reef habitats (
The petition provides a discussion of disease as a threat, presenting it in terms of accumulations of mercury, persistent organic compounds, heavy metals and other pollutants in sharks. However, the studies that the petition references as support are based primarily on non-petitioned shark species in locations outside of the petitioned shark species' ranges. For example, in their discussion of the threat of mercury (Hg) accumulation, the petitioners cite Mull
Likewise, the petitioner cites Lyle (1984; 1986) as evidence of threats to the petitioned species based on the accumulation of Hg; however, the paper examined shark species that utilize waters of the Northern Territory of Australia. None of the petitioned shark species are found in these waters. In addition, the Lyle papers made no mention of the effects of bioaccumulation on the survival or reproductive capacity of the examined shark species. Instead, the papers simply discuss the rate and level of Hg and selenium concentrations in sharks, with a focus on human consumption, not survival of shark species.
Finally, the petitioners reference Storelli
In the regulatory mechanisms discussion, the petitioner argues that there are no adequate regulatory mechanisms because the species are listed as endangered or critically endangered by IUCN, and none of the populations have increasing or even stable population trends. However, generalized evidence of declining populations
The petition notes that only one species, with two petitioned subpopulations (
While the information in this introductory section is otherwise largely accurate and suggests concern for the status of sharks in general, the broad statements and generalizations of threats for all petitioned shark species and subpopulations do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted for any of the petitioned species or subpopulations. There is little information in this introductory section indicating that particular petitioned species may be responding in a negative fashion to any of the discussed threats. The few instances in the introductory section which specifically link threats to a particular petitioned species or subpopulation will be considered in our discussion of threats to that particular species or subpopulation.
The next part of the petition consists of individual species accounts for each of the 22 petitioned sharks. For many of the species and subpopulations, the information is extracted directly from the IUCN assessment, with the petitioner providing the assessment as an accompanying exhibit and a list of references cited by the IUCN assessment. Below we analyze this species-specific information in light of the standards of the ESA and our policies as described above.
The petition states that the species is very rare, and specifically identifies commercial overutilization as a threat based solely on the general statement in the IUCN assessment that identifies Borneo as an area heavily exploited by artisanal and commercial fisheries (Compagno, 2009). No references were included as support for this statement, and neither the petitioner nor the IUCN assessment provides any information on catch statistics or operations of Borneo fisheries. Instead, the assertion that fishing activities have detrimentally affected the species seems based solely on the species' rarity in historical records. However, there could be a number of other reasons for the species' absence in fishing records, such as: The species' range does not coincide with fishery operations or survey areas; the fishing gear employed is not effective at catching the species; the species may have been caught but was released if it was not of commercial value; its life history is unknown, so it is possible that this species may migrate to other areas during fishing seasons; etc. In other words, a species that is persistently rare in the historical records does not necessarily mean that it has declined or is in danger of extinction. In fact, in this case, recent surveys in the region have actually found the species in “substantial numbers” near Mukah in Sarawak (White
The petitioner also contends that there is a complete lack of protections for the species. We do not necessarily consider a lack of species-specific protections as a threat to the species or even problematic in all cases. For example, management measures that regulate other species or fisheries operations may indirectly help to minimize threats to the petitioned species and may be adequate to prevent it from being at risk of extinction. Again, we look for substantial information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response. According to the Malaysia NPOA, sharks are not targeted by fishermen but are caught as bycatch with other commercially important species (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2006). In fact, shark and ray landings constitute only around 2.2 percent of the total marine landings of the demersal fishery that operates within Malaysian waters (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2006). In Mukah,
Little information is known about the life history and biology of
Similar to
Finally, the range of this shark species is poorly known. As such, the rare occurrence of the shark in historical records may simply be a reflection of limited sampling efforts in the assumed range of the shark. As mentioned above, new survey data have in fact recorded the shark in waters where previously it was not known to occur. The IUCN assessment also notes that the species has been recorded from a number of “widely-separated” sites, suggesting that this species may exhibit migratory behavior and may not be limited to certain locations. In conclusion, we find that the species-specific information presented in the petition does not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted for
In terms of current regulatory measures, the petition notes that there have been some measures implemented that limit the catch of
Based on the best available information, we find that the threat of overutilization by fisheries, inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms, and other natural factors may be impacting Harrison's dogfish populations to a degree that raises concerns of a risk of extinction, with evidence of severe population declines throughout the species' observed range. We conclude that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action of listing
The petition identifies habitat degradation, overutilization (as bycatch in fisheries), and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as the main threats to the species' continued existence, and relies primarily on the information within the IUCN assessment (Human, 2009a) for its support. The petition, quoting the IUCN assessment, states that Durban is experiencing increasing industrialization and contends that the resultant industrial waste output, pollution, and land development activities are degrading the only known habitat of
As stated previously, broad statements about generalized threats or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species do not constitute substantial information that listing may be warranted. In addition, the condition of being rare is an important factor to consider when evaluating a species' risk of extinction; however, it does not by itself indicate the likelihood of extinction of that species, nor does the condition of being rare constitute substantial information that listing under the ESA may be warranted. The fact that the species is considered rare could also be an invalid characterization of the species due to limited sampling. Because of these uncertainties, we look for substantial information within the petition and within our own files indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a certain factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion, and then we assess the potential significance of that negative response. We had no information on
The purpose of the ESA is to conserve species that are in danger of or threatened with extinction. The definition of an endangered species is “any species which
As stated previously, we do not necessarily consider a lack of species-specific protections as a threat to the species. For example, management measures that regulate other species or fisheries operations may indirectly help to minimize threats to the petitioned species and may be adequate to prevent its extinction. The petition has not provided any information that would lead a reasonable person to assume the abrupt decline in catch was due to a lack of adequate regulatory measures, nor do we have that information in our files. Additionally, the IUCN assessment, cited by the petitioner, highlights the uncertainty surrounding the cause of the observed reduction in catches of the shark off Mozambique when it states “[i]t is not known whether the reduced population numbers are due to fisheries pressure, habitat loss, pollution, or an as yet unidentified threat.” The petition uses this statement as support that listing may be warranted for the entire species. However, the information provided by the IUCN assessment indicates that the population of
The shark is primarily caught as bycatch in artisanal floating gillnet fisheries in northern Brazil (Lessa
The petitioner asserts that the daggernose shark's continued existence is threatened by the synergistic effects of habitat destruction, overutilization for commercial purposes, inadequate regulatory measures, and the species' biological characteristics. In terms of threats to the species' habitat, the petitioner notes that population growth and subsequent coastal development within the range of the species is degrading the species' habitat and leading to increased pollutants in the coastal waters. The petitioner provides general information about population density within Latin America and the growth of the global population. However, information that the population is growing, on its own, does not indicate that the growing human population is a threat to the species. The petition continues by discussing some potential negative effects from this growth for coastal ecosystems, including increased inputs of nutrients and chemical wastes from run-off pollution, increased sedimentation, deforestation, and the physical destruction of coastal shorelines. While we acknowledge that these may be potential effects of a growing human population, we look to see if the species is directly exposed to and responding in a negative fashion to any of these factors. The petitioner does not provide any information to indicate the species is exposed or negatively responding to any of the identified factors, nor do we have that information in our files. For example, the petition mentions the increasing number of dead zones worldwide but does not provide any evidence that these dead zones occur in areas within the daggernose shark's range, or information on the species' likely response to hypoxic conditions. The petition provides no information on water quality within the daggernose shark's range, or the species' response to factors such as increased sedimentation or nutrients. The petition notes that the daggernose shark occurs in mangrove systems within its range, and cites the destruction of these mangroves as a threat to the species. We reviewed the citation that the petition used as support for this statement (FAO, 2007) but found no evidence that would suggest this is a significant threat to the species' continued existence in its range. The FAO (2007) study examined the status and trends of the world's mangrove areas, including those likely to be within the daggernose shark's
The petitioner also contends that overutilization for commercial purposes is placing the species at an increased risk of extinction. Specifically, the petitioner notes that the daggernose shark is caught as bycatch in artisanal floating gillnets in northern Brazil, and repeats the information about CPUE from the Stride
However, given the substantial declines that have been observed in the population (>90 percent) and ongoing declines off northern Brazil, the fact that the species is recorded in artisanal catch throughout its restricted range and, although not targeted, does enter the market, and coupled with its known life history traits which increase its susceptibility to depletion (such as low reproductive rate), we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
The petition contends that the species is threatened by destruction of habitat, overutilization by fisheries, inadequate regulatory measures, and synergistic effects, but provides very little to no information or data to support these statements. For example, the petition does not provide any references related to habitat destruction or degradation, just to state that it is “prolific” throughout most of the species' range and represents a significant threat. It is unclear on what information the petition (or the IUCN assessment) bases this assertion. Likewise, the petition makes general assumptions regarding the species' extinction risk from the other threats it identifies, such as its life history traits and the lack of species-specific protections, but provides no evidence or information that shows the species is responding in a negative fashion to these threats. We do not consider general assumptions and assertions made by the petitioner as substantial information that listing may be warranted. As such, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for
The petition identifies overutilization for commercial purposes and inadequate regulatory mechanisms as threats to the species. According to the IUCN assessment (Hozbor
In terms of regulatory measures, the petition indicates that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate and have failed to protect the species from both targeted and bycatch mortality. It highlights Brazil's trawl fishing regulation, which prohibits trawling at distances less than 3 nautical miles (5.56 km) from the shore (which would be in depths of less than around 10 m). However, the petition and IUCN assessment contend that enforcement of the law is difficult and that trawling continues to occur in these nursery areas (Hozbor
Given the occurrence of the species in fisheries catch and bycatch data, evidence of substantial declines in biomass (96 percent) and observed decreases in abundance in some areas, as well as information indicating current regulations may be inadequate to protect the species from overutilization, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for
The petition identifies overutilization and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as threats to the species' continued existence. The petition notes that the species experiences heavy fishing pressure throughout its entire range, including in its nursery grounds. In south Brazil, the wintering population is targeted and also caught as a component of the mixed-species fishery. Based on bottom trawl CPUE data, the winter migrant population of south Brazil has decreased by 85 percent between 1985 and 1997 (Massa
In Argentina,
In terms of fishery regulations, the petition contends that the only current conservation measure in place for the species is a permitted maximum catch, established by the Argentine fisheries authority, but argues that catch should be set at zero to ensure the species' survival.
Declines of 20 to 30 percent in biomass and landings do not necessarily indicate that a population is at risk of extinction or that catch must be prohibited (especially without additional information regarding the population size or maximum sustainable yield). However, based on the above information provided which shows the species is commercially important, taken in substantial numbers in fisheries within its range, including in nursery grounds and pupping areas, and has experienced large declines (85 percent) in parts of its range, with a potential extirpation of a local population, we find overutilization for commercial purposes may be a threat to the species' current existence. As such, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for
The petition requests that we list three species of angel sharks that have similar ranges and are found in coastal and outer continental shelf sediment habitats in the Mediterranean Sea and eastern Atlantic. These three species are
The petition identifies bottom trawling, human population growth, overutilization, inadequacy of existing regulatory measures, and isolation of populations as potential threats to the existence of these species. The petition notes that identifying angel sharks down to species is difficult and so many of the fishing records identify catch only to the genus level. In the Mediterranean, historical records from the late 1800s to early 1900s show a decline in the number of angel sharks caught in tuna traps that were operating in Baratti (Northern Tyrrhenian Sea) (Morey
The petition notes that this bottom trawling activity has continued to increase in both intensity and efficiency on the Mediterranean shelf and slope over the last 50 years, and, as such, is a threat to the angel shark species existence. The petition states that the three species are now rare or absent from most of the northern Mediterranean coastline (Morey
Off the Balearic Islands (Spain),
Off the coast of West Africa, these angel shark species are primarily taken as bycatch in industrial demersal trawl fisheries and inshore bottom set gillnets. The IUCN assessments (Morey
The petition identifies existing regulations that aim to protect these three species from further declines, but contends that these current regulations are either insufficient or ineffective to protect the existing populations of the three species from extinction. For example, the petition notes that
Based on the above information provided by the petition, which shows that these three species were once common and frequently taken in various fisheries but have now noticeably declined in abundance throughout their ranges, with evidence of possible local extirpations, we find that the threats of overutilization and inadequate regulatory measures as described above may be putting the species at an increased risk of extinction. As such, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted for
The petition also requests that we list three species of angel sharks that are endemic to the southwest Atlantic:
In terms of threats, the petition identifies overutilization of
We will now evaluate the petition's request to list the other two angel shark species in the southwest Atlantic,
The petition identifies overutilization as a threat to the continued existence of both species. These angel sharks are both targeted and caught as bycatch in fisheries operating from southern Brazil to Uruguay. Landing statistics from southern Brazil are combined for
In Argentina, angel shark landings have been decreasing since reaching maximum levels in 1998, with landings almost entirely consisting of
In Uruguay, species-specific statistics are unavailable, but the petition notes that angel sharks are taken as bycatch in industrial and artisanal fisheries. Total
The petition also identifies inadequate regulatory measures and the species' low reproductive potential as threats to the continued existence of both species. The petition, citing the IUCN assessments, states that there are currently no regulations to manage the angel shark fishery that operates on the continental shelf off southern Brazil. However, a management plan for the gillnet monkfish fishery, which takes
After a review of the species-specific information provided in the petition, which shows that
Although the petition contends that the extensive bottom trawling occurring within the range of
The petition also contends that there are no conservation measures in place for the species, but states that there are some areas of Chinese waters that are protected from trawling activities. The petition does not provide any additional information on these regulations except to note that these areas may or may not be within
The petition fails to provide any information on the species' abundance, life history, status, or trends throughout all or a significant portion of the species' range, nor do we have any information in our files. The petition provides no evidence that the species is or has been in decline. The petition provides only general statements and assumptions regarding threats to the species but does not provide evidence to suggest these threats are acting upon the species to the point where it may meet the definition of threatened or endangered. As such, we find that the petition does not provide substantial evidence that listing may be warranted for
The petition acknowledges that little is known about the species and its occurrence in fisheries catch, but contends that the species is landed and perhaps targeted and thus fishing pressure is likely causing a decline and is a threat to its continued existence. In 2004, Ecuador banned directed fishing for sharks in all of its waters; therefore, it is illegal to target the species. Although fishermen can catch sharks as bycatch, information provided in the petition indicates that the species is only rarely caught as bycatch, and has only been observed in landings from the artisanal coastal gillnet fishery in the fishing port of Daniel López (Compagno
Although the sharpfin houndshark may be a rare species, the petition has not provided any evidence to indicate that the species is currently in decline or that there are any threats that are acting upon the species to the point where it may meet the definition of threatened or endangered. As such, we find that the petition does not provide substantial evidence that listing may be warranted for
This petition also requests that we identify three subpopulations of shark species as DPSs and subsequently list these subpopulations as threatened or endangered under the ESA. In evaluating this request, we must first consider whether the petition provides substantial information that the requested populations may qualify as DPSs under the discreteness and significance criteria of our joint DPS Policy (as noted above in the “Background” section). If we find that the petition presents substantial information that the requested populations may qualify as DPSs, we must then determine whether the petitioner provides substantial information that listing may be warranted for those DPSs. Our analyses and conclusions regarding the information presented by the petitioner and available in our files for these petitioned subpopulations are provided below.
The petition contends that the Southwest Atlantic subpopulation of sandtiger shark is discrete based on physical, physiological, behavioral, and morphological factors. In terms of physical barriers, the petition states that the population rarely occurs in deep water (greater than 200 m depth; Compagno, 1984a) and uses this as evidence that the species does not mix with the sandtiger sharks found elsewhere. However, the petitioner provides no other information, such as tagging studies, to support its claim of isolation. Additionally, this depth barrier does not explain why mixing would not occur between the Southwest Atlantic population and those sharks found in the Caribbean as well as the Northwest Atlantic.
The petition also states that the Southwest Atlantic population is behaviorally unique because it is more migratory than other
Citing the same information it provided for the discreteness factor discussed above, the petitioner asserts that the Southwest Atlantic population segment is significant to the taxon. However, based on our above analysis, we do not find that the petitioner has provided substantial information that this specific population has biological or ecological significance to the taxon. The available information does not indicate that the population exists in an unusual or unique ecological setting, or that loss of the population would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon, or that it differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
In conclusion, we find that the petitioner has failed to provide substantial information that the Southwest Atlantic population of sandtiger sharks may qualify as a DPS under the discreteness and significance criteria of our joint DPS Policy. As such, we deny the petitioner's request to list the Southwest Atlantic subpopulation of
For both subpopulations, the petitioner claims that these populations are discrete because they are geographically isolated from other populations of the taxon. The petitioner cites a statement in the IUCN assessments (Fowler, 2009a; 2009b) which reads: “[t]he different morphological characteristics of Basking Sharks in the Pacific and the north and south Atlantic oceans are not thought to indicate separate species (Compagno 1984), but are geographically isolated subpopulations.” The petitioner uses this quote as the only source of information to support the claim of discreteness through geographic isolation. In addition, the petitioner uses the above statement as the only support to show that these two subpopulations are also significant to the species. According to the petitioner, the geographic isolation mentioned in the quote is evidence that loss of either subpopulation would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon, and the morphological differences mentioned in the quote is evidence that the subpopulations are markedly different from other populations of the species based on genetic characteristics. However, the IUCN assessments from which this quote is taken (Fowler, 2009a; 2009b) do not provide any details regarding the different morphological characteristics, such as what they are or which populations exhibit these traits, or explain how these apparent differences indicate geographic isolation. In addition, we reviewed the information on
In our own files, we reviewed a paper by Hoelzel
Based on this information, we do not find evidence that indicates that the North Pacific or Northeast Atlantic subpopulations may qualify as discrete populations under our DPS policy based on physical, physiological, behavioral, or morphological factors, or may qualify as significant populations under our DPS policy based on differences in genetic characteristics. We also find that the petitioner has failed to provide substantial information that would indicate otherwise. As such, we deny the petitioner's request to list the North Pacific or Northeast Atlantic subpopulation of
Currently, the basking shark is a NMFS “Species of Concern”, with a focus on the eastern North Pacific part of its range. “Species of Concern” are those species about which NMFS has some concerns regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. As noted on the basking shark “Species of Concern” fact sheet, “[t]here is no aspect of the movements, behaviors, population size or structure, or life history that isn't data deficient for basking sharks in the eastern North Pacific” (NMFS, 2010). There is a lack of information on habitat requirements for different life stages of basking sharks and there are still questions regarding key life history characteristics, including age at first reproduction, gestation period, littler size, and mating frequency. Population dynamics, structure, size, geographic range, and genetics are still largely unknown. Without this type of basic information, it is difficult to assess the potential threats to the species and how they may influence abundance and distribution of the species over long and short time scales. The basking shark will remain on our “Species of Concern” list until more data become available.
After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, including the sections of the petition applicable to all of the petitioned species and subpopulations as well as the species-specific information, we conclude the petition in its entirety does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for 13 of the 22 species and subpopulations of sharks. These 13 species and subpopulations are:
To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information relevant to whether the nine species we believe may be warranted for listing (
A complete list of references is available upon request to the Office of Protected Resources (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils seek public comment on a draft amendment to all the fishery management plans under their purview. The omnibus amendment would establish a standardized bycatch reporting methodology for each fishery management plan, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Comments must be received by December 19, 2013.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods.
•
•
•
Copies of the draft SBRM amendment may be obtained by contacting the NMFS Northeast Regional Office at the above address. The documents are also available via the internet at:
Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9341.
Section 303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each fishery management plan (FMP) to include provisions establishing “a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery.” The Councils and NMFS are considering an omnibus amendment to establish a standardized bycatch reporting methodology (SBRM) or modify existing SBRMs under every Northeast Region FMP. NMFS had previously implemented an omnibus SBRM amendment recommended by the Councils. That amendment was vacated by a Federal Court and remanded to NMFS and the Councils in order to develop and implement another SBRM amendment consistent with the Court's findings, see
Alternatives under consideration in the omnibus SBRM amendment address bycatch reporting and monitoring mechanisms, analytical techniques, and allocation of at-sea fishery observers when funding limits the recommended level of observer coverage; establishment of a target level for precision of bycatch estimates; and requirements for reviewing and reporting on the efficacy of the SBRM. NMFS and the Councils will consider all comments received on the draft SBRM amendment and the alternatives for incorporation into the final document until the end of the comment period on December 19, 2013. The public will have several additional opportunities to comment on the SBRM. The final amendment will be considered for approval by the Councils at public meetings in early 2014. Once submitted to NMFS, the final SBRM Amendment will be made available for public review and comment, and regulations will be proposed for review and comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 19, 2013.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.
Meeting notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing. The purpose of the meeting is to review planned changes and progress in developing computerized tests for military enlistment screening.
Thursday, December 12, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Friday, December 13, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The Embassy Suites Hotel O'Hare-Rosemont, 555 North River Road, Rosemont, Illinois, 60018.
Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Room 3D1066, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.
Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to review planned changes and progress in developing computerized tests for military enlistment screening.
Agenda: The agenda includes an overview of current enlistment test development timelines, test development strategies, and planned research for the next 3 years.
Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552b and 41 CFR §§ 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public.
Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Room 3D1066, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.
Persons desiring to make oral presentations or submit written statements for consideration at the Committee meeting must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number in
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD.
Notice to delete a system of records.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service is deleting a system of records notices in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The system of records being deleted is T7108, Base Accounts Receivable System (BARS).
This proposed action will be effective on December 20, 2013 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before December 19, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
Mr. Gregory Outlaw, (317) 212-4591.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
Base Accounts Receivable System (BARS) (June 16, 2009, 74 FR 28478).
System was decommissioned June 13, 2011. All data was archived into an offline database for two years then destroyed, therefore; T7108, Base Accounts Receivable System (BARS) can be deleted.
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, DoD.
Notice to alter a System of Records.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is altering an existing system of records in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The blanket (k)(1) and (k)(2) exemptions apply to this systems of records to accurately describe the basis for exempting disclosure of classified information that is or may be contained in the records.
This proposed action will be effective on December 20, 2013 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before December 19, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
•
•
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), ATTN: Human Development Directorate, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on July 29, 2013, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Enterprise Workforce System (May 24, 2013, 78 FR 31526)
Delete entry and replace with “Human Development Directorate, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150.”
Delete entry and replace with “Information specifically authorized to be classified under E.O. 12958, as implemented by DoD 5200.1-R, may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1).
Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of the information, the individual will be provided access to the information exempt to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) published in 32 CFR part 320. For additional information, contact the system manager.”
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, DoD.
Notice to add a new System of Records.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is establishing a new system of records in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency proposes to add a new system of records notice, NGA-008, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Polygraph Records System, to its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This system ensures the integrity in the polygraph
This proposed action will be effective on December 20, 2013 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before December 19, 2013.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
*
*
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), ATTN: Security Specialist, Mission Support, MSRS P-12, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on May 17, 2013, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Polygraph Records System.
Records are maintained at National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Headquarters in Washington, DC metro facilities.
Current and former NGA employees, military personnel, contractors, employed by or assigned to NGA facilities.
Polygraph reports, polygraph charts, polygraph tapes, and notes from polygraph interviews or activities related to polygraph interviews. Identifying information such as, name, date of birth, place of birth, Social Security Number (SSN), company name, contract number, disability data, medical information, gender, grade/rank, employee identification number, and foreign contacts.
50 U.S.C. 402a; Coordination of counterintelligence activities; E.O. 10450, Security requirements for Government employment; E.O. 12968, as amended, Access to classified information; 5 CFR part 732, National security positions; 5 CFR part 736, Personnel investigations; 32 CFR part 147, Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Classified Information; Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 6/4, Personnel Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information; 5 U.S.C. 301 Departmental Regulations; DoDD 5105.60, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA); 5 U.S.C. 7532, Suspension and Removal; E.O. 12958, Classified National Security Information; DoD 5200.2-R, DoD Personnel Security Program; Director of Central Intelligence Directive No. 1/14, Personnel Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI); E.O. 13467, Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.
To ensure the integrity in the polygraph examination process, document polygraph results, assist with security eligibility determinations and employment or assignment suitability decisions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and guidance. To assist with investigations into possible violations of NGA rules and regulations, including the possible loss or compromise of classified or protected NGA information.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records may be specifically disclosed outside of the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of NGA's compilation or systems of records notices may apply to this system.
Electronic storage media.
Records may be retrieved by name, employee identification number or SSN.
Records in this system are safeguarded in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable NGA automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is strictly limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions. Some of the technical controls include, limited, role based access as well as profiles based access to limit users to only data that is needed for the performance of their official duties. The system is located in a secure data center and operated by Federal personnel and contractors.
NGA will transfer the records to the National Archives and Records Administration when no longer needed
Polygraph Branch Chief, Security and Installations Division, Personnel Security, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA).
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150-7500.
The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “Privacy Act Inquiry.”
The written request must contain your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. Also include an explanation of why you believe NGA would have information on you and specify when you believe the records would have been created.
You must sign your request and your signature must either be notarized or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). Signature)'.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 7500 GEOINT Drive, Springfield, VA 22150-7500.
The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “Privacy Act Inquiry.”
The written request must contain your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. Also include an explanation of why you believe NGA would have information on you and specify when you believe the records would have been created.
You must sign your request and your signature must either be notarized or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). Signature)'.
Individuals contesting the accuracy of records contained in this system of records about themselves should address written inquiries to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 7500 Geoint Drive, Springfield, VA 22150-7500.
The request envelope and letter should both be clearly marked “Privacy Act Inquiry.”
The written request must contain your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. Also include an explanation of why you believe NGA would have information on you and specify when you believe the records would have been created.
You must sign your request and your signature must either be notarized or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:
If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.
If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). Signature)'.
Information originates from the individual prior to and during the examination.
Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of the information, the individual will be provided access to the information exempt to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source.
An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c) and (e) published in 32 CFR Part 320. For additional information, contact the system manager.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice of Open Meeting.
The Ocean Research Advisory Panel will hold a regularly scheduled meeting. The meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public who expect to attend are asked to provide name and citizenship in advance in order to facilitate entry into the office suite.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Wednesday, December 4, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Members of the public should submit their comments in advance of the meeting to the meeting Point of Contact.
The meeting will be held at QinetiQ-North America, 4100 Fairfax Drive, Suite 800, Arlington, VA, 22203.
Dr. Joan S. Cleveland, Office of Naval Research, 875 North Randolph Street, Suite 1425, Arlington, VA 22203-1995, telephone 703-696-4532.
This notice of open meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The meeting will include discussions on ocean research, resource management, and other current issues in the ocean science and management communities.
(Insert Principal Office (insert PO acronym), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 19, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions related to collection activities or burden, please call Tomakie Washington, 202-401-1097 or electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 19, 2013.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions related to collection activities or burden, please call Tomakie Washington, 202-401-1097 or electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that
Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Statistics (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 21, 2014.
Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions related to collection activities or burden, please call Katrina Ingalls, 703-620-3655 or electronically mail
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program—Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) Field-Initiated Projects Program.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.133G-4 (Research) and 84.133G-5 (Development).
Applications Available: November 19, 2013.
Date of Pre-Application Meeting: December 10, 2013.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: February 18, 2014.
The purpose of this competition is to improve the capacity of minority entities to conduct high-quality disability and rehabilitation research by limiting eligibility for FI Projects grants to minority entities and Indian tribes. Section 21(b)(2)(A) of the Act authorizes NIDRR to make awards to minority entities and Indian tribes to carry out activities authorized under Title II of the Act.
NIDRR makes two types of awards under the FI Projects program: Research grants and development grants. The MSI FI Projects research grants will be awarded under CFDA 84.133G-4, and the development grants will be awarded under CFDA 84.133G-5.
Different selection criteria are used for FI Projects research grants and development grants. An applicant must clearly indicate in the application whether it is applying for a research grant (84.133G-4) or a development grant (84.133G-5) and must address the selection criteria relevant for its grant type. Without exception, NIDRR will review each application based on the grant designation made by the applicant. Applications will be determined ineligible and will not be reviewed if they do not include a clear designation as a research grant or a development grant.
In carrying out a research activity under an FI Projects research grant, a grantee must identify one or more hypotheses or research questions and, based on the hypotheses or research questions identified, perform an intensive, systematic study directed toward producing (1) new or full scientific knowledge, or (2) better understanding of the subject, problem studied, or body of knowledge.
In carrying out a development activity under an FI Projects development grant, a grantee must use knowledge and understanding gained from research to create materials, devices, systems, or methods beneficial to the target population, including design and development of prototypes and processes. “Target population” means the group of individuals, organizations, or other entities expected to be affected by the project. More than one group may be involved since a project may affect those who receive services, provide services, or administer services.
29 U.S.C. 764 and 29 U.S.C. 718.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2014 or subsequent years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
The maximum amount includes direct and indirect costs.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.133G-4 or 84.133G-5.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the team listed under
2.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 50 pages, using the following standards:
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative (Part III).
The application package will provide instructions for completing all components to be included in the application. Each application must include a cover sheet (Standard Form 424); budget requirements (ED Form 524) and narrative justification; other required forms; an abstract, Human Subjects narrative, and Part III narrative; resumes of staff; and other related materials, if applicable.
An applicant should consult NIDRR's Long-Range Plan for Fiscal Years 2013-2017 (78 FR 20299) (the Plan) when preparing its application. The Plan is organized around the following research domains: (1) Community Living and Participation; (2) Health and Function; and (3) Employment.
3.
Applications Available: November 19, 2013.
Date of Pre-Application Meeting: Interested parties are invited to participate in a pre-application meeting and to receive information and technical assistance through individual consultation with NIDRR staff. The pre-application meeting will be held on December 10, 2013. Interested parties may participate in this meeting by conference call with NIDRR staff from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., Washington, DC time. NIDRR staff also will be available from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the same day, by telephone, to provide information and technical assistance through individual consultation. For further information or to make arrangements to participate in the meeting via conference call or to arrange for an individual consultation, contact the person listed under
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: January 21, 2014.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov. and before you can submit an application through Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page:
7.
a.
Applications for grants under the MSI FI Projects program, CFDA Number 84.133G-4 (Research) or 84.133G-5 (Development), must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant application for the MSI FI Projects program, CFDA Number 84.133G-4 (Research) or 84.133G-5 (Development)—at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.133, not 84.133G).
Please note the following:
• When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
• Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.
• Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send a second notification to you by email. This second notification indicates that the Department has received your application and has assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application).
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
• You do not have access to the Internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5133, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2700. FAX: (202) 245-7323.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.133G-4 (Research) or 84.133G-5 (Development)), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.133G-4 (Research) or 84.133G-5 (Development)), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the program under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
Different selection criteria are used for FI Projects research grants and development grants. An applicant must clearly indicate in the application whether it is applying for a research grant (84.133G-4) or a development grant (84.133G-5) and must address the selection criteria applicable to its grant type.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Additional factors we consider in selecting an application for an award are as follows:
The Secretary is interested in outcomes-oriented research or development projects that use rigorous scientific methodologies. To address this interest, applicants are encouraged to articulate goals, objectives, and expected outcomes for the proposed research or development activities. Proposals should describe how results and planned outputs are expected to contribute to advances in knowledge, improvements in policy and practice, and public benefits for individuals with disabilities. Applicants should propose projects that are designed to be consistent with these goals. We encourage applicants to include in their application a description of how results will measure progress towards achievement of anticipated outcomes (including a discussion of measures of effectiveness), the mechanisms that will be used to evaluate outcomes associated with specific problems or issues, and how the proposed activities will support
3.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
4.
• The number of products (e.g., new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs, or devices) developed or tested with NIDRR funding that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field.
• The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals.
• The percentage of new NIDRR grants that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous methods.
For these reviews, NIDRR uses information submitted by grantees as part of their Annual Performance Reports.
Department of Education program performance reports, which include information on NIDRR programs, are available on the Department's Web site:
5.
Marlene Spencer, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5133, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2700. Telephone: (202) 245-7532 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 days from issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file any motion to intervene, protest, comments, and/or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
On November 4, 2013, the South Tahoe Public Utility District filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act, as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The CHYDRO Project would be located along the existing C-Line export pipeline in South Tahoe Public Utility District's wastewater treatment system in Alpine County, California.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
On November 5, 2013, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act, as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The Chicopee Valley Aqueduct—Fish Hatchery Pipeline Project would be located along the proposed McLaughlin Fish Hatchery Pipeline at the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority's Ware Disinfection Facility in Hampshire County, Massachusetts.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Take notice that on October 28, 2013, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC (Enable), 1111 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP14-14-000 an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting the Commission authorize the abandonment, by sell and transfer from Enable to Enable Midstream Partners, LP (EMP), certain facilities and associated appurtenances located in the state of Oklahoma, and to abandon in place the Leedey Purification Facility, also located in the state of Oklahoma, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to B. Michelle Willis, Manager—Regulatory & Compliance, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC, P.O. Box 21734, Shreveport, LA 71151 at (318) 429-3708 or by email at
Specifically, Enable proposes to abandon in place the Leedey Purification Facility and to abandon by sale to EMP the following facilities in Oklahoma: (1) The Leedey Compressor Station, (2) Line AD-36, (3) Line ADT-7, (4) Line ADT-5, and Line ADT-14. Also, Enable seeks a determination that
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit original and 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
Description: Holyoke Solar, LLC resubmits February 20, 2013 Refund Report as non-privileged document.
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 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Elgin Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is November 28, 2013.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Enel Cove Fort, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is December 2, 2013.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Sunwave USA Holdings Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Grand Tower Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is November 28, 2013.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, of Gibson City Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability is November 28, 2013.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC
On November 13, 2013, the Commission issued an order that initiated a proceeding in Docket No. EL14-3-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2006), to determine the justness and reasonableness of the market-based rates proposed by Idaho Power Company.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL14-3-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
November 21, 2013, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda.
Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at
A free webcast of this event is available through
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.
Take notice that on November 8, 2013, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practices and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2)(2013), Colonial Pipeline Company (Colonial) filed a petition requesting a declaratory order approving the tariff rate structure and terms of service agreed to by Contract Shippers in certain transportation service agreements, the proposed prorationing methodology, and the procedure by which excess system capacity is allocated first to eligible Contract Shippers, as explained more fully in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability, request for public comments.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of the
In addition, the EPA is proposing new FY 2014-2015 Agency Priority Goals—a key component of the
Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2014.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
Vivian Daub, Director, Planning Staff, Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability, Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
The GPRA Modernization Act holds federal agencies accountable for using resources wisely and achieving program results. Specifically, the GPRA Modernization Act requires agencies to develop:
The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of open meeting of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) will hold a public meeting on December 12-13, 2013. EFAB is an EPA advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to provide advice and recommendations to EPA on creative approaches to funding environmental programs, projects, and activities. This meeting, originally scheduled for October 22-23, 2013, is rescheduled because of the government shutdown.
The purpose of this meeting is to hear from informed speakers on environmental finance issues, proposed legislation, and EPA priorities; to discuss activities, progress, and preliminary recommendations with regard to current EFAB work projects; and to consider requests for assistance from EPA offices.
Environmental finance discussions, and presentations are expected on the following topics: tribal environmental programs; transit-oriented development in sustainable communities, energy efficiency/green house gas emissions reduction; drinking water pricing and infrastructure investment; and green infrastructure.
The meeting is open to the public; however, seating is limited. All members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register in advance no later than Friday December 6, 2013.
The full board meeting will be held on Thursday, December 12, 2013 from 9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST and Friday, December 13, 2013 from 9-12 noon., EST.
Potomac Yard North, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Suite 4120, Arlington, VA 22202.
For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodations for a person with a disability, please contact Sandra Williams, U.S. EPA, at (202) 564-4999 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's receipt of test data on 1-propanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propen-1-yloxy)-, sodium salt (1:1). These data were submitted pursuant to a test rule issued by EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The purpose of this notice is to alert the public about test data received between August 1, 2013, and October 31, 2013.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are concerned about data on health and/or environmental effects and other characteristics of this chemical substance. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112, is available at
Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the
1. Identify the chemical substance or mixture for which data have been received.
2. List the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance or mixture and the information required by the applicable standards for the development of test data.
3. Describe the nature of the test data developed.
EPA has received test data for the following test rule:
EPA received data on 1 chemical substance listed in the TSCA section 4 test rule entitled “Testing for Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Third Group of Chemicals,” published in the
The table in this unit contains the described information required by TSCA section 4(d). See the applicable CFR citation, listed in the title of the table, for test data requirements. Data received can be found by referencing the docket ID number and document number listed in the table. See Unit I.B. for additional information about the docket. EPA reviews of test data are added to the docket upon completion.
Note: CAS No. = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number.
15 U.S.C. 2603.
Environmental protection, Hazardous substances.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice.
This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“Ex-Im Bank”), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter). Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction.
Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2013 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.
Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at
To support the export of U.S.-manufactured business jet aircraft.
To be used for executive air transportation.
To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the item(s) being exported are not expected to produce exports or provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a United States industry.
Principal Supplier: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Savannah, GA.
Obligor: Minsheng Financial Leasing Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Guarantor(s): N/A.
Gulfstream business jet aircraft.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice; correction.
The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the
For additional information, contact Charles Eberle, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or via the Internet at
In the
1. On page 66358, in the Supplementary section, in the 1st column, under paragraph C of II Discussion, “pages 10-11” is corrected to read “page 10.”
2. On page 66358, in the Supplementary section, in the 1st column, under paragraph D of II Discussion, “page 12” is corrected to read “page 11.”
3. On page 66358, in the Supplementary section, in the 1st column, under paragraph E of II Discussion, “page 12” is corrected to read “page 11.”
4. On page 66358, in the Supplementary section, in the 2nd column, under paragraph F of II Discussion, “page 15” is corrected to read “page 14.”
5. On page 66358, in the Supplementary section, in the 2nd column, under paragraph G of II Discussion, “page 19” is corrected to read “page 18.”
6. On page 66358, in the Supplementary section, in the 2nd column, under paragraph H of II Discussion, “pages 23-27” is corrected to read “pages 22-26.”
7. On page 66358, in the Supplementary section, in the 2nd column, under paragraph I of II Discussion, “page 28” is corrected to read “page 27.”
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.
999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2013-15: Conservative Action Fund.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2013-16: PoliticalRefund.org.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2013-17: Tea Party Leadership Fund.
Draft Interpretive Rule Re Date of Political Party Nominations of Candidates for Special Primary Elections in New York.
Management and Administrative Matters.
Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 13, 2013.
1.
10:00 a.m. (Telephonic Eastern Time) November 25, 2013.
10th Floor Board Meeting Room, 77 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Open to the public.
Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
Office of Government-Wide Policy, U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).
Meeting Notice.
The Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA), a Federal Advisory Committee established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App., and Executive Order 13639, as amended by EO 13644, will hold a meeting open to the public on Tuesday, December 3, 2013.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, and ending no later than 12:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time with no public comment period.
The PCEA will convene its meeting in the Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW., Washington, DC 20004. This site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. The meeting may also be webcast or made available via audio link. Please refer to PCEA's Web site,
The public is invited to submit written materials by either of the following methods:
Mr. Mark Nejbauer, Designated Federal Officer, General Services Administration, Presidential Commission on Election Administration, 1776 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20006, email
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or send comments to LeRoy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an email to
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 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. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
An Investigation of Lung Health at an Indium-Tin Oxide Production Facility—New—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, Public Law 91-596 (section 20[a] [1]), authorizes NIOSH to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers. NIOSH is proposing to conduct a study regarding the lung health of workers at an indium-tin oxide production facility.
Indium-tin oxide (ITO) is a sintered material used in the manufacture of devices such as liquid crystal displays, touch panels, solar cells, and architectural glass. Indium lung disease is a novel, potentially fatal industrial disease that has occurred in workers making, using, or recycling ITO. This project aims to understand and prevent this occupational lung disease by investigating the relationship between exposure and lung health among current ITO manufacturing workers.
CDC requests Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to collect standardized information from current employees of the ITO production facility through an informed consent document, an interviewer-administered questionnaire, and a contact information form. As part of the same project, employees will be offered the opportunity to participate in medical testing and personal air sampling.
The questionnaire will collect contact information, demographic information, respiratory symptoms and diagnoses, work history, and cigarette smoking history. The questionnaire will allow NIOSH to report individual medical test results to each participant and to analyze aggregate data from the workforce to determine risk factors for abnormal lung health indices derived from the medical test results. The individual results will be used by employees and their personal physicians to make medical decisions, such as whether to pursue additional testing. The aggregate results will be used by NIOSH, facility management, and employees in ongoing efforts to reduce exposures and monitor key health indices.
For this study, we will recruit all current employees of the ITO production facility. Participation is voluntary. Employees who wish to participate in the questionnaire and medical testing will review and sign an informed consent document. Employees who wish to participate in the personal air sampling and would like to receive personal results will complete a contact information form. We anticipate approximately 100 study participants. The questionnaire will be administered privately at the workplace during normal working hours by trained NIOSH staff. Employees who are not available at the workplace during the study will be offered the opportunity to respond to the questionnaire at a later date by telephone. There are no costs to participants other than their time.
The total estimated burden for the one-time collection of data is 66 hours.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice with comment.
This notice with comment describes the overall Quality Rating System (QRS) framework for rating Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) offered through an Exchange. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments on the list of proposed QRS quality measures that QHP issuers would be required to collect and report, the hierarchical structure of the measure sets and the elements of the QRS rating methodology. In addition, this notice solicits comments on ways to ensure the integrity of QRS ratings, and on priority areas for future QRS measure enhancement and development.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on January 21, 2014.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS-3288-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Nidhi Singh Shah, (301) 492-5110, for general information. Elizabeth Flow-Delwiche, (410) 786-1718, for matters relating to the Quality Rating System.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148) as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-309) (collectively referred to as the Affordable Care Act) establish Affordable Insurance Exchange or Exchange (also known as a Health Insurance Marketplace or Marketplace) within each state. Qualified individuals and qualified employers in each state will be able to shop for affordable health insurance through Exchanges.
The Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) holds primary responsibility for establishing the standards and guidelines for the Exchanges. The Affordable Care Act provides States with the flexibility to establish and operate their own Exchange (State-based Exchange). However, if a state elects not to establish a State-based Exchange or if a state will not have an Exchange that is operational by January 1, 2014, pursuant to section 1321(c)(1) of the Affordable Care Act, the Secretary will establish and operate a Federally-facilitated Exchange in those states. The Affordable Care Act and applicable Exchange regulations establish that health plans offered through an Exchange must meet specific standards to be certified as QHPs and to offer coverage in an Exchange beginning in January 2014.
The Affordable Care Act also requires the Secretary to develop a number of reporting requirements to support the delivery of quality health care coverage offered in the Exchanges. Specifically, sections 1311(c)(3) and (c)(4) of the Affordable Care Act direct the Secretary to develop—(1) a system that rates qualified health plans (QHPs) based on the relative quality and price; and (2) an enrollee satisfaction survey system that assesses the level of enrollee experience (that is, consumer experience) with QHPs. Because we believe that QHP consumer experience is an important part of rating the overall quality of a QHP, we intend to use some of the information collected from the Enrollee
In addition to consumer experience, we believe that the QRS should provide ratings of QHPs based on health care quality, health outcomes, and cost of care. We intend for all QHP issuers to report data at the product level for the initial years of QRS implementation (for example, at the Health Maintenance Organization level or Preferred Provider Organization level). We expect QHPs to provide product-level quality performance data for the QRS in general topics, such as clinical effectiveness of care, patient safety, care coordination, prevention of disease and illness, access to care, member experience, plan services and efficiency, and cost reduction. The QRS ratings should demonstrate sound, reliable, and meaningful information on the performance of QHPs to ultimately support informed decisions by consumers.
We have already promulgated regulations at 45 CFR 155.200(d) that direct Exchanges to oversee implementation of the QRS, and 45 CFR 156.200(b)(5)
In future rulemaking, we intend to propose requirements for QHPs and Exchanges regarding the collection and submission of specific quality-related information. In addition, we intend to provide future technical guidance for QHP issuers and Exchanges related to the QRS measure specifications, detailed rating methodology guidelines, and data reporting and procedures.
We believe that the overarching goal of the QRS is based on two fundamental tenets: (1) Providing comparable and useful information regarding the quality of QHPs offered through the Exchanges to inform consumer and employer choice; and (2) facilitating regulatory oversight of QHPs with regard to the quality standards set forth in the Affordable Care Act. Consequently, we believe that the QRS should provide QHP ratings based on health care quality and outcomes, consumer experience, and cost. We developed the following five general QRS principles to guide the design of the QRS:
• The QRS should produce QHP quality performance information to encourage the delivery of higher-quality health care services, expand access to care, and improve health outcomes for QHP enrollees.
• The QRS should provide sound, reliable, and meaningful quality-related QHP information, which could be used by consumers when comparing health plans, by QHPs for quality improvement, as well as by Exchanges and CMS for QHP certification and regulatory oversight activities.
• The QRS should reflect the goals of the National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care priorities,
• The QRS measures set should be evidence-based and align, to the maximum extent possible, with priority measures currently implemented in federal, state, and private sector programs to minimize QHP issuer burden. We have drawn on our experience administering the Medicare Advantage 5-star rating system in developing this framework, and intend that the development and evolution of the QRS should be public and transparent and should allow for flexibility to incorporate changes in measures and methodologies as medical treatments and technology evolve and the Exchanges mature.
We have developed a framework for creating, implementing, maintaining and revising the QRS. The overall framework consists of the following components that are guided by the QRS goals and principles:
In total, there are ten associated elements that further clarify the Performance Information and Rating Methodology components (see Table 1 below).
The goals and principles for the QRS serve as the common thread throughout the QRS framework. The Performance Information component consists of four elements: (1) Measures Selection; (2) Hierarchical Structure; (3) Organization of Measures; and (4) Data Strategy. The Measures Selection element represents the process for selecting and evaluating the measure sets of the QRS. The Hierarchical Structure element establishes how the QRS measure sets are organized for scoring, rating, and reporting purposes. The Organization of Measures element establishes the approach to create composites, domains, and summary indicators ratings. The Data Strategy element, which is discussed in section IV, refers to the procedures for how the measures data will be collected, calculated, submitted and will help to inform how data will be displayed.
The Rating Methodology component aims to define how QHPs will be scored and compared, and as proposed, consists of six elements:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The process used to select the QRS measure sets included a review of existing health plan measures, so that the QRS measures promote consistency and harmonization across State, Federal government entities (for example, CMS) and private-sector efforts. Our review included national measure sets that were relevant to the intended purpose of the QRS and incorporate health plan measures such as the Initial Adult Medicaid Core Set of Health Care Quality Measures, Initial Core Set of Children's Health Care Quality Measures, Clinical Quality Measures for Eligible Professionals, and Medicare Part C and Part D Reporting Requirements, as well as a variety of other quality measurement programs, including health plan accreditation programs.
Measures selection and measure set evaluation criteria were developed using the National Quality Forum (NQF) Measure Evaluation Criteria and the Measures Application Partnership (MAP) Measure-Selection Criteria.
•
•
•
•
•
The QRS measure set evaluation criteria were applied to identify measurement gaps in the QRS measure sets and helped to ensure that the proposed QRS measure sets as a whole would best meet the needs of consumers and the Exchanges.
The draft QRS measure sets were evaluated to determine the extent to which the measures were NQF-endorsed and aligned with the NQS priorities. Relevance to the Exchange consumer was evaluated by assessing whether the measure set addressed clinical conditions of moderate or high prevalence or high disease burden (applicable only to the clinical care measures) and whether the measure sets identified the needs of the consumer related to health-plan operations and satisfaction. Relevance of the QRS measure sets to QHPs was evaluated by assessing how well each of the sets addressed the benefit categories required of QHPs as part of the Affordable Care Act essential health benefits requirement;
The draft measure sets were revised and the proposed QRS measure sets were created following this evaluation. The proposed QRS measure sets were also evaluated and reviewed internally by CMS, externally by industry and stakeholders and in a field test using available health plan data. Listening sessions were also conducted for insurers, states and consumer groups.
Although the measures contained in the QRS are consistent with the state-of-science for measuring health care quality, science and technology do not yet allow us to measure or represent the quality of all care delivered through the QHPs. Therefore, the QRS measure set should not be viewed as representative of all care delivered by QHPs.
QHPs offered in the Exchange may provide family/adult self-only coverage or child-only coverage (child-only QHPs) and therefore, there are two proposed measure sets; the QRS measure set (for family and adult self-only coverage) and a Child-only QRS measure set. Both measure sets were selected based on the above described key criteria. We solicit comments on the proposed measures in the QRS and Child-only QRS listed below in Table 2. The proposed QRS measure set for family/adult self-only coverage consists of a total of 42 measures—29 clinical measures, which encompass health care topics of clinical effectiveness, prevention, access and efficiency; and 13 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems® (CAHPS) survey measures, which encompass topics such as member experiences with the QHP, providers and health care services, including preventive care. The QRS measure set addresses the essential health benefits for which health plan measures are currently available. The majority (76 percent) of the measures are presently NQF-endorsed and address all six National Quality Strategy priorities. Approximately, 83 percent of the QRS measures are included in at least one of the reviewed Federally-established measure sets (for example, Office of Personnel Management Federal Employee Health Benefit (OPM FEHB), CMS Medicare Stars, CMS Adult Medicaid Core Set,
The Child-only QRS measure set consists of a total of 25 measures—15 clinical measures and 10 CAHPS measures. The Child-only measure set includes a combination of process and outcome measures. The Child-only QRS measure set addresses many of the essential health benefits. The majority of the measures (84 percent) are NQF-endorsed and largely address the six National Quality Strategy priorities. Approximately 80 percent of the measures are included in either the OPM FEHB Set or the CMS Initial Children's Core Set. As with the QRS measure set, the remaining measures in
The Performance Information component of the QRS framework guided the proposed structure and hierarchy, as well as the measures that will be included within each level of the hierarchy. In order to be most useful to consumers, rating systems that can present a large collection of measures must be organized into a hierarchical structure. We considered organizing the measures in a manner to maximize the approachability and understandability of the information provided by the QRS. We are proposing hierarchical structures for the QRS and Child-only QRS that allow consumers to easily use information from the QRS in their health plan comparisons for selection of a QHP in the Exchange. We solicit comments on the proposed hierarchical structures outlined in Tables 3 and 4 below.
The fundamental building block of the QRS structure is the individual indicator or measure. The hierarchical structures include composites, which represent the combination of two or more individual indicators or measures that result in a single score. Measures are grouped into composites so large amounts of information can be streamlined and reported in formats that are easy for consumers to comprehend. Grouping measures into composites also helps to reduce random variability, differentiate performance across health plans and provide meaningful information to the consumer. Not all measures in the QRS are part of a composite. Table 3 provides the organization of the proposed QRS measure set for family/adult self-only coverage. The QRS organizes measures and composites into a set of eight domains that represent unique and important aspects of quality: (1) Clinical Effectiveness, (2) Patient Safety, (3) Care Coordination, (4) Prevention, (5) Access, (6) Doctor and Care, (7) Efficiency and Affordability (8) Plan Services. The domains are grouped into three summary indicators which align with CMS priority areas: (1) Clinical Quality Management; (2) Member Experience; and (3) Plan Efficiency, Affordability and Management. The summary indicators organize the domains into broad categories that the consumer may use when evaluating health plan options. All three summary indicators would then be grouped into a single Global Rating. The Global Rating is a score that summarizes all measures, composites and domains in the hierarchical structure of the QRS.
The hierarchical structure for the proposed Child-only QRS is similar to the proposed QRS. The 25 measures of the Child-only QRS provide the basic foundation of the structure. Not all measures in the Child-only QRS are part of a composite. Table 4 below provides the organization of the proposed Child-only QRS measure set. The Child-only QRS organizes measures and composites into a set of seven domains: (1) Care Coordination, (2) Clinical Effectiveness, (3) Prevention, (4) Access, (5) Doctor and Care, (6) Efficiency and Affordability (7), and Plan Service. The domains are grouped into the same three summary indicators as the QRS: (1) Clinical Quality Management; (2) Member Experience; and (3) Plan Efficiency, Affordability and Management. All three summary indicators would then be grouped into a single Global Child-only Rating.
Once the QRS measures are organized and the hierarchical structure is established, the QRS rating methodology would combine health plan measure scores into performance ratings using a set of rules and formulae. We solicit comments on the proposed six elements of the Rating Methodology component that will guide the calculation of the ratings (refer to Section I for the definitions of the elements of the Rating Methodology component). The six elements of the proposed Rating Methodology are grouped within three broad categories (Measure Scoring Rules, Aggregation Rules, and Reference Standards). See Table 5.
Measure Scoring Rules will standardize the individual measure scores so that scores are on the same scale (for example, all percentiles) and can be combined meaningfully. Aggregation Rules will be used to combine measures to create quality constructs, such as diabetes care or preventive health. Reference Standards will determine how scores are converted to categorical ratings (for example, star groups on a scale of one to five) that can be easily understood, compared, and used by consumers. We intend to publish, for review and comment, technical guidance that identifies further details regarding the Rating Methodology component, elements and measure specifications.
The QRS data strategy refers to how QRS data are collected, calculated, and submitted and will help to inform how data is displayed. We intend to develop a data strategy that would facilitate consistent data collection and calculation across QHPs; and help to ensure the integrity and accuracy of QRS ratings. We solicit comments on potential ways to enhance the QRS data strategy for QHP issuers. We intend to direct QHP issuers to submit validated data to ensure that QRS data displayed for public reporting are accurate, valid and comparable, and to allow consumers objective and meaningful comparisons of the QHPs' quality data. We believe that the ratings assigned must reflect true differences in quality. We intend to display Global Ratings using a five-star scale. While it is our intention for all QHPs in Exchanges to have publicly available ratings, some QHPs may have missing data due to data quality issues or low enrollment in the initial years.
We plan to use a full-scale rule at the global and summary indicator levels, so that these scores are true representations of what they are intended to represent. This method allows the consumer to compare Global Ratings with the important concepts at highest levels of the hierarchy represented (refer to Table 3 for proposed QRS structure). Therefore, we are considering that, for QHPs that are missing any of the domain ratings used for creating the Member Experience or Plan Efficiency, Cost Reduction and Management summary indicators would not have an associated summary indicator rating publically displayed. For the Clinical Quality Management indicator, QHPs must have the Care Coordination, Clinical Effectiveness, and Prevention domains present to have the summary indicator rating publically displayed. We have conducted preliminary testing that demonstrates that a Clinical Quality summary indicator can be reported as long as Care Coordination, Clinical Effectiveness, and Prevention domains are present even if the Patient Safety domain is not reportable because this domain did not impact QHP comparability. We believe that Patient Safety is important to measure and it is a CMS priority. We plan to further develop this domain of the QRS as more health-plan patient safety measures become available. We are also proposing that a Global Rating will be displayed only when all three summary indicator ratings are available. For the lower levels of the hierarchy, the half-scale rule would be applied, meaning that at a minimum, half of the components of the domain or composite must be present for the rating to be displayed. Thus, if a domain is composed of three composites, two would have to be present for it to be displayed or if a composite is composed of two measures at least one would have to be present for it to be displayed. Specifically, we solicit comment to inform future technical guidance regarding the full-scale and half-scale rules described as well as any additional ways to address data quality issues or potential low enrollment in QHPs in the initial years.
We solicit comments to inform future technical guidance on priority areas for additional measure enhancements and development of the QRS. We intend to continually monitor the QRS and make necessary adjustments to ensure that the methodology and measures remain consistent with the intended goals and principles of the QRS. As advancements in health plan quality measurement and reporting are made, we will consider ways in which the QRS may evolve (such as the potential selection of measures that are reportable through disease registries or all-payer claims databases). In addition, we will consider potential factors for the retirement of measures.
As the Exchanges mature and enrollment in QHPs expands, we will consider reporting the QRS at more granular levels (that is, QHP metal levels as defined in section 1302(d)(1) of the Affordable Care Act). We will also consider the development of a quality rating system applicable to other Exchange offerings, such as stand-alone dental plans, catastrophic plans and health care saving accounts.
This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. However, it does make reference to an information collection activity. The aforementioned Enrollee Satisfaction Survey is currently seeking OMB approval via notice and comment periods separate from this proposed notice. The 60-day
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: CAPT Michael Montello, Pharm. D., MBA, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Operations and Informatics Branch, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 or call non-toll-free number 240-276-6080 or Email your request, including your address to:
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 2,199.
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: Michael Montello, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 or call non-toll-free number 240-276-6080 or Email your request, including your address to:
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 25,205.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant to Thirsty Brook Bioscience, Inc., of an exclusive evaluation option license to practice the inventions embodied in the following US Patent Applications (and all continuing applications and foreign counterparts): Serial No. 61/622,6008 entitled, “Chimeric Antigen Receptors Targeting B-cell Maturation Antigen” [HHS Ref. E-040-2012/0-US-01]. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the Government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive evaluation option license territory may be worldwide, and the field of use may be limited to:
“The research, development, and manufacture of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-expressing human T-cells directed against B-cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA) for the treatment of multiple myeloma.”
Upon the expiration or termination of the exclusive evaluation option license, Thirsty Brook Bioscience, Inc. will have the exclusive right to execute an exclusive commercialization license which will supersede and replace the exclusive evaluation option license with no greater field of use and territory than granted in the exclusive evaluation option license.
Only written comments or applications for a license (or both) which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before December 4, 2013 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive evaluation option license should be directed to: Patrick McCue, Ph.D., Licensing and Patenting Manager, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 435-5560; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; Email:
The invention concerns a series of CARs that specifically target BCMA (a.k.a. CD269), a protein that is highly expressed on the surface of multiple myeloma cells. The patent rights include claims to vectors incorporating the CARs, as well as methods of destroying multiple myeloma cells using T-cells engineered to express a CAR.
The prospective exclusive evaluation option license is being considered under the small business initiative launched on 1 October 2011, and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The prospective exclusive evaluation option license, and a subsequent exclusive commercialization license, may be granted unless the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice.
Complete applications for a license in the field of use filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive evaluation option license. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 09, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 09, 2013, 06:00 p.m., Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, which was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2013, 78 FR 57169.
The meeting will be held at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 on December 19, 2013, starting at 12:00 p.m. and ending at 05:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, October 10, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 10, 2013, 12:00 p.m., Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published in the
The notice is amended to change the date of the meeting from October 10, 2013 to December 17, 2013. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Developmental Brain Disorders Study Section, October 24, 2013, 08:00 a.m. to October 25, 2013, 05:00 p.m., Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20037 which was published in the
The meeting will be on November 26, 2013 from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, December 18, 2013, 2:00 p.m. to December 18, 2013, 3:15 p.m., National Institute of Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the
The meeting was entitled Member Conflict.
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(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the President's Cancer Panel.
The meeting will be open to the public, 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.
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:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, November 21, 2013, 12:00 p.m. to November 21, 2013, 5:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An. 18, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will start on November 21, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. and end November 21, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 03, 2013, 12:00 p.m. to October 03, 2013, 03:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the Federal Register on September 05, 2013, 78 FR 54665.
The meeting will be held on November 25, 2013 from 04:30 p.m. to 07:30 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.
Notice of public listening sessions.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in coordination with the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is announcing a series of public listening sessions and webinars to solicit comments and suggestions from stakeholders on issues pertaining to Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security (Executive Order [EO] 13650).
The public listening sessions will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the following dates: November 19, 2013, and December 11, 2013. Online webinars will be hosted November 25, 2013, and December 16, 2013. Additional listening sessions may be scheduled in December 2013 and January 2014. We will notify the public of the date(s), time(s), location(s), and other details of any such session(s) as soon as we have information available. Previous public listening sessions were held November 5, 2013 and November 15, 2013.
The public listening sessions will be held at the following locations:
• November 19, 2013, Illinois Emergency Management Agency, 2200 Dirksen Parkway, Springfield, IL 62703; and
• December 11, 2013, Valencia Criminal Justice Institute, 8600 Valencia College Lane, Auditorium-150, Orlando, FL 32825.
• November 5, 2013, College of the Mainland, 1200 Amburn Road, Texas City, TX 77591, Learning Resource Center, Room 131; and
• November 15, 2013, GSA's ROB Auditorium, 301 7th Street SW., (7th and D Streets), Washington, DC 20407.
Submit written comments to the DHS Docket Office, Docket No. DHS-2013-0075, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Comments will also be accepted by email at:
For further information please email:
On August 1, 2013, President Obama issued EO 13650 to improve chemical facility safety and security. The Working Group charged with implementing the EO is co-chaired by DHS, DOL, and EPA, and includes participation from the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, and Transportation.
Obtaining stakeholder input is critical to the success of the EO. To that end, the EO Working Group is scheduling public listening sessions around the country, as well as several Webinars. Attendees will have an opportunity to provide input EO related on topics such as: Improving operational coordination with Federal, state, tribal, and local partners; enhanced information
The Working Group is interested in obtaining information from the public on key issues impacting the EO. In particular, the EO Working Group seeks comments on the following:
• Improving operational coordination with state, tribal, and local partners;
• Enhanced information collection and sharing;
• Modernizing regulations, guidance, and policies; and
• Identifying best practices in chemical facility safety and security.
Regardless of attendance at the public listening sessions and Webinars, interested persons may submit comments to the DHS Docket Office, Docket No. DHS-2013-0075, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Comments will also be accepted by email at:
Participants that do speak will be asked to provide their name, title, company and stakeholder segment (i.e. chemical producers, chemical storage companies, agricultural supply companies, state and local regulators, chemical critical infrastructure owners and operators, first responders, labor organizations representing affected workers, environmental and community groups, and consensus standards organizations). Notes from the listening sessions will be posted at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
General notice.
This notice announces modifications and clarifications pertaining to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) Entry Summary, Accounts and Revenue (ESAR IV) test program concerning the processing of post-summary corrections (PSCs) to entry summaries that are filed in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). The modifications to the ESAR IV test program will allow filers greater access to data filed in ACE as it relates to the original entry and any subsequent PSC, limit certain additional data elements from being changed via PSC, and preclude a PSC on any entry that has been protested or where merchandise covered by the original entry has been conditionally released and its right to admission has not been determined. This notice also clarifies bond obligations when a PSC has been filed, CBP's authority to reject a PSC, and the meaning of certain terms as they relate to the ESAR IV test.
The ESAR IV test modifications will go into effect December 19, 2013, and will continue until concluded by way of announcement in the
Comments concerning this notice should be submitted via email to Monica Crockett at
For policy-related questions, contact Virginia McPherson via email at
Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) prototypes are tested in accordance with § 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)), which provides for the testing of National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) components. A chronological listing of
In a notice published in the
Under the terms of the original ESAR IV test, as set forth in Subsection II.H of that document (76 FR 37138), the full content of the original entry summary was to be provided only to the filer of that entry summary. A subsequently filed PSC was deemed to fully replace the original entry summary, and full information with respect to the PSC was only available to the filer of the PSC and the filer of the original entry summary did not have access to the new filing. Similarly, if a second PSC was filed, it fully replaced the previously filed PSC and full information was accessible only to the filer of the second PSC. The filer of the original entry summary or the filer of the previously filed PSC were notified that a new replacement entry
CBP received considerable feedback from the trade community and test participants regarding the opportunity for increased access to information in PSCs. In response to the test participants' requests for greater access, and after due consideration, CBP has determined it will modify the ESAR IV test to allow the original entry summary filer, and any subsequent PSC filer, full access to all entry summary data contained in a subsequent PSC. Therefore, by running a report or query in ACE, any filer can see the complete entry summary data as modified by a PSC.
Under the terms and conditions of the modification announced in this notice, when a PSC is filed, the filer of the original entry summary will be notified that the entry summary has been fully replaced by a PSC and the original filer will have full access to the new filing. Similarly, if a subsequent PSC is filed, it fully replaces the previously filed PSC, and the filer of the first PSC will be notified that a new replacement entry summary has been filed and will have full access to the new filing. All of the information in the latest version of the entry summary and all subsequent PSCs will be accessible to all of the filers.
By participating under the terms and conditions of this test, importers and filers acknowledge that by filing a PSC they are making any commercial and confidential business information contained within the PSC available to all the parties described in this test,
It is noted that the recordkeeping obligations set forth in 76 FR 37138 remain unchanged (
The ESAR IV test notice, in Subsection II.E of that document (76 FR 37138), listed data elements that cannot be changed via PSC. This notice announces the following three additional data elements that cannot be changed via PSC:
• Date of Entry
• Bond
• Surety Code
The ESAR IV test notice, in Subsection II.D of that document (76 FR 37137), listed criteria and rules for filing a PSC. This notice announces two new criteria and one modification to an existing criterion. The new criteria are as follows:
• A PSC cannot be made on entries that have been protested; and
• A PSC cannot be made when any merchandise covered by the original entry has been conditionally released and its right to admission has not been determined.
The modified criterion reflects that where a PSC results in a formal (type 01) entry being changed/corrected to indicate it is an Antidumping/Countervailing (type 03) entry, or if a PSC for a change/correction to a type 03 entry results in additional AD/CVD duties due, the importer of record must deposit the associated AD/CVD duties (or bond, if allowed) at the same time the PSC is filed and failure to file the deposit of the duties (or bond, if allowed) will result in rejection of the PSC and may result in liquidated damages. Such failure may also subject the importer to penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592, or the broker to penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1641, as the facts and circumstances warrant. This is a change from the terms of the original ESAR IV test, where a failure to file the deposit of duties did not result in a rejection of the PSC.
The ESAR IV test program did not address the subject of bonds and bonding as affected by a PSC. To provide clarity in this area, and affirm that for purposes of the ESAR IV test program the same bond and surety remain on an entry for which a PSC is filed, this notice announces the following ESAR IV bonding guidelines:
• If, prior to a PSC filing, a bond is filed pursuant to 19 CFR 142.4(b), or 19 CFR 141.20 (as authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1485(d)), that bond will continue to be obligated for the entry. All obligations vesting under the original entry, prior to the filing of a PSC, remain vested and are not obviated by a subsequent PSC filing.
• If a PSC is filed and accepted by CBP, the bond obligated at the time of entry, as well as any subsequent replacement bonds or superseding bonds, remain obligated for the original entry and the entry summary against which the PSC was filed.
• New bond data will not be accepted through a PSC.
While not explicitly stated in the ESAR IV test notice published in the
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1504(a), consumption entries are “deemed liquidated” at a rate of duty, value, quantity and amount of duties asserted by the importer of record. For purposes of the ESAR IV test, CBP interprets the statutory phrase “deemed liquidation” to mean rate of duty, value, quantity and amount of duties asserted at the time of acceptance of the PSC.
This notice announces the following definitions for purposes of the ESAR IV test program:
•
•
A chronological listing of
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of initiation of review; request for information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are initiating a 5-year review under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), of the vicuña. A 5-year review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. We are requesting submission of information that has become available since the last review of the species.
To ensure consideration, please send your written information by January 21, 2014. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.
Please submit your information in writing to the Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, by any one of the following methods:
•
•
For more about submitting information, see “What Information Do We Consider in Our Review?” and “Request for Information” under
Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
In conducting a 5-year review, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as:
(A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
(B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
(C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
(D) Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in Section 4(a)(1) of the Act); and
(E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
New information will be considered in the 5-year review and ongoing recovery programs for the species.
This notice announces our review of the vicuña (
On October 5, 1995, we received a petition from the President of the International Vicuña Consortium, an association of companies in the fiber industry, requesting that the vicuña be removed from the U.S. list of endangered and threatened wildlife, or reclassified with a special rule that would allow for commercial trade that would benefit the conservation of the species. The petitioners cited, among other things, improved management of vicuña populations and improved enforcement and trade controls. Our 90-day finding on whether the petition presented substantial information and our 12-month finding on whether the petitioned action was warranted were subsumed within a proposed rule, which was published in the
In a final rule published on May 30, 2002 (67 FR 37695), we reclassified the populations of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru as threatened under the Act. We also established a special rule (under Section 4(d) of the Act) allowing the importation into the United States of legal fiber and legal products produced with fiber from vicuña populations listed as threatened under the Act and in Appendix II of CITES, if certain conditions were satisfied by the exporting or re-exporting country. We retained as endangered under the Act the recently introduced vicuña population of Ecuador, treated as a distinct population segment under the Act in accordance with the Service's Policy on Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996).
Effective June 12, 2013, the CITES Parties adopted a proposal that transferred the whole vicuña population of Ecuador from Appendix I to Appendix II. According to the CITES annotation, the revised Appendix II listing refers only to specific populations of Argentina (the populations of the Provinces of Jujuy and Catamarca and the semi-captive populations of the Provinces of Jujuy, Salta, Catamarca, La Rioja, and San Juan), Chile (population of the Primera Región), Ecuador (the whole population), Peru (the whole population), and the Plurinational State of Bolivia (the whole population); all other populations are included in Appendix I.
To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See “What Information Do We Consider In Our Review?” for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your submission, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. Although you can request that personal information be withheld from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the office where the comments are submitted.
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 1-16, and Part 65 of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, that a meeting of the Landmarks Committee of the National Park System Advisory Board will be held beginning at 9:00 a.m. on December 17, 2013, in Washington, DC. The meeting will continue beginning at 9:00 a.m. on December 18, 2013.
The meeting will be held on December 17, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and December 18 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.
Patricia Henry, Historian, National
The purpose of the meeting of the Landmarks Committee of the National Park System Advisory Board is to evaluate nominations of historic properties in order to advise the National Park System Advisory Board of the qualifications of each property being proposed for National Historic Landmark (NHL) designation, and to make recommendations regarding the possible designation of those properties as National Historic Landmarks to the National Park System Advisory Board at a subsequent meeting at a place and time to be determined. The Committee also makes recommendations to the National Park System Advisory Board regarding amendments to existing designations and proposals for withdrawal of designation. The members of the Landmarks Committee are:
The meeting will be open to the public. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 65, any member of the public may file, for consideration by the Landmarks Committee of the National Park System Advisory Board, written comments concerning the National Historic Landmarks nominations, amendments to existing designations, or proposals for withdrawal of designation.
Comments should be submitted to J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks Program, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, email:
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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigations, scheduling of public hearing, and opportunity to provide written submissions.
Following receipt of a request dated September 30, 2013 (received October 17, 2013) from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332(g)), the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission) instituted four investigations for the purpose of providing the requested information: investigation No. 332-542,
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
For information with respect to specific investigations:
(1) Investigation No. 332-542, Project Leader Joanna Bonarriva (202-205-3312 or
(2) Investigation No. 332-544, Project Leader Kathryn Lundquist (202-205-2563 or
(3) Investigation No. 332-545, Project Leader Deborah McNay (202-205-3425 or
(4) Investigation No. 332-546, Project Leader David Riker (202-205-2201 or
For information on the legal aspect of each of these investigations, contact William Gearhart of the Commission's Office of the General Counsel (202-205-3091 or
In its first report (investigation No. 332-542), the Commission will, as requested by the USTR, address the following topics for sub-Saharan African countries, as defined in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) (AGOA), and, where applicable, those AGOA beneficiary countries that are designated as lesser developed beneficiary countries, covering the period 2000-13:
• AGOA trade performance, utilization and competitiveness factors, including (1) a review of the literature on the AGOA preference program, in terms of expanding and diversifying the exports of AGOA beneficiary countries to the United States, compared to preference programs offered by third parties such as the EU; (2) identification of non-crude petroleum sectors (i.e., manufacturing and agricultural) in AGOA beneficiary countries in which exports to the United States, under AGOA and under the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences program, have increased the most, in absolute terms, since 2000, and the key factors behind this growth; (3) a description of the main factors affecting AGOA trade in the principal non-crude petroleum products that AGOA beneficiary countries export and that the United States principally imports from non-sub-Saharan African sources; and (4) based on a review of literature, identification of products with potential for integration into regional or global supply chains, and export potential to the United States under AGOA, as well as factors that affect AGOA beneficiary countries' competitiveness in these sectors.
• AGOA's effects on the business and investment climate in sub-Saharan Africa, including (1) the identification and description of changes, if any, in the business and investment climates in sub-Saharan African countries since 2000, including removal of barriers to domestic and foreign investment; and (2) a description of U.S. goods and services-related investment trends in sub-Saharan African countries since 2000 and a comparison of these trends with investments by other countries in sub-Saharan African countries, including investments by the EU, China, Brazil, and India, and identification of any links between these investment trends and the AGOA program.
• Current or potential reciprocal trade agreements between sub-Saharan African and non-sub-Saharan African partners and the relationship of these agreements to the objectives of AGOA, including (1) a list of reciprocal trade agreements that sub-Saharan African countries have completed or are under negotiation, a brief description of areas covered or likely to be covered under the agreements, and identification of U.S. sectors/products impacted or potentially impacted, including any tariff differentials; and (2) examples of developing countries that have moved from unilateral trade preferences to reciprocal trade agreements, and any effects of the change for the developing country in terms of expansion and diversification of its trade.
The Commission will deliver this first report to the USTR by April 17, 2014. The USTR also stated that it intends to make this report public.
In its second report the Commission will, as requested by the USTR, provide an assessment of the economic effects of providing duty-free treatment for imports of products from AGOA beneficiary countries on U.S. industries producing like or directly competitive products and on U.S. consumers. The report will include an assessment of the economic effect on U.S. industries and consumers of imports of articles already eligible for duty-free treatment under AGOA, as well as an assessment of the probable economic effect on U.S. industries and consumers of the extension of duty-free treatment to the remaining articles in chapters 1 through 97 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). The assessment will take into account implementation of U.S. commitments in the World Trade Organization and will be based on the HTS in effect during 2013 and trade data for 2012.
The Commission will provide this second report to the USTR by April 17, 2014. The USTR stated that this report will be classified.
As requested by the USTR, in its third report the Commission will, to the extent practicable, identify possible changes to the rules of origin under AGOA that could have the potential to promote regional integration and increase exports to the United States, and the leading manufactured or processed goods (non-petroleum) which might benefit from such changes.
The Commission will provide this third report to the USTR by April 30, 2014. The USTR stated that this report will be classified.
As requested by the USTR, in its fourth report the Commission will, to the extent practicable, provide an assessment of the impact of the EU-South Africa Free Trade Agreement on U.S. exports to South Africa.
This analysis will also identify the U.S. sectors/products with potential for increased U.S. exports if South Africa were to reduce its MFN tariffs for those U.S. products to the tariff levels of the EU-South Africa FTA.
The Commission will provide this fourth report to the USTR by April 17, 2014. The USTR stated that this report will be classified.
The USTR indicated that those sections of the Commission's three confidential reports that relate to assessments and analyses will be classified. The USTR also indicated that he considers the Commission's three confidential reports to be inter-agency memoranda that will contain pre-decisional advice and be subject to the deliberative process privilege.
Any submissions that contain confidential business information (CBI) must also conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge has issued a Final Initial Determination and Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting comments on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief, specifically the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) recommended by the ALJ. This notice is soliciting public interest comments from the public only. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
Jia Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-4737. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on September 30, 2013. Comments should address whether issuance of a LEO in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the LEO would impact consumers in the United States. Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on November 21, 2013.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-850”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page.
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.50).
By order of the Commission.
On November 13, 2013, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana 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 $36.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
On July 17, 2012, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Wheatland Pharmacy (Applicant), of Dallas, Texas. The Show Cause Order proposed the denial of Applicant's pending application for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a retail pharmacy on the ground that its registration “would be inconsistent with the public interest,” as defined in 21 U.S.C. 823(f). GX 7, at 1.
The Show Cause Order alleged that on September 29, 2010, the Administrator issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration to Applicant, and that, on January 18, 2011, Applicant voluntarily surrendered its previous registration.
Thereafter, Applicant apparently requested a hearing on the allegations and the matter was placed on the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges. However, on October 4, 2012, Applicant moved for a stay of the proceeding pending action on its request to withdraw its application, and on October 5, 2012, the ALJ granted the motion. GX 14, at 1.
On November 7, 2012, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, denied Applicant's request to withdraw. GX 13, at 1. Thereafter, on November 26, 2012, Applicant filed with the ALJ a letter waiving its right to a hearing, citing 21 CFR 1301.43(e). GX 13, at 3. The next day, the ALJ found that Applicant had waived its right to a hearing; the ALJ thus lifted the stay of the proceeding and ordered that the proceeding be terminated. GX 14.
On June 12, 2013, the Government filed a Request for Final Agency Action and the Investigative Record with this Office. Req. for Final Agency Action, at 14. Therein, the Government requests that I deny Applicant's pending
Applicant is a pharmacy located at 3207 Kirnwood Drive, Suite 116, Dallas, Texas, which is owned and operated by Lynn Michelle Clark, a registered pharmacist. GX 3;
On November 3, 2009, a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) conducted a pre-registration investigation of Applicant. GX B, at 2. On November 13, 2009, Applicant was issued DEA Certificate of Registration FW1734309, which authorized it to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a retail pharmacy. GX 2.
On May 7, 2010, Ms. Clark contacted the DEA-Dallas Field Division to report that the day before, a van arrived at Applicant carrying approximately twenty-seven (27) persons, each of whom presented prescriptions for the same three controlled substances: hydrocodone, alprazolam, and promethazine with codeine syrup. GX B, at 2. These prescriptions were all purportedly issued by a Physician's Assistant (PA) who worked for a medical clinic in Houston, Texas, approximately 239 miles away.
Ms. Clark also reported that on May 7, another twenty (20) persons had arrived in a van and presented prescriptions, which were also purportedly issued by the same PA and were for the same controlled substances.
Ms. Clark told a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) that she had contacted the PA and was told that the prescriptions were valid. GX B, at 2-3. However, the DI later determined that Ms. Clark's statement was false.
On May 10, 2010, a DEA Special Agent (SA) and a Task Force Officer (TFO) interviewed Ms. Clark at Applicant. GX C, at 2. According to the SA's affidavit, Ms. Clark “chang[ed] her story several times” and “finally admitted that all of the prescriptions . . . purportedly issued by the PA had been brought to the pharmacy from May 5 through May 7, 2010, not by individual patients, but by one individual later identified” by the alias of SF.
On May 14, 2010, the SA and TFO returned to Applicant.
On June 23, 2010, Agents from DEA and TSBP executed a search warrant at Applicant.
The Government submitted evidence of prescriptions for fifteen different patients, all of which were purportedly issued by the PA at the Houston-based clinic, located 239 miles from Applicant.
As part of the record, the Government submitted evidence showing that on May 5 and 6, 2010, Applicant filled the following prescriptions for twenty-four controlled substances, each of which was purportedly issued by the PA at the Houston clinic on May 4, 2010:
1. For SF: 120 Lortab 10/500 mg (hydrocodone/acetaminophen, a schedule III controlled substance), 240 ml of promethazine/codeine syrup (a schedule III controlled substance), and 90 Xanax 2 mg (a schedule IV controlled substance), along with amoxicillin (a non-controlled drug), for a stated diagnosis of chronic pain/anxiety/bronchitis. GX 6, at 3.
2. For BJW: 120 Norco 10/325 mg (hydrocodone and acetaminophen), 240 ml promethazine/codeine, and 90 Xanax 2 mg, as well as folic acid, for chronic pain/anxiety/bronchitis.
3. For WH: 120 Lortab 10/500 mg, 240 ml promethazine/codeine, 90 Xanax 2 mg, along with Lovastatin (a non-controlled drug), for chronic pain/anxiety/bronchitis. This prescription bore a handwritten note stating: “verified Michael Reed, RN.”
4. For HL: 120 Norco 10/325 mg, 240 ml promethazine/codeine, 90 Xanax 2 mg, along with Pravastatin (a non-controlled drug), for chronic pain/anxiety/bronchitis.
5. For LY: 120 Lortab 10/500 mg, 240 ml promethazine/codeine, 90 Xanax 2 mg, and amoxicillin, again for chronic pain/anxiety/bronchitis.
6. For DSD: 120 Norco10/325 mg, 240 ml promethazine/codeine, 90 Xanax 2 mg, and Lovastatin, for chronic pain/anxiety/bronchitis.
7. For SJ: 120 Lortab 10/500 mg, 240 ml promethazine/codeine, 90 Xanax 2 mg, and folic acid for chronic pain/anxiety/bronchitis.
A patient profile from Applicant also establishes that on May 5 and 6, 2010, Ms. Clark dispensed to LH 120 hydrocodone/apap 10/500 mg, 240 ml promethazine/codeine syrup, and 90 alprazolam 2 mg, along with Lovastatin, with the same PA's name listed as the doctor.
The record includes evidence including prescriptions,
Ms. Clark filled the June 2010 prescriptions after she told the SA that the PA had personally informed her that the prescriptions were fraudulent. Moreover, Ms. Clark filled the prescriptions, notwithstanding that the SA had previously told her to stop filling the PA's prescriptions. GX C, at 4; GX 6, at 11-22, 33-77.
A TSPB Investigator presented copies of the above-referenced prescriptions and other records from Applicant to the PA at the Houston clinic for her review. GX A, at 3. After reviewing these records, the PA provided affidavits wherein she stated that she “did not write a prescription for, call in . . . or by any other means cause the authorization for” each patient listed above.
During the execution of the search warrant, the DI, along with TSPB investigators, conducted a closing inventory of controlled substances. GX B, at 3. In her affidavit, the DI stated that Ms. Clark signed the closing inventory sheet attesting to its accuracy, and that she later used that inventory in an accountability audit she conducted of Applicant's handling of six hydrocodone products from November 13, 2009 through June 23, 2010.
The DI also stated that her review of prescriptions seized from Applicant revealed that it filled controlled substance prescriptions that were not properly executed by the prescribing practitioner (
As noted above, on September 29, 2010, the Administrator issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OTSC-ISO) to Applicant. GX 4, at 1-3. On October 4, 2010, Applicant's owner was personally served with the OTSC-ISO, and all controlled substances at Applicant were seized by the DEA Dallas field office. GX C, at 4. The OTSC-ISO specified that Applicant's registration was “suspended, effective immediately,” and would remain suspended until a final determination in the matter was reached. GX 4, at 3. On January 18, 2011, Applicant voluntarily surrendered its registration. GX 5;
On July 7, 2011, Applicant re-applied for a registration. GX 3.
On August 14, 2012, DEA was alerted by the Pharmacy Buying Association (PBA), a pharmaceutical distributing company, that Applicant ordered 1,000 tablets of carisoprodol, a schedule IV controlled substance in Texas,
On August 30, 2012, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) performed a registrant inspection of Applicant. GX A, at 3. The state inspector found that on October 4, 2010, Applicant had dispensed 30 capsules of Lyrica.
Later that day, a state search warrant was executed at Applicant by local law enforcement entities and DEA personnel. GX C, at 6. During the search, the officers seized prescription vials labeled as containing hydrocodone, propoxyphene napsylate, lorazepam and Lyrica, pharmacy receipt labels, prescriptions for controlled substances, and controlled substance dispensing records.
During the search, the Officers found controlled substance prescriptions from various doctors on Applicant's fax machine. GX C, at 8. When asked about the prescriptions, Ms. Clark asserted that she transferred them to other pharmacies to fill, and that she would sometimes bring the filled controlled-substance prescriptions back to Applicant and put them with the non-controlled substance prescriptions to be dispensed or delivered.
In his affidavit, the SA stated that Applicant was dispensing controlled substances to clients classified as home healthcare service providers through August 2012. GX C, at 8. He also stated that he had interviewed the program director and medical assistant at BCA, a home healthcare provider, and was told that Applicant “delivered controlled substances to BCA for dispensing to BCA's clients,” and that it “was the sole provider of all prescriptions filled for BCA.”
However, the record also includes a statement from the Medical Assistant. GX 11. Therein, the Medical Assistant stated that “since [she] returned to the Grand Prairie office on May 1st 2012, all the medications received from Wheatland pharmacy, all had labels from Wheatland pharmacy, controlled and non-controlled medications.”
During the interview, BCA's medical assistant showed the SA a prescription blister pack for 60 tablets of lorazepam .5mg; the label affixed to the pack establishes that Applicant dispensed the drugs on August 1, 2012.
Pursuant to section 303(f) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), “[t]he Attorney General may deny an application for [a practitioner's] registration . . . if the Attorney General determines that the issuance of such registration would be inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f);
(1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(2) The Applicant's experience in dispensing . . . controlled substances.
(3) The Applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
“These factors are to be considered in the disjunctive.”
The Government has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that grounds exist to deny the application pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f). 21 CFR 1301.44(d). This is so even in a non-contested case.
Having considered all of the factors, I conclude that the Government's evidence with respect to Applicant's experience in dispensing controlled substances (factor two) and its compliance with applicable state and federal laws relating to controlled substances (factor four), establishes a
Applicant currently holds a pharmacy license issued by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy and a Controlled Substance Registration issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety. As found above, in 2009 the TSBP issued an Order suspending Applicant's license on the basis of a felony offense of theft of services in 1991. The Board then probated the suspension, conditioned
DEA has long held, however, that a State's failure to take action against an applicant's pharmacy license or controlled substance registration (where such registration is also required) is not dispositive in determining whether the continuation of a registration is in the public interest.
Under a longstanding DEA regulation, a prescription for a controlled substance is unlawful unless it has been “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a). This regulation further provides that while “[t]he responsibility for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances is upon the prescribing practitioner, . . .
DEA has consistently interpreted this provision “as prohibiting a pharmacist from filling a prescription for a controlled substance when [s]he either `knows or has reason to know that the prescription was not written for a legitimate medical purpose.'”
Similarly, under the TSBP's regulations, a pharmacist is required to “exercise sound professional judgment with respect to the accuracy and authenticity of any prescription drug order dispensed.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 291.29(a). Moreover, “[a] pharmacist shall not dispense a prescription drug if the pharmacist knows or should have known that the order for such drug was issued without a valid pre-existing patient-practitioner relationship.”
Here, the evidence shows that Ms. Clark, Applicant's owner and pharmacist, clearly knew or had reason to know that the prescriptions presented on May 6, 2010 by SF, which were purportedly issued by the Houston-based PA for some twenty-seven patients, each of whom received the same three controlled substances (hydrocodone/acetaminophen, promethazine with codeine cough syrup, and alprazolam), were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose. 21 CFR 1306.04(a). Ms. Clark had ample reason to know that the prescriptions were not legitimate given that the PA, whose prescription pad had been used, practiced in Houston, approximately 240 miles from Applicant; each of the persons received the same combination of controlled substances; and Ms. Clark eventually admitted that all of the prescriptions had been brought to Applicant by SF. Ms. Clark nonetheless filled the prescriptions.
The following day, Ms. Clark again violated federal law by filling at least some of prescriptions for the same three controlled substances, which were purportedly issued in the name of twenty persons by the same Houston-based physician's assistant, whose prescriptions she filled the day before. Here again, the prescriptions were presented to Ms. Clark by SF, and here again, Ms. Clark falsely claimed that she verified the prescriptions with the PA's office. While Ms. Clark subsequently stated that she had not filled all of the prescriptions, she admitted to filling some of them. I thus hold that Ms. Clark violated federal law with respect to those prescriptions she did fill. 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); 21 CFR 1306.04(a).
On May 14, 2010, Ms. Clark told Investigators that the day before, KD, a known associate of SF, had brought in additional controlled substance prescriptions for alprazolam and either promethazine or hydrocodone, which were also purportedly issued by the same Houston-based PA. GX C, at 3. Ms. Clark told the Investigators that she did not fill the prescriptions because she had actually spoken with the PA and was told that the prescriptions were fraudulent. Moreover, during the interview, Ms. Clark was told not to fill any further prescriptions from the PA's clinic.
Notwithstanding that Ms. Clark had been told by the PA that the prescriptions that were being presented at her pharmacy were fraudulent (and had also been told by a DEA Agent not to fill them)—as if she needed to be told, given the circumstances of a single person presenting on multiple days, prescriptions for multiple controlled substances for more than forty patients, all of which were purportedly issued by a PA located nearly 240 miles away—she proceeded to fill additional prescriptions which were purportedly issued by the PA.
This, however, is not the only misconduct proved on this record, as there is substantial evidence showing that after Ms. Clark was served with the Immediate Suspension Order on October 4, 2010, she continued to dispense controlled substances and did so notwithstanding that the Order, in addition to its title, clearly stated that it was “effective immediately.” GX 4, at 3. More specifically, the evidence shows that Applicant dispensed ten prescriptions for controlled substances between October 7 and October 27, 2010. GX C, at 5. Moreover, the evidence showed that Applicant was still dispensing controlled substances in August 2012, even though Ms. Clark had voluntarily surrendered Applicant's DEA registration in January 2011.
Under the CSA, it is “unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally . . . to use in the course of the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance . . . a registration number which is revoked [or] suspended.” 21 U.S.C. 843(a). Also, “[e]very person who dispenses, or who proposes to dispense, any controlled substance, shall obtain from the Attorney General a registration issued in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by him.”
As for the three purchases of carisoprodol, as found above, all of these purchases occurred before the drug became a federally controlled substance on January 11, 2012.
Here again, it is clear that Ms. Clark and Applicant flagrantly violated federal law by dispensing controlled substance knowing that she and Applicant lacked authority to do so. While, by itself, Ms. Clark's egregious misconduct in dispensing the fraudulent prescriptions warrants the denial of Applicant's application, Ms. Clark's further misconduct in dispensing controlled substances when she lacked the authority to do so provides an additional basis which supports the conclusion that the issuance of a new registration to Applicant “would be inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Applicant waived its right to a hearing or to submit a written statement in lieu of hearing, there is no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, I will order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 28 CFR 0.104, I order that the application of Wheatland Pharmacy, for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a retail pharmacy, be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective immediately.
Pursuant to Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 7, 2013, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 781 Chestnut Ridge Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the company's own domestically-manufactured FDF. This analysis is required to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured FDF to foreign markets.
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II, which falls under the authority of section 1002(a)(2)(B) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(B)) may, in the circumstances set forth in 21 U.S.C. 958(i), file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODW), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than December 19, 2013.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
Pursuant to Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations 1301.34(a), this is notice that on September 18, 2013, GE Healthcare, 3350 North Ridge Avenue, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004-1412, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of Cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import small quantities of ioflupane, in the form of three separate analogues of Cocaine that will be used for the support and manufacture of DaTSCAN (ioflupane 1-123) injection for distribution as a radioactive diagnostic imaging agent utilized in the diagnosis of Parkinson's disease.
Any bulk manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic class of controlled substance listed in schedules I and II, which falls under the authority of section 1002(a)(2)(B) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2)(B)) may, in the circumstances set forth in 21 U.S.C. 958(i), file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43, and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODW), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than December 19, 2013.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with, and independent of, the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the
30-day Notice of Information Collection for Reinstatement.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division will be submitting the following information collection renewal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review in
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until December 19, 2013. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) 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 a 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 of other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Washington, DC 20530.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Submit comments on or before December 19, 2013.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks continued PRA authorization for the Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes Standard information collection requirements. The Standard requires performance of a monthly inspection on cranes and running ropes and preparation of a certification record for each inspection. A rope that has been idle for a month or more must undergo a thorough inspection and a certification record must be generated. Occupational Safety and Health Act sections 6(b)(7), 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7), and 8(c), 29 U.S.C. 657(c), authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2013. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL also notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Claim Adjudication Process for Alleged Presence of Pneumoconiosis” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Submit comments on or before December 19, 2013.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OWCP, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
In order to ensure full and meaningful public participation, this notice invites public comments to be submitted under the PRA about proposed updates to the Claim Adjudication Process for Alleged Presence of Pneumoconiosis information collection. Specifically, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Presence Sensing Device Initiation Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Submit comments on or before December 19, 2013.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to maintain PRA authority for information collections contained in the Presence Sensing Device (PSD) Initiation Standard. Regulations 29 CFR 1910.217(h) sets standards for using a PSD in a mechanical power-press safety system. A PSD (e.g., a photoelectric field or curtain) automatically stops the stroke of a mechanical power press when the device detects an operator entering a danger zone near the press. The PSD initiation standard contains a number of information collection requirements, including: Certifying brakemonitor adjustments, alternatives to photoelectric PSDs, safety system design and installation, and worker training; annual recertification of safety systems; establishing and maintaining the original certification and validation records, as well as the most recent recertification and revalidation records; affixing labels to test rods and to certified and recertified presses; and notifying an OSHA-recognized third-party validation organization when a safety system component fails, the employer modifies the safety system, or a point-of-operation injury occurs. Occupational Safety and Health Act sections 6(b)(7), 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7), and 8(c), 29 U.S.C. 657(c), authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2013. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL also notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
The first notice of this information collection request, as required by the Paperwork Reduction act, was published in the
Submit comments on or before December 19, 2013. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. We cannot guarantee that mailed comments will be received before the comment closing date.
Electronic mail comments may be submitted to: Gilbert Tran at
Comments may be mailed to Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, Room 6025, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
All responses will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also be a matter of public record.
Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, (202) 395-3052. The proposed revisions to the Information Collection Form, Form SF-SAC can be obtained by contacting the Office of Federal Financial Management as indicated above or by download from the OMB Grants Management home page on the Internet at
Pursuant to the May 9, 2013,
The Members of the National Council on Disability (NCD) will hold a quarterly meeting on Wednesday, December 4, 9:00 a.m.-5:15 p.m. (GMT), and Thursday, December 5, 2013, 9:00 a.m.-12:15 p.m. (GMT).
The meeting will occur in Topeka, Kansas at the Kansas State House in the Old Supreme Court Chambers, located at SW 10th and SW Jackson, Topeka, KS 66612. The quarterly meeting is available to the public to attend in-person or by phone. Those attending in person should be prepared to process through Kansas State House security upon entrance. Those interested in joining the meeting by phone in a listen-only capacity (with the exception of the public comment period) may access the proceedings by phone by using the following call-in number: 1-888-417-8533; Passcode/Conference ID: 3860992. If asked, the call host's name is Jeff Rosen.
The Council will receive reports from its standing committees; and receive panel presentations from policy experts on the topics of living with a disability in rural America, Kansas legislation on the rights of parents with disabilities, the Kansas Employment First initiative, and finally, on the topic of KanCare implementation. The Council will also receive public comment exclusively from Kansans on Day 1 and from all other interested parties on Day 2.
The times provided below are approximations for when each agenda item is anticipated to be discussed (all times CMT):
To better facilitate NCD's public comment periods, any individual interested in providing public comment will be asked to register their intent to provide comment in advance by sending an email to
Anne Sommers, NCD, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (V), 202-272-2074 (TTY).
A CART streamtext link has been arranged for each day of the board meeting. For Wednesday, beginning at 9:00 a.m., CMT, the web link to access CART is
Please note: To help reduce exposure to fragrances for those with multiple chemical sensitivities, NCD requests that all those attending the meeting in person please refrain from wearing scented personal care products such as perfumes, hairsprays, colognes, and deodorants.
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that twelve meetings of the Humanities Panel will be held during December, 2013 as follows. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 951-960, as amended).
See
The meetings will be held at the Old Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20506, unless otherwise indicated. See
Lisette Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 529, Washington, DC 20506, or call (202) 606-8322. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the National Endowment for the Humanities' TDD terminal at (202) 606-8282.
1. DATE: December 03, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 415.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Music and Performing Arts for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
2. DATE: December 04, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 402.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Scholarly Communications for the Digital Humanities Start Up Grants grant program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
3. DATE: December 05, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 402.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Research for the Digital Humanities Start Up Grants grant program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
4. DATE: December 05, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 415.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of American Studies for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
5. DATE: December 06, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 402.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Research for the Digital Humanities Start Up Grants grant program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
6. DATE: December 09, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 402.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Archives and Collections for the Digital Humanities Start Up Grants grant program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
7. DATE: December 10, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 415.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Historical Geography for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.
8. DATE: December 10, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 402.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Geospatial and Visualization for the Digital Humanities Start Up Grants grant program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
9. DATE: December 11, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 402.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of New Media for the Digital Humanities Start Up Grants grant program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
10. DATE: December 12, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 402.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Education
11. DATE: December 13, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 402.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Archives and Collections for the Digital Humanities Start Up Grants grant program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
12. DATE: December 16, 2013.
TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ROOM: 402.
This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Public Programs for the Digital Humanities Start Up Grants grant program, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated July 19, 1993.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
Notice to reinstate a previously approved information collection for review and comment.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this notice announces the NTSB is submitting an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal of a previously approved information collection, NTSB Form 6120.1. This ICR is the second notice, as required by OMB regulations concerning approvals of information collections. This notice again describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden; in addition, this notice describes some changes and additions the NTSB has made to Form 6120.1 after receiving feedback from the general aviation community.
Submit written comments regarding this proposed collection of information by December 19, 2013.
Interested members of the public may submit written comments on the collection of information to the OMB Desk Officer for the NTSB at Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
Loren Groff, NTSB Office of Research and Engineering, at (202) 314-6517.
The NTSB announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comment on the collection in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The NTSB's collection of information on Form 6120.1 is necessary to fulfill the NTSB's statutory mandate to investigate transportation accidents, because the form requests information concerning aviation accidents and incidents. This Notice informs the public that it may submit comments concerning the proposed use of this form to the OMB Desk Officer who oversees NTSB information collections. This renewal request is not associated with a rulemaking activity.
In accordance with OMB regulations that require this Notice for proposed ICRs, the NTSB herein notifies the public that it may submit comments on this proposed renewal of information collection. Title 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) requires an agency to publish in the
Prior to soliciting comments directed to OMB, the applicable regulations require an agency to first publish in the
The NTSB did not receive any written comments concerning the proposed renewal of the information collection. However, the NTSB held what it has termed a “listening session” to obtain feedback from the general aviation (GA) community concerning NTSB investigations. The majority of NTSB aviation investigations concern GA accidents or incidents, and with recent advances in technology, the NTSB seeks to ensure it is collecting the most accurate and important information and data to ensure appropriate findings of probable cause.
In furtherance of this goal, the NTSB met with a group of 28 people who participated in the NTSB's GA listening session on April 3, 2013. These owners, operators, and other members of the GA community (such as safety researchers, educators, owner and builder associations, and manufacturers) provided input that prompted the NTSB to include a question on the form asking what “additional equipment” the aircraft contained, within the aircraft information category. In addition, the NTSB considered this feedback and now proposes updates to the form to include additional options for answers to some of the questions on the form. These changes are explained more fully below.
The Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report Form is used in determining the facts, conditions, and circumstances for aircraft accident prevention activities and for statistical purposes. In furtherance of its goal to ensure the form is updated and includes information that will assist the NTSB in investigating accidents and incidents, the NTSB recently determined it should replace some questions and reorganize the form. These changes will ensure the form solicits information concerning the latest technologies about which the NTSB will need information. In addition, some questions on the form will now solicit more specific information.
The majority of the form's contents remains unchanged; the form is still divided into 17 categories, which are titled as follows: Basic information;
The basic information category remains largely unchanged; as described in the NTSB's previous notice concerning this ICR, the category requests information concerning the location and date and time of the accident or incident, the phase of operation during which the accident or incident occurred, and whether the occurrence was a collision with other aircraft. The question concerning the altitude if the event was an in-flight occurrence is no longer on the form; instead, the basic information section includes fields in which the respondent can enter in decimal degrees “minutes:seconds” the latitude and longitude of the accident or incident.
The aircraft information category continues to request the following information concerning the aircraft: manufacturer, model, serial number, registration number, weight and center of gravity of the aircraft, whether the aircraft was amateur-built, category of aircraft, type of airworthiness certificate, number of seats, type of landing gear, type of maintenance program, type and date of last inspection, total time on airframe, type of fire extinguishing system, type of reciprocating fuel system, and type of propeller. The aircraft information category also continues to request “yes” or “no” answers to the following: Whether the aircraft had a stall warning system installed; whether the emergency locator transmitter (ELT) was activated, and additional information about the ELT, such as whether it aided in locating the accident/incident, its manufacturer, model/series, serial number, and battery type. This section of the form also still requests detailed information concerning the engine(s) on the aircraft, such as the engine manufacturer, model/series, serial number, date of manufacture, type of power measurement (horsepower or pounds of thrust), total time on engine, time since last inspection, and time since overhaul.
Also within the aircraft information section, the new version of the form will now request information concerning the following: The year of manufacture of the aircraft and if amateur built, the make of the kit/plans used or whether the aircraft was built according to “original design.” In addition, the form now requests a selection from the following options: “IFR [instrument flight rules] equipped and certified,” “commercial space flight,” or “unmanned aircraft.” The aircraft information category also now includes space for two propellers, rather than one; if applicable, respondents will complete information indicating the manufacturer and model of both propellers. For the question concerning the ELT on the aircraft, the new form includes additional questions: The TSO Number, from a selection of the following choices: C91 (121.5 MHz); C91a (121.5 MHz); or C126 (406 MHz). In this regard, the form also solicits answers to whether the ELT was still mounted in the aircraft, whether it was still connected to antenna, and, if it was not activated, the reason for its damage (impact damage, fire damage, battery expired/damaged, or unknown).
Finally, the aircraft information section also now includes a selection from the following list of equipment, and asks respondents to check any of the following items that were on the aircraft: ADS-B, airframe parachute, angle of attack indicator, autopilot, data recorder, electronic flight bag or handheld device, electronic malfunction display, electronic primary flight display, handheld GPS, heads up display, onboard weather, satellite tracking device, stall warning system, video recording device, and an option stating “other, specify.”
The owner/operator section of NTSB Form 6120.1 also remains largely unchanged, but is organized in a way that is more easily understandable. The section continues to request specific information concerning the status of the aircraft, such as the names and contact information for both the owner and the operator of the aircraft, the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) under which the flight was conducted, whether the flight was a revenue sightseeing flight or air medical flight,
Regarding airport information, the form continues to request the airport name and identifier, the aircraft's proximity to the airport (as off or on the airport or airstrip), distance and direction from airport, and the elevation of the airport. The form includes boxes for respondents to check describing the approach segment, type of IFR approach, type of visual flight rules (VFR) approach, runway information, and type and condition of runway or landing surface. These questions remain unchanged. However, within the airport departure segment question, the form will now offer the following options in addition to the existing ones: “taxi,” “takeoff,” “initial climb,” “VFR departure,” “IFR departure/clearance,” and “unknown.” The NTSB believes these additional options will ensure the most accurate responses.
Concerning the crew aboard the aircraft, the form continues to request information on both pilots, such as names and contact information, dates of birth, certificate numbers, degree of injury, seats occupied, whether the
In a category concerning additional crewmembers, the form now includes two spaces
In both the flight crew member 1 and 2 sections, the additional flight crewmember section, and in the passengers/other personnel section, the NTSB has reorganized them and included additional options concerning its questions about restraints. Each of these questions now include the following table:
In addition, the passenger(s)/other personnel section, which contains four spaces, now will also include a section of the restraint table requesting whether a child under 5 years old was on the aircraft, and whether the restraint was: “child restraint,” “lap-held,” or “unknown.”
As described in the NTSB's previous notice concerning this form, the NTSB also requests information concerning the flight itinerary, such as the last departure point and time of departure, and the destination. By way of check-the-box responses, this category also requests information concerning the type of flight plan filed, type of air traffic control clearance or service, airspace where the accident or incident occurred, and a description of the aircraft load. This section does not contain any proposed changes.
The form requests information concerning weather conditions at the time of the accident. These requests within the weather category continue to ask for information concerning the weather observation facility; the source of weather information; the method of briefing concerning weather as well as the type and completeness of the briefing; the light condition; characterization of visibility; sky and lowest cloud condition; the ceiling and its height; the restriction on visibility; the wind direction, speed, and gusts; the type and severity of turbulence; and a list of Notices to Airman and other similar advisories in effect at the time of the flight. In addition, the form requests the temperature, altimeter setting, density altitude, and dew point. Finally, this category of the form requests information concerning actual and forecasted conditions concerning icing, as well as the type and intensity of any precipitation. This category only contains the addition of one option in the “source of pilot weather information section”: Respondents may now select “on-board weather” as their means of receiving weather information.
As stated above, the form concludes with areas for a narrative history of the flight and the events or actions the respondent believes may have prevented the accident or incident. The proposed new form contains these categories in a new location, but the text of the questions are the same.
The form seeks information concerning whether the aircraft sustained a mechanical malfunction or failure. The questions within this category, as well as the categories requesting fuel and services information, data concerning the evacuation of the aircraft (if applicable), and information concerning the other aircraft (if a collision occurred) remain the same as described in the NTSB's earlier notice concerning this information collection.
Finally, as described in the NTSB's previous notice regarding this
As described in its May 7, 2013 notice, the NTSB generally uses the information provided on Form 6120.1 to determine the facts, conditions, and circumstances for aircraft accident prevention activities and for statistical purposes. The NTSB typically receives several notifications for each accident or incident, but only requests completion of Form 6120.1 once the NTSB has determined it will pursue an investigation into the event. The NTSB utilizes a “party process,” as described in 49 CFR part 831, for its investigations. This process involves the NTSB's invitation to outside entities to assist with an investigation as a “party.” The NTSB extends party status to those organizations that can provide the necessary technical assistance to the investigation. The investigator-in-charge (IIC), for example, often confers party status to the operator, aircraft, systems, and powerplant manufacturers, and labor organizations involved because of the accident circumstances. Everyone involved in an NTSB investigation, including the parties, depend on accurate information contained in NTSB Form 6120.1 while conducting the investigation and determining which areas warrant focus and attention. Overall, the NTSB considers Form 6120.1 to be critical to its statutory function of investigation accidents and incidents, and subsequently issuing safety recommendations in an effort to prevent future accidents and incidents.
The NTSB has carefully considered whether this collection of information on Form 6120.1 is duplicative of any other agency's collections of information. The NTSB is unaware of any form the FAA disseminates that solicits the same information Form 6120.1 requires. However, the NTSB notes some operators may choose to provide a voluntary report to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in accordance with the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). NASA will not accept ASRS reports concerning aircraft
The NTSB notes completion of NTSB Form 6120.1 is not voluntary, but is required by 49 CFR 830.15(a). The NTSB, in general, will not accept partially completed forms; NTSB investigators will exercise their discretion in requesting completion of a copy of Form 6120.1 a respondent submits that is partially completed. In many cases, the NTSB recognizes not all fields will apply to each event; therefore, the NTSB will not require completion of inapplicable fields.
Currently, the NTSB accepts paper copies of Form 6120.1 sent via postal mail or facsimile, as well as electronic copies of Form 6120.1 that respondents submit via electronic mail. For electronically submitted copies, the NTSB notes its public Web site contains a fill-able version of Form 6120.1. As described above, the updated version of the form will include a box the respondent can check to electronically sign the form; therefore, respondents need not scan a copy of the form to send it via electronic mail, because respondents now have the option of completing the form by typing answers within the electronic version and sending it via electronic mail.
The NTSB has carefully reviewed the form to ensure that it has used plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology in its request for information. The NTSB estimates that respondents will spend approximately 60 minutes in completing the form. The NTSB estimates that approximately 1,800 respondents per year will complete the form, but notes that this number may vary, given the unpredictable nature of the frequency of aviation accidents and incidents.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Determination of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC).
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met for ITAAC E.3.8.05.01.01, for the Vogtle Unit 3 Combined License.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
David Jaffe, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1439, email:
On October 1, 2013, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., (the licensee) submitted an ITAAC closure notification (ICN) under § 52.99(c)(1) of Title 10 of the
The NRC staff has determined that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met for Vogtle Unit 3 Combined License, ITAAC E.3.8.05.01.01. This notice fulfills the staff's obligations under 10 CFR 52.99(e)(1) to publish a notice in the
The documentation of the NRC staff's determination is in the ITAAC Closure Verification Evaluation Form (VEF), dated October 21, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13294A349). The VEF is a form that represents the NRC staff's structured process for reviewing ICNs. The ICN presents a narrative description of how the ITAAC was completed, and the NRC's ICN review process involves a determination on whether, among other things: (1) The ICN provides sufficient information, including a summary of the methodology used to perform the ITAAC, to demonstrate that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed; (2) the ICN provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the acceptance criteria are met; and (3) any inspections for the ITAAC have been completed and any ITAAC findings associated with the ITAAC have been closed.
The NRC staff's determination of the successful completion of this ITAAC is based on information available at this time and is subject to the licensee's ability to maintain the condition that the acceptance criteria are met. If new information disputes the NRC staff's determination, this ITAAC will be reopened as necessary. The NRC staff's determination will be used to support a subsequent finding, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.103(g), at the end of construction that all acceptance criteria in the combined license are met. The ITAAC closure process is not finalized for this ITAAC until the NRC makes an affirmative finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Any future updates to the status of this ITAAC will be reflected on the NRC's Web site at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft environmental assessment and draft finding of no significant impact; request for comment.
On October 20, 2011, Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation, (NSPM) (doing business as Xcel Energy), submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting renewal of Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) license number SNM-2506 for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) site-specific Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) located in Red Wing, Goodhue County, Minnesota, for an additional 40 years. The NRC staff is conducting an environmental review of the proposed license renewal and has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) and draft finding of no significant impact (FONSI) in accordance with NRC regulations. The NRC is requesting public comments on the draft EA and the draft FONSI.
Submit comments by December 19, 2013. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Accessing Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Jean Trefethen, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC, 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7000; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0251 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0251 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC staff has prepared a draft EA and draft FONSI (ADAMS Accession No. ML13205A120) under the NRC's regulations in part 51 of Title 10 of the
The proposed action is whether to renew the license for up to an additional 40 years. If approved, NSPM would continue to possess and store the PINGP, Units 1 and 2, spent fuel at the PI ISFSI under the requirements in 10 CFR part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste.” The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 72.42 authorize the renewal of ISFSI-specific licenses for a period not to exceed 40 years. The NRC issued this provision, allowing for renewals of up to 40 years, in a final rule published in the
The NRC staff's environmental review of the proposed license renewal is documented in the draft EA and draft FONSI, which was prepared in accordance with the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51 and NRC staff guidance in NUREG-1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS programs” (ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279). An EA (1) briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a FONSI, (2) facilitates creation of an EIS when one is necessary, and (3) aids the NRC's compliance with NEPA when an EIS is not necessary. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.33, the NRC staff is making the draft EA and the draft FONSI available for public review and comment.
In October 2012, the NRC and the Prairie Island Indian Community (PIIC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (ADAMS Accession No. ML12284A456). The MOU acknowledges the PIIC's special expertise in the areas of historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, land use, and environmental justice as they relate to license renewal for the PI ISFSI, and establishes a cooperating agency relationship between the NRC and the PIIC. The MOU also defines the roles and responsibilities of both entities and the process they will use to prepare an EA that incorporates and reflects the PIIC's views in the areas of special expertise.
In the draft EA, the NRC staff describes the affected environment and evaluates the potential environmental impacts from the proposed 40-year renewal of license SNM-2506 on land use; transportation; socioeconomics; climatology, meteorology and air quality; geology and soils; water resources; ecology and threatened and endangered species; visual and scenic resources; noise; historic and cultural resources; public and occupational health and safety; waste management; and environmental justice. The draft EA also discusses the alternatives to the proposed action. The staff also evaluated the potential environmental impacts from decommissioning of the PI ISFSI, taking into consideration an additional 40 years of operation. Additionally, NRC staff analyzed the cumulative impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions when combined with the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action.
The NRC staff evaluated potential environmental impacts and categorized the impacts as follows:
• SMALL—environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
• MODERATE—environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
• LARGE—environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
The NRC staff preliminarily finds that the impacts from the proposed action would be SMALL and, thus, not significant for all environmental resource areas. In addition, the NRC staff preliminarily concludes that there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations, historical and cultural resources, and that Federally-listed threatened and endangered species are not likely to be adversely affected by the continued operation of the PI ISFSI during the proposed license renewal period.
The NRC staff is also performing a detailed safety analysis of the NSPM's license renewal application to assess compliance with 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” and 10 CFR part 72, “Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste.” The NRC staff's analysis will be documented in a separate safety evaluation report (SER). The NRC staff's decision whether to renew the NSPM's PI ISFSI license as proposed will be based on the results of the NRC staff's review as documented in the final EA, the final FONSI, and in the SER.
On June 8, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [
The updated rule and supporting Generic EIS (GEIS) will provide the necessary NEPA analyses of waste-confidence-related environmental issues. As directed by the Commission, the NRC will not issue a renewed license for the PI ISFSI before waste-confidence-related issues are resolved. This will ensure the NRC's consideration of any resource commitments or potential harm to the environment before WC impacts have been addressed. If the results of the WC GEIS identify information that requires a supplement to this draft EA and draft FONSI, the NRC staff will perform any appropriate additional NEPA review for those issues before the NRC makes a final licensing decision.
Based on its review of the proposed action in the draft EA relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has preliminarily determined that renewal of NRC license SNM-2506, which would authorize continued operation of the PI ISFSI in Goodhue County, Minnesota, for a period of up to 40 years, will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. No significant changes in NSPM's authorized operations for the PI ISFSI were requested as part of the license renewal application. Approval of the proposed action would not result in any new construction or expansion of the existing ISFSI footprint beyond that previously approved. The ISFSI is a passive facility that produces no liquid or gaseous effluents. No significant radiological or nonradiological impacts are expected from continued normal operations. Occupational dose estimates from routine monitoring activities and transfer of spent fuel for disposal are expected to be at as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) levels and are expected to be within the limits of 10 CFR 20.1201. The estimated annual dose to the nearest potential member of the public from ISFSI activities is 0.02 millisieverts/year (mSv/yr) [2.20 millirem/year (mrem/yr)], which is below the 0.25 mSv/yr [25 mrem/yr] limit specified in 10 CFR 72.104(a) and the 1 mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr) limit in 10 CFR 20.1301(a)(1). Therefore, based on this preliminary assessment, the NRC staff has preliminarily determined that an EIS is not warranted and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, a FONSI is appropriate.
The draft EA and the draft FONSI for the proposed PI ISFSI license renewal will also be available at the following public library: Red Wing Public Library, 225 East Avenue, Red Wing, MN 55066.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.33, the NRC staff is making this draft EA and this draft FONSI available for public review and comment. In doing so, the NRC staff determined that preparation of the draft EA and the draft FONSI furthers the purposes of NEPA. Based on the comments received, the NRC staff may determine that a final FONSI is appropriate or instead find that preparation of an EIS is warranted should significant impacts resulting from the proposed action be identified. The NRC staff's final determination will be noticed in the
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of November 18, 25, December 2, 9, 16, 23, 2013.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 25, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 2, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 9, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 16, 2013.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 23, 2013.
The Briefing on Spent Fuel Pool Safety and Consideration of Expedited Transfer to Dry Casks scheduled on November 21, 2013, was postponed.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)—301-415-1292. Contact person for more information: 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
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Request for public comment.
The National Science and Technology Council; Committee on Technology; Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee requests public comments on the draft 2014 National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Strategic Plan. The draft plan will be posted at
Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on December 17, 2013.
Respondents are encouraged to submit their comments (4,000 characters or less) through one of the following methods. Please reference page and line numbers in your response, as appropriate Submission via the Web site is the preferred method of submission. Please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. Responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Federal Government to form a binding contract or issue a grant. Information obtained as a result of this notice may be used by the Federal Government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. Do not include any information that might be considered proprietary or confidential. Please be aware that your comments may be posted online.
•
•
•
•
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Strategic Plan is the framework that underpins the nanotechnology work of the NNI member agencies. It aims to ensure that advances in nanotechnology research and development (R&D) and their applications to agency missions and the broader national interest continue unabated in this still-young field. Its purpose is to facilitate achievement of the NNI vision by laying out targeted guidance for agency leaders, program managers, and the research community regarding planning and implementation of nanotechnology R&D investments and activities.
The NNI is a U.S. Government R&D program of 20 departments and independent agencies working together toward the common vision of a future in which the ability to understand and control matter at the nanoscale level leads to a revolution in technology and industry that benefits society. The combined, coordinated efforts of these agencies have accelerated discovery, development, and deployment of nanotechnology towards agency missions and the broader national interest. Established in 2001, the NNI involves nanotechnology-related activities by the 20 member agencies, 11 of which have budgets for nanotechnology R&D in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014.
The NNI is managed within the framework of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), the Cabinet-level council that coordinates science and technology across the Federal government and interfaces with other sectors. The Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the NSTC coordinates planning, budgeting, program implementation, and review of the NNI. The NSET Subcommittee is composed of senior representatives from agencies participating in the NNI (
The NSET Subcommittee has solicited multiple streams of input to inform the development of a revised NNI Strategic Plan. Independent reviews of the NNI by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the National Research Council of the National Academies have made specific recommendations for improving the NNI. Additional input has come from the NNI Strategic Planning Stakeholders Workshop in Washington, DC, on June 11-12, 2013 (details available online:
The NNI Strategic Plan represents the consensus of the participating agencies as to the high-level goals and priorities of the NNI and specific objectives for at least the next three years. It describes the four overarching goals of the NNI; the major Program Component Areas, established in 2004 and revised in 2013, to broadly track the categories of investments needed to ensure the success of the initiative; and the near-term objectives that will be the concrete steps taken toward collectively achieving the NNI vision and goals. Finally, the plan describes collaborative interagency activities, including five Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives that are a model of specifically targeted and closely coordinated interagency, cross-sector collaboration designed to accelerate innovation in areas of national priority.
Any questions about the content of this notice should be sent to
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
Settlement of injunctive actions;
institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.
For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to the use of the Exchange effective November 1, 2013, in order to modify pricing related to executions that occur on BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) through the Exchange's TRIM
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market for order execution is extremely competitive, Members may readily opt to disfavor the Exchange's routing services if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. For orders routed through the Exchange and executed at BZX through the TRIM and SLIM routing strategies, the proposed fee change is designed to equal the fee that a Member would have received if such routed orders would have been executed directly by a Member at BZX.
No written comments were solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing,
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .09 to Rule 903 to modify the Quarterly Option Series (“QOS”) Program to eliminate the cap on the number of additional series that may be listed per expiration month for each QOS in exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) options. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Commentary .09(d) to Rule 903 related to the QOS Program to eliminate the cap on the number of additional series that may be listed per expiration month for each QOS in ETF options.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Commentary .09(d) to make the treatment of QOS in ETF options consistent with the treatment of QOS in stock index options. Rule 900C(a)(iv) [sic] governs the QOS Program in stock index options. A stock index option is “an option contract on a specific stock index group.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed revision to the QOS Program would provide market participants with the ability to better tailor their trading to meet their investment objectives, including hedging securities positions, by permitting the Exchange to list additional QOS in ETF options that meet such objectives. The Exchange has observed that situations arise in which the market value of the ETF underlying QOS moves to the point that additional strike prices in smaller intervals would be valuable to investors. However, due to the cap on additional QOS series, the Exchange cannot always provide these important at-the-money strikes. Elimination of the cap would remedy this issue.
Currently, the Exchange lists quarterly expiration options on six ETFs, but the cap restricts the number of strikes on these options, which often results in a lack of strike continuity. For example, the Exchange lists quarterly expiration options on SPDR Gold Trust (“GLD”). On January 2, 2013, the Exchange initially listed December 31, 2013 quarterly expiration options (“December 2013 Quarterlies”) on GLD, which closed the previous trading day at $162.02, with initial strikes from $115 to $210, and additional strikes in $1 intervals from $131 to $189. But during 2013, GLD has closed at a range of $115.94 to $163.67 and is currently trading around $125. As a result of the cap, the Exchange cannot offer December 2013 Quarterlies on GLD in $1 intervals within $10 of the closing price of GLD because the number of strikes would exceed the cap of 60 additional strikes. Consequently, the Exchange is not able to list important at-the-money strikes due to the cap on additional strikes. While the Exchange has the ability to delist strikes with no open interest so that it may list strikes that are closer to the money, delisting is not always possible. If all of the existing strikes have open interest, the Exchange cannot delist strikes so that it may list strikes closer to the money.
But the Exchange is not subject to a similar cap on the number of additional weekly or monthly expiration options it can list on ETFs.
Similarly, the Exchange lists quarterly options on SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”), which during 2013 closed at a range of $145.55 to $173.05. Again, due to the cap, the Exchange cannot offer quarterly expiration options on SPY in $1 intervals above $170 because the number of additional strikes would exceed the cap of 60. Instead, the Exchange is forced to list quarterly expiration options on SPY at $5 intervals above $170, despite the fact that SPY has recently traded between $165 and $170. As such, if SPY would again increase to $170, then the Exchange would only be able to offer options with a strike price $5 away from the price of the underlying ETF due to the cap on additional strikes.
On the other hand, in contrast to the limitations imposed on the Exchange for quarterly expiration options on ETFs, the absence of a similar cap on quarterly expiration options on indexes means that the Exchange can list, and investors can achieve, more granularity in index-based options. For example, S&P 500 Mini—SPX options (“SPX”) are options on the S&P 500 index, as opposed to options on SPY, the ETF based on that same S&P 500 index. SPX options are used to hedge SPY positions and are traded at the equivalent of one point and one-half point intervals. The SPX trades at 10 times the value of SPY, so that if SPY trades at $168.70, SPX trades at $1687. Therefore, the strike price for a quarterly expiration option on SPX, that is a hedge for a quarterly expiration option on SPY at $170, would be $1700. The Exchange can offer quarterly expiration options on SPX with strike prices of $1670, $1680, $1690, and $1700 because there is no cap on quarterly expiration index-based options. However, the Exchange cannot similarly offer quarterly expiration options on SPY with similar strike price continuity because of the cap on quarterly expiration ETF-based options.
Elimination of the cap would also help market participants meet their investment objectives by providing expanded opportunities to roll ETF options into later quarters. For example, a market participant that holds one or more contracts in a QOS in an ETF put option that has a strike price of $120 and an expiration date of the last day of the third quarter may wish to roll that position into the fourth quarter. That is, the market participant may wish to close out the contracts set to expire at the end of the third quarter and instead establish a position in the same number of contracts in a QOS in a put option on the same ETF with the same strike price of $120, but with an expiration date of the last day of the fourth quarter. Because of the cap on additional QOS in ETF options, however, the Exchange may not be able to list additional QOS in the ETF. Elimination of the cap, though, would allow the Exchange to meet the investment needs of market participants in such situations.
The Exchange has sufficient capacity to handle increased quote and trade reporting traffic that might be expected to result from listing additional QOS in ETF options. The Exchange notes that it has purchased capacity from the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) to handle its options quote and trade reporting traffic.
Moreover, the Exchange has in place a quote mitigation plan that helps it maintain sufficient capacity to handle quote traffic. The plan, which has been approved by the Commission, reduces the number of quotations that the Exchange disseminates by limiting disseminated quotes to active options series only.
To help ensure that only active options series are listed, the Exchange also has in place procedures to delist inactive series. Commentary .09(f) to Rule 903 requires the Exchange to review QOS that are outside of a range of five strikes above and five strikes below the current price of the underlying ETF. Based on that review, the Exchange must delist series with no open interest in both the call and the put series having (i) a strike price higher than the highest price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month, and (ii) a strike price lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing to update an outdated cross-reference in Commentary .09(d) to Rule 903. Commentary .09(d) currently states that the term “Exchange-Traded Fund Share” is defined in Rule 900(b)(42); however, that term is defined in Rule 900.2NY(24). The Exchange proposes to update the language accordingly.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because it will expand the investment options available to investors and will allow for more efficient risk management. The Exchange believes that removing the cap on the number of QOS in ETF options permitted to be listed on the Exchange will result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions to their needs, and therefore, the proposal is designed to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, by removing the cap, the proposed rule change will make the treatment of QOS in ETF options consistent with the treatment of QOS in index options, thus resulting in similar regulatory treatment for similar options products.
While the expansion of the number of QOS in ETF options is expected to generate additional quote traffic, the Exchange believes that this increased traffic will be manageable and will not present capacity problems. As previously stated, the Exchange has in place a quote mitigation plan that helps it maintain sufficient capacity to handle quote traffic. To help ensure that only active options series are listed, Exchange procedures are designed to delist inactive series, ensuring that any additional quote traffic is a result of interest in active series.
Finally, amending Commentary .09(d) to Rule 903 to correct an outdated cross-reference to the definition of Exchange-Traded Fund Shares will remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market system. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will resolve any investor confusion regarding the incorrect cross-reference, and ensures that the Exchange provides a clear and well-defined rule set.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors would benefit from the introduction of additional QOS in ETF options by providing investors with more flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions to their needs. Additionally, Exchange procedures for delisting inactive series will ensure that only active series with sufficient investor interest will be made available and maintained on the Exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 504, Trading Halts. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 504 in order to provide for an automated notification between five and twenty seconds prior to the resumption of trading in an option class (a “Post-Halt Notification”) following a regulatory halt, trading pause or market-wide trading halt.
Currently, the Exchange's Trading Operations staff at the MIAX Help Desk issues a Post-Halt Notification twenty seconds before trading resumes in an option class that has been halted pursuant to Rule 504(a). The Post-Halt Notification states the time at which trading in the option class or classes is expected to resume providing subscribers of the Exchange's data feeds with a brief notice period (twenty seconds) to prepare for the beginning or resumption of trading after a trading system halt has ended. For trading halts initiated by the System due to a regulatory halt, trading pause or market-wide trading halt, no Post-Halt Notification currently is provided to market participants.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 504 to provide that in situations of a regulatory halt, trading pause or market-wide trading halt, a Post-Halt Notification will be broadcast between five and twenty seconds before trading will begin or resume. The Post-Halt Notification period for a regulatory halt, trading pause or market-wide trading halt will be configurable in the MIAX System for a time period between five and twenty seconds before trading in the option class resumes. The MIAX System will send a broadcast message indicating that trading in the option class will begin or resume within the configurable Post-Halt Notification period. The Exchange will announce the duration of the Post-Halt Notification
The Exchange notes that in the situation of a halt pursuant to Rule 504(a), just as today, the Post-Halt Notification will continue to be initiated by Help Desk staff and broadcast twenty seconds before trading will begin or resume.
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The proposal is designed to enhance the Exchange's ability to notify participants when a previously halted option class will begin or resume trading, which removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanisms of, a free and open market and the national market system as a whole, by ensuring that participants are in a position to resume quoting and/or submitting orders as soon as such an option class begins trading following a regulatory halt, trading pause or market-wide trading halt. The system change also fosters cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities by ensuring that all subscribers to the Exchange's data feeds receive automatic notification of the trading status of a halted issue.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the Post-Halt Notification broadcast by the MIAX System actually enhances competition by expeditiously notifying Members that an affected option class will begin or resume trading, thus incenting market participants to resume quoting competitively and/or to submit orders to the Exchange for execution upon such resumption.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to use of the Exchange effective November 1, 2013, in order to: (1) Modify the fees applicable to executions occurring through certain routing strategies at the Exchange's affiliate, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”); and (2) modify the way that, for purposes of tiered pricing on the Exchange's equities trading platform (“BATS Equities”), the Exchange calculates ADV, ADAV, and TCV (as such terms are defined below).
BYX currently provides a base rebate of $0.0001 per share when removing liquidity. To create a direct pass through of the applicable economics of executions at BYX through the Destination Specific,
The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule in order to amend the way that the Exchange calculates rebates for removing liquidity from and fees for adding liquidity to the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend the methodology by which it determines the rebate that it will provide to Members based on the Exchange's tiered pricing structure by excluding from the calculation of ADV,
The Exchange currently offers a tiered structure for determining the rebates that Members receive for executions that add liquidity to the Exchange. Under the tiered pricing structure, the Exchange provides different rebates to Members based on a Member's ADV or ADAV as a percentage of average daily TCV. The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to modify any of the existing rebates or the percentage thresholds at which a Member may qualify for certain rebates pursuant to the tiered pricing structure. Rather, as mentioned above, the Exchange is proposing to modify its fee schedule in order to exclude trading activity occurring on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange Outage, defined as an outage lasting for more than sixty (60) minutes, from the calculation of ADV, ADAV and average daily TCV. The Exchange believes that including trading activity on days when trading on the Exchange is unavailable for a significant portion of the day can unfairly skew the calculation of ADV, ADAV and TCV. Thus, the Exchange believes that the most accurate and fair implementation of its tiered pricing structure is to exclude from the calculation of ADV, ADAV and TCV all days where the Exchange experiences an Exchange Outage.
The Exchange believes that eliminating days where the Exchange experiences an Exchange Outage from the definition of ADV, ADAV and TCV, and thereby eliminating that day from the calculation as it relates to rebates and fees based on trading activity on the Exchange, will help to eliminate significant uncertainty faced by Members as to their monthly ADV or ADAV as a percentage of average daily TCV and the rebates that this percentage will qualify for, providing Members with an increased certainty as to their monthly cost for trades executed on the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that it recently adopted changes to exclude the last Friday of June from the calculation of
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Exchange's rebate for TRIM (including TRIM2 and TRIM3), SLIM and Destination Specific Orders executed on BYX are equitably allocated, fair and reasonable, and non-discriminatory in that they are equally applicable to all Members and are designed to mirror the rebate applicable to the execution if such routed orders were executed directly by the Member at BYX.
With respect to the proposed changes to the tiered pricing structure for removing liquidity from the Exchange and adding liquidity to the Exchange, the Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable because, as explained above, it will help provide Members with a greater level of certainty as to their level of rebates and costs for trading in any month where the Exchange experiences an Exchange Outage on one or more trading days. The Exchange also believes that its proposal is reasonable because it is not changing the thresholds to become eligible or the dollar value associated with the tiered rebates or fees and, moreover, by eliminating the inclusion of a trading day that would almost certainly lower a Member's ADV or ADAV as a percentage of average daily TCV, it will make the majority of Members more likely to meet the minimum or higher tier thresholds, which will provide additional incentive to Members to increase their participation on the Exchange in order to meet the next tier. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to fees are equitably allocated among Exchange constituents as the methodology for calculating ADV, ADAV and TCV will apply equally to all Members. While, although unlikely, certain Members may have a higher ADV or ADAV as a percentage of average daily TCV with their activity included from days where the Exchange has an Exchange Outage, the proposal will make all Members' cost of trading on the Exchange more predictable, regardless of how the proposal affects their ADV or ADAV as a percentage of average daily TCV. The Exchange also notes that its affiliate, BYX, recently made a similar change.
Volume-based tiers such as the liquidity adding tiers maintained by the Exchange have been widely adopted, and are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all members on an equal basis and provide higher rebates or lower fees that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery process. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposal is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with the overall goals of enhancing market quality. Further, the Exchange believes that a tiered pricing model not significantly altered by a day of atypical trading behavior which allows Members to predictably calculate what their costs associated with trading activity on the Exchange will be is reasonable, fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory as it is uniform in application amongst Members and should enable such participants to operate their business without concern of unpredictable and potentially significant changes in expenses.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the market for order execution is extremely competitive, Members may readily opt to disfavor the Exchange's routing services if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. For orders routed through the Exchange and executed at BYX through the TRIM (including TRIM2 and TRIM3), SLIM and Destination Specific Order strategies, the proposed fee change is designed to equal the rebate that a Member would have received if such routed orders would have been executed directly by a Member at BYX. Further, the proposed changes will help to promote intramarket competition by avoiding a penalty to Members for days when trading on the Exchange is unavailable for a significant portion of the day. As stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if the deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Section B of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule, entitled “Customer Rebate Program”, to offer its market participants an additional rebate.
While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendment to be operative on November 1, 2013.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Customer Rebate Program in Section B of the Pricing Schedule to increase Customer rebates available to market participants that transact Customer-denominated orders on Phlx. Specifically, Phlx proposes to offer its members the opportunity to increase the Customer rebates offered in Section B of the Pricing Schedule for transactions on Phlx if the aggregate volumes of Customer orders transacted by a member organization and its affiliates on Phlx, The NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”) and/or NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (“BX Options”) (collectively “NASDAQ OMX exchanges”) exceed a specified volume. The Exchange would increase the applicable Phlx Customer rebate for which the member organization qualified in the Customer Rebate Program by $0.02 per contract, in any category, provided the member organization, together with any affiliate under Common Ownership,
Today, the Exchange pays Customer Rebates based on a four-tier structure comprised of percentage thresholds of Customer Orders in multiply-listed options based on national volume. There are two Categories, A and B, of transactions eligible for rebates. In Category A, rebates are paid to members executing electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot Options and Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II symbols.
The Exchange proposes to offer Phlx members the opportunity to earn a higher rebate on Phlx by transacting a quantity of electronically delivered and executed Multiply Listed Customer volume that is equal to or greater than 2.5% percent of national customer volume in multiply-listed options. The Exchange desires to incentivize its members to achieve this type of volume by offering to aggregate Customer volume transacted on Phlx with volume transacted on NOM and/or BX Options for the sole purpose of measuring the volume criteria. Phlx would pay the additional $0.02 per contract rebate, above and beyond other Customer rebates, on all eligible orders
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
In analyzing the market for non-core market data, the Commission developed a framework for analyzing whether market data fees are equitable, fair and reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.
If competitive forces are operative, the self-interest of the exchanges themselves will work powerfully to constrain unreasonable or unfair behavior. . . . [W]hen an exchange is subject to competitive forces in its distribution of non-core data, many market participants would be unlikely to purchase the exchange's data products if it sets fees that are inequitable, unfair, unreasonable, or unreasonably discriminatory. As a result, competitive forces generally will constrain an exchange in setting fees for non-core data because it should recognize that its own profits will suffer if it attempts to act unreasonably or unfairly. For example, an exchange's attempt to impose unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory fees on a certain category of customers would likely be counter-productive for the exchange because, in a competitive environment, such customers generally would be able to respond by using alternatives to the exchange's data. The Commission therefore believes that the existence of significant competition provides a substantial basis for finding that the terms of an exchange's fee proposal are equitable, reasonable, and not unreasonably or unfairly discriminatory.
This reasoning applies with equal weight to transaction fees, since members that believe fees at a particular venue to be unreasonable, inequitable, or unfairly discriminatory are able to respond by using the numerous competitive alternatives that exist. Moreover, although the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the ArcaBook Order because it concluded that the record before it in that case did not adequately support the Commission's determination that the market for depth-of-book data was competitive, the Court's opinion endorsed the Commission's view that the existence of competitive markets may be used as the basis for concluding that a fee is consistent with the requirements of the Act.
The petitioners believe that the SEC's market-based approach is prohibited under the Exchange Act because the Congress intended “fair and reasonable” to be determined using a cost-based approach. The SEC counters that, because it has statutorily-granted flexibility in evaluating market data fees, its market-based approach is fully consistent with the Exchange Act. We agree with the SEC.
Thus, in analyzing the consistency of a fee change with the Act, NASDAQ [sic] believes that it is justified in analyzing, first and foremost, the competitive nature of the market in which the fee is adopted.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of twelve exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Empirical evidence also demonstrates that no exchange has market power sufficient to raise prices for competitively-traded options in an unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory manner in violation of the Exchange Act. In actuality, it is member firms that control the order flow that options markets compete to attract. Only by attracting members' orders can options exchanges display bids and offers that are the sine qua non of trade executions. This “second-order” competition—where competition is driven by customers rather than sellers of a product—is reflected both in the large number of pricing-related rule changes and also in rapid shifts of market share among multiple effective competitors seen on the chart of equity options market share below.
This level of competition is also readily apparent in the behavior of market participants with respect to the Customer orders that are the subject of this filing. The chart below shows fluctuations in the volume of Customer orders routed to the NASDAQ OMX exchanges by their top five member organizations since the beginning of 2013. As is apparent from the chart, fluctuations in volume of more than 50% occur, as member organizations respond to varying pricing incentives.
The Commission has a statutory duty to promote competition, including price competition. The Commission's traditional restraint in regulating fees has fostered intense competition that benefits investors and all market participants greatly. In mature markets where competition is vibrant, pricing changes are often the most effective way for markets to compete vigorously. Where participants view pricing on one options market as unpalatable, they are free to move business to another market or markets with favorable pricing, and in fact do so with regularity, as demonstrated by the empirical data provided above. Price competition works best where a variety of different models and pricing schemes exist from which to choose and market participants are highly knowledgeable about alternatives.
Diversity in the products and services offered by market participants enhances competition and benefits consumers. To establish policies that artificially enforce price uniformity would (i) eliminate incentives for innovative market participants to invest in providing desirable products, (ii) foster marketplace stagnation, and (iii) run directly contrary to sound policy.
Against this background, which establishes that exchange transaction fees should be presumed reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory, Phlx now turns to a particularized analysis of the proposed rebate that is the subject of this filing. In doing so, Phlx notes that the ArcaBook Order cited the possibility that even in a competitive market, a fee might be subject to disapproval if “there is a substantial countervailing basis for determining that a proposal is inconsistent with the Act.”
The Exchange's proposal is reasonable because it provides an opportunity for market participants to receive greater rebates and therefore enables them to lower costs. In this respect, the proposal should be considered, like any fee decrease or rebate increase, presumptively consistent with the requirement that exchange fees must be reasonable, since trading costs will be lower following implementation of the proposal than before. Since existing fees are themselves the product of the intense competition described above, it is difficult to see how a fee decrease or rebate increase could in any set of circumstances cause fees to become unreasonable. Moreover, because the rebate is specific to Customer orders transacted on Phlx, it benefits retail investors when member organizations choose to pass on some portion of the rebate to their customers. Finally, Phlx notes that the proposal does not restrict any existing rebates or increase any other fees, and therefore will not place any market participants that do not qualify for the rebate in a less favorable position than under the existing Pricing Schedule. However, as discussed below, to the extent that the proposal succeeds in its competitive goal of attracting more Customer orders to the Exchange, it has the potential to benefit all Phlx market participants.
The Exchange's proposal is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees because it benefits not only market participants receiving the proposed rebate, but has the potential to benefit all other Phlx market participants as well. Specifically, the proposal is intended to attract a larger amount of Customer liquidity to the Exchange. Today, Phlx offers members certain Customer rebates to encourage Phlx member organizations to direct Customer order flow to the Exchange, and the proposal will provide an additional incentive for Customer order flow. Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attract Specialists and Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The proposed rebate is structured as a volume-based discount, similar to the existing rebate tiers in Section B of the Pricing Schedule. The Commission has previously accepted such volume tiers, and they have been adopted by various options exchanges. Tiers are a well-established method for drawing liquidity to an exchange by paying higher rebates to those members that direct a greater amount of order flow to the Exchange. Volume tiers in both the cash equity and options markets provide reduced pricing to the heaviest liquidity providers and liquidity takers. As with existing tiers, the higher the percentage of a market participant's Customer orders on Phlx, the higher the rebate. However, the aspect of the proposal under which a member organization's eligibility is determined by volume on all of the NASDAQ OMX exchanges broadens the potential availability of a higher rebate to market participants that spread volume across multiple exchanges, rather than requiring a concentration of activity on Phlx. Market participants with Customer order flow often divide that order flow among Phlx, NOM and BX Options, as well as other options exchanges; due to the different market and pricing models available at various exchanges, dividing order flow may allow them to improve execution quality and to minimize costs. For example, a market participant that wants to transact contracts in SPY under a pro rata allocation would necessarily send order flow to Phlx, rather than NOM or BX Options, because Phlx offers such a pro rata allocation.
Therefore, recognizing Customer orders on other NASDAQ OMX exchanges for purposes of determining volume is aimed at providing market participants an incentive that does not make unreasonable demands to send all order flow to Phlx, but rather permits those market participants to seek different economics and execution models while still receiving the benefit of an additional rebate for those Customer orders that are transacted on Phlx. Thus, the rebate is an equitable means of incentivizing a member with large quantities of Customer orders to increase the amount of Customer order flow transacted on Phlx, even though the current market structure requires it to fragment Customer orders in its efforts to improve execution quality and reduce execution costs across its total book of orders. Through the proposal, the Exchange seeks to reduce distortionary incentives created by one-size-fits-all pricing by including Customer volumes traded on NOM and BX Options in determining eligibility for the Phlx rebate.
The Exchange's proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. As discussed above, the proposal broadens the availability of an enhanced rebate because it does recognize that market participants with high volumes of Customer orders may need to fragment their order flow among options markets to improve execution quality and lower costs by taking advantage of different market structures and pricing options.
To the extent that they offer better pricing to higher volume members, existing tier structures that exist at Phlx and other options markets are inherently discriminatory, but this discrimination has been widely accepted as not
In light of this wide-ranging degree of differentiation, the Exchange submits that its proposal does not materially alter the degree of differential pricing among Phlx market participants. Just as the foregoing pricing differentials exist to encourage and reward market participants for making order flow and other purchasing decisions that benefit the Exchange, its market structure, and/or other market participants, likewise the proposed rule change serves to incentivize order routing decisions with respect to Customer orders that benefit the Exchange and its participants. With this proposal, members are not required to transact any volume on other options exchanges. In fact, the more volume they transact on Phlx, the greater the reward, as only qualifying Customer orders
If all of the participant's Customer volume was transacted solely on NOM, then the market participant would not receive a Phlx rebate, which is not surprising, since it is not bringing order flow to Phlx; it would, however, still be eligible for any rebate that is offered on NOM. Thus, a participant transacting volume on NOM is in no worse position with the proposal. Today, a NOM Participant that transacted a large amount of volume on NOM to benefit from the rebate structure offered on that market would only receive rebates on Phlx for those orders transacted on Phlx. With this proposal, the NOM Participant still benefits from the current NOM pricing without change, but will have the added benefit of possibly qualifying for a rebate on Phlx for any orders that were transacted on Phlx. Because the benefit only attributes to orders on Phlx, as is the case today, there is no change in circumstance for the NOM Participant. In fact, the NOM Participant that necessarily had Customer orders routed to Phlx because that market was at the best price, with this proposal may receive an added benefit on Phlx by qualifying for a rebate on that market because of the Customer orders transacted on NOM. Moreover, as discussed above, the Commission stated that “a proposed exchange rule must stand or fall based, among other things, on the interests of customers, issuers, broker-dealers, and other persons using the facilities of
In this instance, the proposal is unambiguously beneficial to Phlx market participants, whether or not they receive the enhanced rebate. With respect to two members transacting orders on Phlx, the proposal is not materially different from current differentiations. Today, the Exchange assesses different fees and pays different rebates to two Phlx members that transact the same number of Customer orders on the Exchange, if one Exchange member transacted those orders on the Exchange floor and the other member transacted those orders electronically. Only the electronic Customer orders would potentially qualify for a Customer rebate pursuant to Section B of the Pricing Schedule. Also, only certain types of orders in Categories A and B qualify for the Customer Rebate today, so depending on the types of electronic orders transacted by a Phlx member, one member may qualify for a Customer rebate while another member with the same number of Customer orders may not qualify for a rebate. Finally, two members on Phlx may transact Customer orders today, but
The Commission already permits a particular trading venue to consider volume executed away from that venue for fee calculation purposes. For example, under NOM's pricing schedule, participants that add (1) Customer and/or Professional liquidity of 25,000 or more contracts per day in a month on NOM, (2) qualify for the Investor Support Program set forth in Rule 7014 with respect to NASDAQ's cash equity market, and (3) execute at least one order on NASDAQ's cash equity market, qualify for a Tier 5 Customer and/or Professional rebate on NOM.
There are also examples where qualifying volume is quantified in a different manner from the payment of a rebate. For example, Phlx members may qualify for a Customer rebate by including SPY volume in the calculation of qualifying orders for the purpose of calculating Customer rebate tiers, but Phlx does not pay Customer rebates on SPY volume as specified in the Customer Rebate Program.
Equally important, offering discounts between affiliated exchanges is not novel. New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) waives certain annual fees for issuers that transfer the listing of their primary class of common shares from NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), or NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”), to NYSE (“NYSE Listing Incentive”).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As described above in considerable detail, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market; in order to remain competitive the Exchange must offer market participants an attractive trading platform, customer service and effective management tools in addition to competitive fees and liquidity rebates to attract order flow to the market. It is the competitive forces present among options exchanges that constrain the Exchange's pricing by commanding pricing that is reasonable, equitable, fair and not unreasonably discriminatory if the Exchange hopes to attract order flow. The Exchange believes that its proposed pricing will not harm competition but rather will benefit market participants by lowering costs. Fundamentally, the proposal is a price reduction, and therefore is consistent with achieving the benefits of the robust competition that clearly exists in this market.
As discussed above, the ArcaBook Order stated that “the Exchange Act precludes anti-competitive tying . . . of separately registered national securities exchanges even if they are under common control.”
Even where there is a tying arrangement, such arrangements are not always (or even usually) unlawful. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[i]t is clear . . . that not every refusal to sell two products separately can be said to restrain competition . . . . Buyers often find package sales attractive; a seller's decision to offer such packages can merely be an attempt to compete effectively.”
Because a tying arrangement can only run afoul of the antitrust laws where the arrangement harms competition by creating foreclosure in the tied product market, the Supreme Court has stated that “in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product.”
As discussed above, empirical evidence demonstrates that the options market is a highly competitive market in which no exchange has market power sufficient to raise prices for competitively-traded options in an unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory manner in violation of the Exchange Act. Moreover, this proposal is not tying in any event, because (a) members may trade on any exchange, without having to trade on another exchange (
The NASDAQ OMX exchanges offer complementary models that members and investors demand, and this proposal seeks to provide an opportunity for market participants to benefit from those complementary services. The Exchange competes for order flow by enhancing its technology and the array of services offered on its market, as well as offering rebates and assessing lower fees. Today, Phlx, NOM and BX Options offer market participants an array of services including state-of-the-art platforms. Phlx's trading platform executes orders utilizing a Customer priority, pro-rata execution algorithm. Phlx accepts Complex Orders
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposal imposes a burden on competition with respect to Phlx members' status as members of NOM and/or BX Options. If a market participant believes that it would better meet its best execution obligation to a Customer by displaying orders on a market with a different fee structure, such as NOM, the participant can chose to take advantage of NOM's pricing structure instead. The market participant would not receive the additional $0.02 per contract rebate for any execution that results, but would still be able to benefit from those orders, which would be aggregated with qualifying Customer volume on Phlx and BX Options for purposes of determining if the member qualified for a rebate on Phlx. If all the volume was transacted solely on NOM, then that market participant would still be eligible for any rebate that is offered on
The Exchange further believes that its proposal does not impact established pricing differentials among NASDAQ OMX exchanges; rather, it enhances equality among market participants transacting orders on different NASDAQ OMX exchanges. The NOM Participant who is also a Phlx member would be given an opportunity to earn a rebate on Phlx similar to the current Phlx member. The same is true of a BX Options member who is also a member on Phlx. If these market participants do not have a membership on Phlx, then they transact no orders on Phlx today and therefore would not be able to take advantage of the rebate because these rebates would only apply to orders transacted on Phlx. The same is true of any Phlx pricing proposal. The NOM or BX Options member that does not choose to be a Phlx member is not able to take advantage of any Phlx pricing, including this proposal, because it has not expended the effort to become a Phlx member, but it is free to do so at any time. Moreover, Phlx's proposal “must stand or fall, based, among other things, on the interests of . . . persons using the facilities of [Phlx].
Fundamentally, this proposal offers market participants a price decrease, the essence of competition. Price differentiation exists in the options markets today, as noted in the various examples provided above. These types of differentiation have not been seen as anticompetitive. There is no evidence to support a conclusion that competition would be harmed with the implementation of this proposal. Competitors could replicate the rebate that is being offered by Phlx, and to the extent that a competitor does not operate multiple exchanges, the desired discount could be offered on the sole market to achieve the same lower cost. Moreover, other options exchanges operate multiple markets, with different functionality and pricing being offered at the different markets, and there are no significant barriers to entry of additional options exchanges. For example, the International Stock Exchange LLC (“ISE”) recently launched a second options exchange, Topaz Exchange, LLC (“Gemini”), the twelfth options exchange today. New market entrants today offer incentivized pricing to bring order flow to that market. Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX”), a recent options market entrant, waived transaction fees that apply to marker makers from June 3, 2013 through August 31, 2013.
Similarly, Phlx believes that its proposal promotes further vigorous, healthy and appropriate competition, and will lead other options exchanges to follow suit by offering higher rebates to attract order flow. The interests of all investors are furthered by the lowering of prices as a result of robust competition.
In sum, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will promote competition through a price reduction that enhances Phlx's competitiveness but to which other markets may respond in kind. The Exchange believes that the proposed change would increase both intermarket and intramarket competition by providing market participants a different option to consider when they decide which exchange provides the most attractive destination for directing order flow. Moreover, the proposal to offer the rebate does not constitute a tying arrangement under directly relevant judicial precedent. The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate would enable market participants to lower costs and incent them to provide additional liquidity at the Exchange, thereby enhancing the quality of its markets and increasing the volume of Customer contracts traded on Phlx. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity.
Given the robust competition for volume among options markets, many of which offer the same products, attracting order flow by offering rebates is consistent with the pro-competitive goals of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the enhanced rebate could cause any competitive harm to the options market or to market participants, because no exchange has market power sufficient to raise prices for competitively-traded options in an unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory manner in violation of the Exchange Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend the PIXL
The text of the proposed rule change is below; proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(i)-(ii)(A)(1)-(2) No change.
(3) When the Exchange receives a PIXL Order for Auction processing, a PAN detailing the side[,]
(ii)(A)(4)-(vii) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage better PAN responses and thereby attain more price improvement for PIXL orders. The PAN is a broadcast message sent over TOPO Plus Orders,
The PIXL mechanism is a process whereby members electronically submit orders they represent as agent against principal interest or other interest that they represent as agent. The submitted orders are stopped at a price and are subsequently entered into an auction seeking price improvement. An Exchange member may initiate a PIXL Auction (“Initiating Member”) by submitting a PIXL Order (“Initiating Order”) specifying one of the following:
(1) A single price at which it seeks to execute the PIXL Order (a “stop price”);
(2) that it is willing to automatically match as principal or as agent on behalf of an Initiating Order, the price and size of all trading interest, and responses to the PAN (known as “auto-match”), in which case the PIXL Order will be stopped at the National Best Bid/Offer (“NBBO”) on the Initiating Order side of the market; or
(3) that it is willing to either: (i) Stop the entire order at a single stop price and auto-match PAN responses, together with trading interest, at a price or prices that improve the stop price to a specified price above or below which the Initiating Member will not trade (a “Not Worse Than” or “NWT” price); (ii) stop the entire order at a single stop price and auto-match all PAN responses and trading interest at or better than the stop price; or (iii) stop the entire order at the NBBO on the Initiating Order side, and auto-match PAN responses and trading interest at a price or prices
After the PIXL Order is entered, a PAN is broadcast
Once the Initiating Member has submitted a PIXL Order for processing, such PIXL Order may not be modified or cancelled, and a member submitting the order has no ability to control the timing of the execution. The execution is carried out by the Exchange's Phlx XL automated options trading system and execution pricing is determined solely by the other orders and quotes that are present in the Phlx XL system at the time the Auction ends.
The Exchange proposes to modify the PAN under Rule 1080(n)(ii)(A)(3) to no longer include the stop price. Currently, the PAN includes the stop price as well as side and size of the PIXL Order. If the Initiating Member improves the stop price, today, an updated PAN will be sent, identifying the side, size and improved stop price. The exchange proposes to change the PAN such that neither a stop price is shown nor is an updated PAN sent with an improved price.
The Exchange believes that this should encourage PAN responses at the best possible price that the participant is willing to participate. This, in turn, should result in better execution prices, which is the “price improvement” that the PIXL functionality offers.
In other contexts, the Exchange has determined that showing the price of an order in an auction notification message is appropriate and useful. For instance, the Exchange recently determined to begin showing the price of a Complex Order in its auction message,
The Exchange believes that the rationale for showing price differs respecting PIXL Orders, because PIXL Orders can be very different from Complex Orders. Specifically, PIXL orders can vary in size and type. A simple (non-complex) PIXL order for just a few contracts is more appropriate for exposure to aggressive price competition. PIXL orders are entered into PIXL precisely because the Initiating Member is interested in participating with the order, if needed, and rather than permitting the execution to occur automatically, the PIXL process offers an opportunity for an improved price. It is the sort of system feature that would benefit from a more blind auction.
When Phlx first adopted the PIXL process, Phlx determined to show the stop price, which many options exchanges do in their price improvement systems. At this time, the Exchange believes that, as discussed above, the process would benefit from not showing the stop price.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposal is pro-competitive because it will enable the Exchange to better compete with another options exchange that provides price improvement functionality without revealing the price.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-112. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ proposes to establish fees under Rule 7030(d) for use of the NASDAQ Testing Facility (“NTF”) test environment located in Carteret, New Jersey, which will provide a virtual trading environment for testing. NASDAQ will begin assessing the fees on or about November 11, 2013; however, the installation fee will be waived for subscriptions ordered through March 31, 2014.
The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is italicized.
(1) The following fees are assessed for access to the Nasdaq Testing Facility:
(A) Subscribers that conduct tests of the computer-to-computer interface (CTCI) and the Financial Information Exchange (FIX) interface to ACT and ACES access protocols through the Nasdaq Testing Facility (NTF) shall pay the following charges:
(B) Subscribers that conduct tests of all Nasdaq access protocol connections not included in paragraph (A) above or of market data vendor feeds through the Nasdaq Testing Facility shall pay $300 per port, per month.
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for,
NASDAQ is proposing to amend Rule 7030(d) to establish fees for connection to a test environment. Specifically, NASDAQ proposes a one-time, per hand-off installation fee and a per hand-off monthly fee assessed for direct connectivity to the NASDAQ Testing Facility
The NTF is currently housed solely in NASDAQ's Ashburn, Virginia facility (“Ashburn”). In addition to housing the NTF, Ashburn is also a NASDAQ disaster recovery facility and, as such, some member firms connect to Ashburn for disaster recovery purposes in addition to trading system testing. NASDAQ currently assesses fees on members for physical connectivity to Ashburn.
NASDAQ notes that, because the Carteret facility also houses the System, subscribers to the Carteret test environment will no longer need to pay for third party connectivity to Ashburn if the sole purpose for connecting to Ashburn is for trading testing. Such member firms may use an existing connection to Carteret to access the NTF through the use of a dedicated switch port and cross connect within the facility. NASDAQ is proposing to assess a fee for connection to the test environment within the Carteret facility. Specifically, NASDAQ proposes assessing a $1,000 per hand-off, per month fee assessed for connectivity to the Carteret test environment for either 1Gb or 10Gb, and a one-time per hand-off installation fee of $1,000, which will cover NASDAQ's costs incurred in setting up a subscriber in the Carteret facility. NASDAQ is proposing to waive the installation fee through March 31, 2014, after which NASDAQ will begin phasing out trading testing at the Ashburn test environment.
NASDAQ is also making a minor clarifying change to the rule in light of the operation of dual NTF test environments.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The new fees are reasonable because they are designed to cover the costs NASDAQ has incurred in developing and offering the new test environment. The proposed fee should allow the Exchange to recoup these costs and make a profit, while providing member firms with a superior test environment that more closely mirrors that of the live trading environment on NASDAQ. NASDAQ believes that offering both 1Gb and 10Gb connectivity for the same fee is reasonable as the increased incremental cost it incurs by offering the 10Gb switch port at the lower fee is outweighed by the benefit all subscribers will receive if Carteret participants use hardware identical to what they use in the live trading environment, hence furthering the goal
The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Because the new test environment more closely approximates the live trading environment, subscribing member firms will be able to more accurately test their trading systems and avoid potentially disruptive system failures in the live trading environment.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding option orders that are tied to stock orders. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
One or more of the following order types may be made available on a class-by-class basis. Certain order types may not be made available for all Exchange systems. The classes and/or systems for which the order types shall be available will be as provided in the Rules, as the context may indicate, or as otherwise specified via Regulatory Circular.
(a)-(x) No change.
.01-.05 No change.
(a)-(d) No change.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding option orders that are tied to stock orders. The proposed rule change adds Rule 6.53(y), which defines a “tied to stock order” as an option order that is tied to a stock order at the time of order entry. In other words, a “tied to stock” order is an option order that, at the time it is entered into the System, is part of a trading strategy consisting of two or more orders, at least one of which is an order for the underlying stock, even though the component orders were submitted separately). Tied to stock orders do not include standard hedging strategies that include stock orders, as further discussed below. The proposed rule requires that each tied to stock order submitted to the Exchange be marked as “tied to stock” upon entry into the system. A tied to stock order can be a simple or complex order.
Tied to stock orders do not include qualified contingent cross (“QCC”) orders,
The proposed rule change also adopts Rule 15.2A, which provides that each Trading Permit Holder must submit to the Exchange as soon as practicable following the close of trading on each trading day a report of the following information regarding the stock legs of any tied to stock orders, QCC orders, stock-option orders and other option orders that include stock components executed on that trading day: (a) Time of execution, (b) execution quantity, (c) execution price, (d) venue of execution, and (e) any other information requested by the Exchange. Proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 provides that the Exchange will designate by Regulatory Circular any determinations
The Exchange is responsible for regulating its markets and Trading Permit Holders. To carry out its regulatory responsibilities, the Exchange needs to have sufficient trade data to effectively monitor cross-market trading activity, assist with investigations of potential violations of federal securities laws and Exchange rules, and perform market reconstructions or other analysis necessary to understand trading activity. CBOE currently requires Trading Permit Holders to submit various execution data in real-time or daily to help the Exchange monitor trading activity.
The Exchange believes the additional information it will receive pursuant to proposed Rule 15.2A (including information from orders service firms) will enhance its ability to effectively monitor and conduct surveillance of the CBOE market and its Trading Permit Holders, and their relevant cross-market trading activity, and thus to detect and investigate illegal activity in a more timely fashion. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will improve its ability to conduct more timely and accurate trading analyses, market reconstructions, complex enforcement inquiries or investigations, and inspections and examinations. The proposed marking of tied to stock orders will greatly improve the Exchange's ability to tie an executed stock leg to the applicable option order and thus the Exchange's ability to conduct surveillances related to these orders, such as surveillances for compliance with Regulation SHO and frontrunning rules.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to mark tied to stock orders will place minimal additional burden on Trading Permit Holders, because the marking will merely be adding one additional notation when entering a tied to stock order. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change to report to the Exchange information regarding stock trades will place minimal additional burden on Trading Permit Holders because they already have the capability to gather the required information, as the Exchange believes that stock exchanges (on which stock legs will be executed) require reporting of transaction information for stock trades in a similar manner as the Exchange does for option trades. Additionally, as discussed above, Exchange rules already require Trading Permit Holders to systemize or report various types of information regarding their orders and transactions to the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that this proposed rule change will substantially decrease its administrative burden in having to otherwise manually gather this cross-market information and tie stock legs to option orders in connection with its regulatory duties.
Order service firms,
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90 days following the effective date. The implementation date will be no later than 180 days following the effective date.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will significantly aid the Exchange's efforts to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices with respect to option orders that are tied to stock, because it will greatly improve the Exchange's ability to tie executed stock legs to the applicable option orders that were separately entered. This, along with the additional stock transaction information that the Exchange will receive pursuant to proposed Rule 15.2A, will provide the Exchange with information that will permit CBOE to more efficiently and effectively conduct its regulatory surveillances of CBOE trading activity and cross-market trading activity, such as surveillances to ensure compliance with Regulation SHO and frontrunning rules. Because the proposed rule change will enhance the Exchange's surveillance of cross-market trading activity, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will also remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote just and equitable principles of trade and protect investors by allowing the Exchange to detect and investigate illegal activity in a more timely fashion and improving the Exchange's ability to conduct more timely and accurate trading analyses, market reconstructions, complex enforcement inquiries or investigations, and inspections and examinations. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Rule 6.77 will benefit investors by including all requirements with respect to stock transactions executed by orders service firms, respectively, in a single place within the Exchange's rules.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will impose the same marking and reporting requirements on all Trading Permit Holders that submit tied to stock orders to CBOE. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. While the proposed rule change may impose requirements with respect to tied to stock orders submitted to CBOE that other options exchanges do not, the Exchange believes that, as discussed above, any additional burden imposed on Trading Permit Holders by this proposed rule change is minimal. The Exchange believes that stock exchanges (on which stock legs will be executed) already require reporting of transaction information for stock trades in a similar manner as the proposed rule change will require. Additionally, the marking requirement for tied to stock orders is only one additional piece of information that the Trading Permit Holder must enter when submitting a tied to stock order. The Exchange believes the benefits that the proposed rule change will provide with respect to its regulatory responsibilities far outweigh any minimal additional burden imposed on Trading Permit Holders.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding Market-Maker appointment cost rebalances. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding Market-Maker appointment cost rebalances. Appointments to act as a Market-Maker “cost” different amounts for different classes (with no classes costing more than 1.0). For purposes of ease of organization, the Exchange places classes into different tiers, with all the classes in a certain tier costing the same amount per appointment (so, for example, all the classes in tier B cost 0.05 per class appointment, all the classes in tier E cost .01 per class appointment, etc.). Each Trading Permit held by a Market-Maker has an appointment credit of 1.0. A Market-Maker may select for each Trading Permit the Market-Maker holds any combination of Hybrid classes and Hybrid 3.0 classes, whose aggregate appointment cost does not exceed 1.0.
When the Exchange effects a rebalancing (a class changing tiers), the class is assigned the appointment cost of that new tier. Upon such rebalancing, each Market-Maker with a Virtual Trading Crowd (“VTC”) appointment
This means that, upon rebalancing, if a Market-Maker's aggregate appointment cost is higher than the number of permits he holds, the Exchange will give the Market-Maker the number of permits necessary to ensure that the Market-Maker's aggregate appointment cost is no longer higher than the number of permits he holds (and the Market-Maker will be assessed the corresponding Trading Permit fees for such added Trading Permits). So, for example, consider a situation in which a Market-Maker's aggregate appointment cost for the classes for which he holds Market-Maker appointments prior to a rebalancing is 4.90 and the Market-Maker holds 5 Trading Permits. The Exchange then rebalances the appointment costs of classes and announces such rebalancing at least ten days prior to the rebalancing takes effect. Upon this rebalancing taking effect, the Market-Maker's appointment cost is now going to be 5.40. If the Market-Maker does not adjust his appointments prior to such rebalancing taking effect, the Exchange will simply assign that Market-Maker a sixth Market-Maker Trading Permit.
This solution prevents the Exchange from having to institute regulatory proceedings against a Market-Maker whose revised aggregate appointment cost exceeds the number of Trading Permits the Market-Maker holds. Otherwise, the Exchange must expend considerable resources coordinating with the Market-Maker to ensure that the Market-Maker adjusts his appointments such that the Market-Maker's aggregate appointment cost does not exceed the number of Trading Permits the Market-Maker holds (as the Exchange does not have the ability to
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to ensure that no Market-Maker has an aggregate appointment cost that exceeds the number of Trading Permits the Market-Maker holds. As such, the proposed rule change removes an impediment to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest (as having an aggregate appointment cost that exceeds the number of Trading Permits a Market-Maker holds would provide an unfair advantage to that Market-Maker). Because the Exchange does not have the ability to adjust the VTC appointments of a Market-Maker whose aggregate appointment cost exceeds the number of Trading Permits that the Market-Maker holds, the proposed rule change also helps the Exchange to ensure compliance by TPHs with Exchange rules. The proposed rule change would apply to all Market-Makers equally.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it will apply to all Market-Makers (and only Market-Makers can have a Market-Maker appointment). CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change only applies to the Market-Maker appointment process on CBOE, and also because the proposed rule change is intended for a compliance, and not competitive, purpose.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .08 to Rule 6.4 to modify the Quarterly Option Series (“QOS”) Program to eliminate the cap on the number of additional series that may be listed per expiration month for each QOS in exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) options. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Commentary .08(ii) to Rule 6.4 related to the QOS Program to eliminate the cap on the number of additional series that may be listed per expiration month for each QOS in ETF options.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Commentary .08(ii) to make the treatment of QOS in ETF options consistent with the treatment of QOS in index options. NYSE Arca Options Rule 5.19(a)(3)(C) governs the QOS Program in index options. Index options include options on industry/narrow-based indices and options on market/broad-based indices.
The Exchange believes that the proposed revision to the QOS Program would provide market participants with the ability to better tailor their trading to meet their investment objectives, including hedging securities positions, by permitting the Exchange to list additional QOS in ETF options that meet such objectives. The Exchange has observed that situations arise in which additional strike prices in smaller intervals would be valuable to investors. However, due to the cap on additional QOS series the Exchange cannot always provide these important at-the-money strikes. Elimination of the cap would remedy this issue.
Currently, the Exchange lists quarterly expiration options on six ETFs, but the cap restricts the number of strikes on these options, which often results in a lack of strike continuity. For example, the Exchange lists quarterly expiration options on SPDR Gold Trust (“GLD”). On January 2, 2013, the Exchange initially listed December 31, 2013 quarterly expiration options (“December 2013 Quarterlies”) on GLD, which closed the previous trading day at $162.02, with initial strikes from $115 to $210, and additional strikes in $1 intervals from $131 to $189. But during
But the Exchange is not subject to a similar cap on the number of additional weekly or monthly expiration options it can list on ETFs.
Similarly, the Exchange lists quarterly options on SPDR S&P 500 ETF (“SPY”), which during 2013 closed at a range of $145.55 to $173.05. Again, due to the cap, the Exchange cannot offer quarterly expiration options on SPY in $1 intervals above $170 because the number of additional strikes would exceed the cap of 60. Instead, the Exchange is forced to list quarterly expiration options on SPY at $5 intervals above $170, despite the fact that SPY has recently traded between $165 and $170. As such, if SPY would again increase to $170, then the Exchange would only be able to offer options with a strike price $5 away from the price of the underlying ETF due to the cap on additional strikes.
On the other hand, in contrast to the limitations imposed on the Exchange for quarterly expiration options on ETFs, the absence of a similar cap on quarterly expiration options on indexes means that the Exchange can list, and investors can achieve, more granularity in index-based options. For example, S&P 500 Mini-SPX options (“SPX”) are options on the S&P 500 index, as opposed to options on SPY, the ETF based on that same S&P 500 index. SPX options are used to hedge SPY positions and are traded at the equivalent of one point and one-half point intervals. The SPX trades at 10 times the value of SPY, so that if SPY trades at $168.70, SPX trades at $1687. Therefore, the strike price for a quarterly expiration option on SPX, that is a hedge for a quarterly expiration option on SPY at $170, would be $1700. The Exchange can offer quarterly expiration options on SPX with strike prices of $1670, $1680, $1690, and $1700 because there is no cap on quarterly expiration index-based options. However, the Exchange cannot similarly offer quarterly expiration options on SPY with similar strike price continuity because of the cap on quarterly expiration ETF-based options.
Elimination of the cap would also help market participants meet their investment objectives by providing expanded opportunities to roll ETF options into later quarters. For example, a market participant that holds one or more contracts in a QOS in an ETF put option that has a strike price of $120 and an expiration date of the last day of the third quarter may wish to roll that position into the fourth quarter. That is, the market participant may wish to close out the contracts set to expire at the end of the third quarter and instead establish a position in the same number of contracts in a QOS in a put option on the same ETF with the same strike price of $120, but with an expiration date of the last day of the fourth quarter. Because of the cap on additional QOS in ETF options, however, the Exchange may not be able to list additional QOS in the ETF. Elimination of the cap, though, would allow the Exchange to meet the investment needs of market participants in such situations.
The Exchange has sufficient capacity to handle increased quote and trade reporting traffic that might be expected to result from listing additional QOS in ETF options. The Exchange notes that it has purchased capacity from the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) to handle its options quote and trade reporting traffic.
Moreover, the Exchange has in place a quote mitigation plan that helps it maintain sufficient capacity to handle quote traffic. The plan, which has been approved by the Commission, reduces the number of quotations that the Exchange disseminates by limiting disseminated quotes to active options series only.
To help ensure that only active options series are listed, the Exchange also has in place procedures to delist inactive series. Commentary .08(iii) to Rule 6.4 requires the Exchange to review QOS that are outside of a range of five strikes above and five strikes below the current price of the underlying ETF. Based on that review, the Exchange must delist series with no open interest in both the call and the put series having (i) a strike price higher than the highest price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month, and (ii) a strike price lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month.
The Exchange's experience with listing additional QOS in ETF options at the end of 2008 also indicates that it has sufficient capacity to handle increased order and quote traffic that might be expected to result from listing additional QOS in ETF options. Commentary .08(iv) to Rule 6.4 established a temporary rule that permitted the Exchange to list up to 100 additional series per expiration month for each QOS in ETF option in the fourth quarter of 2008, and for the new expiration month being added after the December 2008 QOS expiration.
Finally, the Exchange is proposing to make a technical amendment to Commentary .08(ii) to Rule 6.4. Currently, the Commentary states that the Exchange may open for trading additional Quarterly Options Series that are more than 30% away from
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because it will expand the investment options available to investors and will allow for more efficient risk management. The Exchange believes that removing the cap on the number of QOS in ETF options permitted to be listed on the Exchange will result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions to their needs, and therefore, the proposal is designed to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, by removing the cap, the proposed rule change will make the treatment of QOS in ETF options consistent with the treatment of QOS in index options, thus resulting in similar regulatory treatment for similar options products.
While the expansion of the number of QOS in ETF options is expected to generate additional quote traffic, the Exchange believes that this increased traffic will be manageable and will not present capacity problems. As previously stated, the Exchange has in place a quote mitigation plan that helps it maintain sufficient capacity to handle quote traffic. To help ensure that only active options series are listed, Exchange procedures are designed to delist inactive series, ensuring that any additional quote traffic is a result of interest in active series.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate to eliminate obsolete or out-of-date rule text from the rule book. Specifically, the technical amendment to Commentary .08(ii) to Rule 6.4 is appropriate as the correction will lessen the likelihood for investor confusion. Further, elimination of Commentary .08(iv) to Rule 6.4 is appropriate as the removal will also lessen the likelihood for investor confusion by deleting rules that no longer are applicable.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors would benefit from the introduction of additional QOS in ETF options by providing investors with more flexibility to closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions to their needs. Additionally, Exchange procedures for delisting inactive series will ensure that only active series with sufficient investor interest will be made available and maintained on the Exchange.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to specify the frequency with which the Exchange may change the Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”) on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) options facility. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become operative on November 1, 2013. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX to specify the frequency with which the Exchange may change the ORF. The Exchange proposes to implement the change effective November 1, 2013.
The ORF is assessed by the Exchange on each BOX Options Participant for all options transactions executed or cleared by the BOX Options Participant that are cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the customer range (i.e., transactions that clear in the customer account of the BOX Options Participant's clearing firm at OCC) regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The fee is collected indirectly from BOX Options Participants through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange. The dues and fees paid by BOX Options Participants go into the general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay the costs of regulation.
In response to feedback from participants requesting greater certainty as to when ORF changes may occur, the Exchange proposes to specify in the Fee Schedule that the Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually, and any such fee change will be effective on the first business day of February or August. The Exchange has previously committed to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF so that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. In addition to submitting a proposed rule change to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) as required by the Act to increase or decrease the ORF, the Exchange will notify Participants via an Informational Circular of any anticipated change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change. The Exchange believes that by providing guidance on the timing of any changes to the ORF, the Exchange would make it easier for participants to ensure their systems are configured to properly account for the ORF.
The proposed change is not intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that BOX Options Participants would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to limit changes to the ORF to twice a year on specific dates with advance notice is reasonable because it will give participants certainty on the timing of changes, if any, and better enable them to properly account for ORF charges among their customers. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same manner to all BOX Options Participants that are subject to the ORF and provide them
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not intended to address a competitive issue but rather to provide BOX Options Participants with better notice of any change that the Exchange may make to the ORF. In any event, because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their trading practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee or credit changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of BOX Options Participants, or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.69(a) to provide that a pattern or practice of late reporting of option transactions to the Exchange for dissemination to the Options Price Reporting Authority is subject to disciplinary action. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.69(a) to provide that a pattern or practice of late reporting of option transactions to the Exchange for dissemination to the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) is subject to disciplinary action, including fines. Current Rule 6.69(a) requires an OTP Holder or OTP Firm to immediately report option transactions to the Exchange for dissemination to OPRA. The rule further provides that transactions not reported to OPRA within 90 seconds after execution will be designated “late,” and that an OTP Holder or OTP Firm who is responsible for late reporting of an option transaction, without reasonable justification or excuse, will be subject to a fine under Rule 10.12. Thus, under current rule 6.69(a), a single late-reported transaction is subject to a fine.
To have more flexibility in evaluating whether late reporting of option transactions should be subject to a fine, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule to provide that “a pattern or practice” of late reporting of option transactions to the Exchange would constitute a violation of the 90-second reporting requirement. While the Exchange's proposal does not expressly define what a “pattern or practice” of late reporting is, the Exchange will apply its existing Sanctioning Guidelines, which are contained in Rule 10.16. Rule 10.16 contains both general guidelines for considering and determining the applicability of sanctions under various Exchange rules, and guidelines specific to violations of Rule 6.69, among other rules.
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is substantially similar to current rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) Rule 6.51(a) and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (“PHLX”) Rule 1051(a).
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange's proposal allows the Exchange to compete more effectively with other options exchanges that currently have rules in effect substantially similar to what the Exchange now proposes.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 957NY to provide that a pattern or practice of late reporting of option transactions to the Exchange for dissemination to the Options Price Reporting Authority is subject to disciplinary action. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 957NY to provide that a pattern or practice of late reporting of option transactions to the Exchange for dissemination to the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) is subject to disciplinary action, including fines. Current Rule 957NY requires an ATP Holder to immediately report option transactions to the Exchange. The rule further provides that transactions not reported to OPRA within 90 seconds after execution will be designated “late,” and that an ATP Holder who is responsible for late reporting of an option transaction, without reasonable justification or excuse, will be subject to a fine under Section 9A. Thus, under current rule 957NY, a single late-reported transaction is subject to a fine.
To have more flexibility in evaluating whether late reporting of option transactions should be subject to a fine, the Exchange proposes to amend the rule to provide that “a pattern or practice” of late reporting of option transactions to the Exchange would constitute a violation of the 90-second reporting requirement. While the Exchange's proposal does not expressly define what a “pattern or practice” of late reporting is, the Exchange will apply its existing Sanctions Guidelines, which are contained in Rule 476,
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is substantially similar to current rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (“CBOE”) Rule 6.51(a) and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (“PHLX”) Rule 1051(a).
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange's proposal allows the Exchange to compete more effectively with other options exchanges that currently have rules in effect substantially similar to what the Exchange now proposes.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The ISE proposes to decrease its Options Regulatory Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to decrease its Options Regulatory Fee (“ORF”). The Exchange has reevaluated the current amount of the ORF in light of increased trading volumes year-to-date. In order to ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs, the Exchange is proposing to decrease the ORF from $0.0042 per contract to $0.0039 per contract. The Exchange is also proposing to remove language from its Schedule of Fees that indicates that the ORF is effective starting on January 1, 2010 as this effective date has passed.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of members' customer options business, including performing routine surveillance and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the proposed ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs. The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with respect to member compliance with options sales practice rules have been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) under a 17d-2 Agreement. The ORF is not designed to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation.
The ORF is assessed by the Exchange to each member for all options transactions in both Standard Options and Mini Options executed or cleared by the member that are cleared by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) in the customer range, i.e., transactions that clear in the customer account of the member's clearing firm at OCC, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. In other words, ISE imposes the ORF on all customer-range transactions executed by a member, even if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange.
The ORF is collected indirectly from members through their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange. As a practical matter, it is not feasible or reasonable for the Exchange (or any SRO) to identify each executing member that submits an order on a trade-by-trade basis. There are countless executing market participants, and each day such participants can and often do drop their connection to one market center and establish themselves as participants on another. It is virtually impossible for any exchange to identify each executing participant on a given trading day. Clearing members, however, are distinguished from executing participants because they remain identified to the Exchange regardless of the identity of the initiating executing participant, their location, and the market center on which they execute transactions. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is more efficient for the operation of the Exchange and for the marketplace as a whole to collect the ORF indirectly from members through their clearing firms.
The Exchange also believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a member's activities supports
The Exchange further believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the Exchange to charge the ORF for options transactions regardless of the exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory obligation to enforce compliance by members and their associated persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange, and to surveil for other manipulative conduct by market participants (including non-members) trading on the Exchange. Many of the Exchange's market surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across all options markets, such as surveillance for position limit violations, manipulation, front-running and contrary exercise advice violations/expiring exercise declarations. The Exchange cannot effectively surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating activity across all options markets. Also, the Exchange and the other options exchanges are required to populate a consolidated options audit trail (“COATS”) system in order to surveil a member's activities across markets.
The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will avoid having members direct their trades to other markets in order to avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share for regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a member would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated exchange. Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their member's activity, including the activity of those members on the ISE.
The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange expects to monitor its regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on an annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange will notify members of adjustments to the ORF via circular.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The Exchange believes the ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to members in that it is charged to all members on all their transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing fees to those members that require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. As a result, the costs associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-customer component of its regulatory program (e.g., member proprietary transactions).
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues. Rather, the proposed rule change is designed to help the Exchange to adequately fund its regulatory activities while seeking to ensure that total regulatory revenues do not exceed total regulatory costs.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02, the shares of the Market Vectors Short High-Yield Municipal Index ETF. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the Market Vectors Short High Yield Municipal Index ETF (“Fund”) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02, which governs the listing and trading of Investment Company Units (“Units”) based on fixed income securities indexes.
Van Eck Associates Corporation will be the investment adviser (“Adviser”) for the Fund. Van Eck Securities Corporation will be the Fund's distributor (“Distributor”). Van Eck Associates Corporation also will be the administrator for the Fund (the “Administrator”), and will be responsible for certain clerical, recordkeeping and/or bookkeeping services. The Bank of New York Mellon will be the custodian of the Fund's assets and provides transfer agency and fund accounting services to the Fund.
The investment objective of the Fund will be to seek to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the price and yield performance of the Barclays Municipal High Yield Short Duration Index (the “Short High Yield Index” or “Index”). The Fund
The Fund, using a “passive” or indexing investment approach, will attempt to approximate the investment performance of the Index. The Adviser expects that, over time, the correlation between the Fund's performance before fees and expenses and that of the Index will be 95% or better. A figure of 100% would indicate perfect correlation. Because of the practical difficulties and expense of purchasing all of the securities in the Index, the Fund will not purchase all of the securities in the Index. Instead, the Adviser will utilize a “sampling” methodology in seeking to achieve the Fund's objective. As such, the Fund may purchase a subset of the bonds in the Index in an effort to hold a portfolio of bonds with generally the same risk and return characteristics of the Index.
While the Fund normally will invest at least 80% of its total assets in securities that compose the Index, the Fund may invest its remaining assets in other financial instruments, as described below.
The Fund may invest its remaining assets in securities not included in the Short High Yield Index, money market instruments, including repurchase agreements or other funds which invest exclusively in money market instruments, convertible securities,
The Fund may invest in repurchase agreements with commercial banks, brokers or dealers to generate income from its excess cash balances and to invest securities lending cash collateral.
The Fund may use exchange-traded futures contracts and exchange-traded or over-the-counter (“OTC”) options thereon, together with positions in cash and money market instruments, to simulate full investment in the Index.
The Fund may use cleared or non-cleared index, interest rate or credit default swap agreements. Swap agreements are contracts between parties in which one party agrees to make payments to the other party based on the change in market value or level of a specified index or asset. The Adviser represents that currently interest rate swaps and credit default swaps on indexes are cleared. However, credit default swaps on a specific security are currently uncleared.
The Fund may invest in exchange-traded warrants, which are equity securities in the form of options issued by a corporation which give the holder the right to purchase stock, usually at a price that is higher than the market price at the time the warrant is issued.
The Fund may invest in participation notes, which are issued by banks or broker-dealers and are designed to offer a return linked to the performance of a particular underlying equity security or market.
The Fund will only enter into transactions in derivative instruments with counterparties that the Adviser reasonably believes are capable of performing under the contract and will post as collateral as required by the counterparty.
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser, in accordance with Commission guidance.
The Index is a market size weighted index composed of publicly traded municipal bonds that cover the U.S.
The Index is calculated using a market value weighting methodology. Index constituents are capitalization-weighted, based on their current amount outstanding. The Index tracks the high yield municipal bond market with a 75% weight in non-investment grade municipal bonds and a 25% weight in Baa/BBB-rated investment grade municipal bonds. It is comprised of three total return, market size weighted benchmark indexes with weights as follows:
All bonds must have a fixed rate, a dated-date after December 31, 1990 and a nominal maturity of 1 to 10 years. Taxable municipal bonds, bonds with floating rates and derivatives are excluded from the Index.
The composition of the Index is rebalanced monthly. Interest and principal payments earned by the component securities are held in the Index without a reinvestment return until month end when they are removed from the Index. Qualifying securities issued, but not necessarily settled, on or before the month end rebalancing date qualify for inclusion in the Index in the following month.
Total returns are calculated based on the sum of price changes, gain/loss on repayments of principal, and coupons received or accrued, expressed as a percentage of beginning market value. The Index is calculated and is available once a day.
The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the Index for the Fund does not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .02(a) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) applicable to the listing of Units based on fixed income securities indexes. The Index meets all such requirements except for those set forth in Commentary .02(a)(2).
As of November 27, 2012, 72.21% of the weight of the Index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities of the offering. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the Index was approximately $757 billion and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the Index was approximately $394 million. Further, the most heavily weighted component represents 2.67% of the weight of the Index and the five most heavily weighted components represent 10.67% of the weight of the Index.
In addition, the average daily notional trading volume for Index components for the period from October 31, 2011 to October 31, 2012 was $2,839,895 and the sum of the notional trading volumes for the same period was $5,480,997,730.
The Index value, calculated and disseminated at least once daily, as well as the components of the Index and their percentage weighting, will be
The Exchange represents that: (1) Except for Commentary .02(a)(2) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Shares of the Fund currently satisfy all of the generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3); (2) the continued listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2) applicable to Units shall apply to the Shares; and (3) the Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act
The current value of the Index will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least once per day, as required by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02 (b)(ii). The IIV for Shares of the Fund will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors, updated at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session, as required by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .02 (c).
According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will issue and sell Shares only in “Creation Units” of 100,000 Shares or multiples thereof on a continuous basis through the Distributor, without an initial sales load, at their net asset value (“NAV”) next determined after receipt, on any business day, of an order in proper form.
The consideration for a purchase of Creation Units generally will consist of cash, in-kind, or a combination of cash and in-kind. The in-kind purchase of Creation Units will consist of the deposit of a designated portfolio of fixed income securities (the “Deposit Securities”) that compose the Index and an amount of cash computed as described below (the “Cash Component”) or, as permitted or required by the Fund, of the cash value of the Deposit Securities (the “Deposit Cash”) and the Cash Component computed as described below. When accepting purchases of Creation Units for cash, the Fund may incur additional costs associated with the acquisition of Deposit Securities.
The Cash Component together with the Deposit Securities or the Deposit Cash, as applicable, are referred to as the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for Shares. The specified Deposit Securities generally will correspond, pro rata, to the extent practicable, to the component securities of the Fund's portfolio. The Cash Component represents the difference between the NAV of a Creation Unit and the market value of Deposit Securities and may include a “Dividend Equivalent Payment”. The Dividend Equivalent Payment will enable the Fund to make a complete distribution of dividends on the next dividend payment date, and is an amount equal, on a per Creation Unit basis, to the dividends on all the securities held by the Fund (“Fund Securities”) with ex-dividend dates within the accumulation period for such distribution (the “Accumulation Period”), net of expenses and liabilities for such period, as if all of the Fund Securities had been held by the Trust for the entire Accumulation Period. The Accumulation Period begins on the ex-dividend date for the Fund and ends on the next ex-dividend date.
The Trust may determine to issue Shares on an all cash basis (
The Administrator, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), will make available on each business day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time), the list of the names and the required principal amounts of each Deposit Security to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous business day) as well as the Cash Component for the Fund. Such Fund Deposit is applicable, subject to any adjustments as described in the Registration Statement, in order to effect creations of Creation Units of the Fund until such time as the next-announced Deposit Securities composition or the required amount of Deposit Cash, as applicable, is made available.
In addition to the list of names and numbers of securities constituting the current Deposit Securities of a Fund Deposit, the Administrator, through the NSCC, also will make available (i) on each business day, the Dividend Equivalent Payment, if any, and the estimated Cash Component effective through and including the previous business day, per outstanding Shares of the Fund, and (ii) on a continuous basis throughout the day, the Indicative Per Share Portfolio Value.
All orders to create Creation Units must be placed in multiples of 100,000 Shares of the Fund. All orders to create Creation Units must be received by the Distributor no later than the closing time of the close of the NYSE Core Trading Session NYSE Arca (“Closing Time”, ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time) on the date such order is placed in order for creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of the Fund as determined on such date.
Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Distributor, only on a business day and only through a “Participating Party” or Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) Participant who has executed a “Participant Agreement”, as described in the Registration Statement. The Trust will not redeem Shares in amounts less than Creation Units.
The Administrator, through NSCC, will make available immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m. Eastern time) on each day that the Exchange is open for business, the Fund Securities that will be delivered to satisfy (subject to possible amendment or correction) redemption requests received in proper
Unless cash redemptions are permitted or required for the Fund, the redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally will consist of Fund Securities as announced by the Administrator on the business day of the request for redemption, plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities, less the redemption transaction fee and variable fees described below. An Authorized Participant may receive the cash equivalent of one or more Fund Securities because it was restricted from transacting in one or more Fund Securities. Should the Fund Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, a compensating cash payment to the Trust equal to the differential plus the applicable redemption transaction fee will be required to be arranged for by or on behalf of the redeeming shareholder. The Fund reserves the right to honor a redemption request by delivering a basket of securities or cash that differs from the Fund Securities.
Orders to redeem Creation Units of the Fund must be delivered through a DTC Participant that has executed the Participant Agreement with the Distributor and with the Trust. A DTC Participant who wishes to place an order for redemption of Creation Units of the Fund to be effected need not be a Participating Party, but such orders must state that redemption of Creation Units of the Fund will instead be effected through transfer of Creation Units of the Fund directly through DTC. An order to redeem Creation Units of the Fund will be deemed received by the Administrator on the “Transmittal Date” if (i) such order is received by the Administrator not later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern time on such Transmittal Date; (ii) such order is preceded or accompanied by the requisite number of Shares of Creation Units specified in such order, which delivery must be made through DTC to the Administrator no later than 11:00 a.m. Eastern time, on such Transmittal Date (the “DTC Cut-Off-Time”); and (iii) all other procedures set forth in the Participant Agreement are properly followed.
A standard creation and redemption transaction fee will be imposed to offset transfer and other transaction costs that may be incurred by the Fund.
All persons creating and redeeming Shares during a business day will be treated in the same manner with respect to payment of proceeds in-kind, in cash, or in a combination thereof.
Detailed descriptions of the Fund, the Index, procedures for creating and redeeming Shares, transaction fees and expenses, dividends, distributions, taxes, risks, and reports to be distributed to beneficial owners of the Shares can be found in the Registration Statements or on the Web site for the Fund (
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
As of November 27, 2012, 72.21% of the weight of the Index components was composed of individual maturities that were part of an entire municipal bond offering with a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more for all maturities of the offering. In addition, the total dollar amount outstanding of issues in the Index was approximately $757 billion and the average dollar amount outstanding of issues in the Index was approximately $394 million. Further, the most heavily weighted component represents 2.67% of the weight of the Index and the five most heavily weighted components represent 10.67% of the weight of the Index.
The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding the Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. The Fund's portfolio holdings will be disclosed on the Fund's Web site daily after the close of trading on the Exchange and prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange the following day. Moreover, the IIV will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. The current value of the Index will be disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least once per day. Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services, and quotation and last sale information will be available via the CTA high-speed line. The Web site for the Fund will include the prospectus for the Fund and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information. Moreover, prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. If the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV is not being disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the NAV is available to all market participants. With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Fund. Trading also may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. If the IIV or the Index values are not being disseminated as required, the Corporation may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the applicable IIV or Index value occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the applicable IIV or Index value persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Corporation will halt trading. Trading in Shares of the Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable, and trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34, which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted. In addition, investors will have ready access to information regarding the IIV, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, investors will have ready access to information regarding the IIV and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product that holds municipal bonds and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Interpretation and Policy .02 to Rule 11.8, entitled “Competitive Liquidity Provider Program.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On August 30, 2011, the Exchange received approval of rules applicable to the qualification, listing and delisting of securities of issuers on the Exchange.
The purpose of this filing is to modify Interpretation and Policy .02 of Rule 11.8 regarding certain details around the implementation of the CLP Program. Specifically, effective December 1, 2013, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Award up to three CLPs, or more in the case of a tie, at each size event test (“SET”) with credits (“SET Credits”) based on their rank in aggregate size at the NBB or NBO at the time of the SET; (2) base the allocation of daily financial rewards on the number of SET Credits awarded to CLPs; (3) change the allocation of the daily financial rewards to a set dollar value per CLP in each class of security; and (4) make certain cleanup and clarifying changes to Interpretation and Policy .02 to Rule 11.8.
The Exchange is proposing to award Winning Bid SETs
The Exchange is proposing to amend Interpretation and Policy .02(g)(1) to Rule 11.8 such that the three CLPs with the greatest aggregate size at the NBB and the three CLPs with the greatest aggregate size at the NBO at the time of each SET will be considered to have a Winning SET. Where there is a tie, all CLPs with the same aggregate size at the NBB (NBO) will be considered to have a Winning Bid (Offer) SET if there are two or less CLPs that have greater aggregate size at the NBB (NBO). Additionally, all CLPs with a Winning SET will be awarded SET Credits based on the following: all CLPs with the greatest aggregate size at the NBB or NBO will receive three SET Credits; all CLPs with the second greatest aggregate size at the NBB or NBO will receive two SET Credits; and all CLPs with the third greatest aggregate size at the NBB will receive one SET Credit.
For example:
Here, all four CLPs will have a Winning Bid SET because CLP1 and CLP2 are both two of the top three CLPs with the greatest aggregate size at the NBB, while CLP3 and CLP4 are tied at 800 shares and there are only two CLPs that have greater aggregate size at the NBB than 800 shares. CLP1 would receive three Bid SET Credits, CLP2 would receive two Bid SET Credits, and CLP3 and CLP4 would each receive one Bid SET Credit.
However, if CLP3 had 900 shares at the NBB and all other CLPs remained the same, only CLP1, CLP2, and CLP3 would have a Winning SET because CLP2 and CLP3 would be tied and there is only one CLP that has greater aggregate size than 900 shares (CLP1). CLP4 would have the fourth greatest aggregate size at the NBB among CLPs and thus would not qualify for a Winning SET. In this instance, CLP1 would receive three Bid SET Credits, CLP2 and CLP3 would each receive two Bid SET Credits, and CLP4 would not receive any Bid SET Credits.
Finally, if CLP1, CLP2, CLP3, and CLP4 all had 1,000 shares at the NBB, the four CLPs would each receive three Bid SET Credits. In this scenario, if another CLP (“CLP5”) had 900 shares at the NBB, CLP5 would not qualify for a Winning SET and would not receive any Bid SET Credits because more than two CLPs have greater aggregate size at the NBB than the 900 shares posted by CLP5.
The above examples would operate in an identical fashion for the NBO.
The Exchange is also proposing to amend its Rules in order to base the allocation of daily financial rewards associated with the CLP Program on SET Credits instead of Winning SETs. Currently, the daily financial reward for Tier I securities
The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .02 (k)(1) of BATS Rule 11.8 to provide that the daily financial reward for all securities participating in the Program will be based on SET Credits. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that the daily financial reward for Tier I securities and ETPs be awarded to the two CLPs with the most Bid SET Credits and the two CLPs with the most Offer SET Credits and for the daily financial reward for Tier II securities to be awarded to the CLP with the most Bid Set Credits and the CLP with the most Offer SET Credits. The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to change the daily quoting requirement that a CLP have Winning Bid SETs or Winning Offer SETs equal to at least 10% of the total Bid SETs or total Offer SETs in a security in order to be eligible for the daily financial reward.
The Exchange also proposes to change the allocation of the daily financial rewards to a specified amount per CLP in each class of security. Currently, the daily financial rewards for Tier I securities and ETPs are allocated to the two CLPs with the most Winning Bid SETs and the two CLPs with the most Winning Offer SETs on a pro rata basis, based on the combined sum of the two CLPs' Winning SETs. The financial rewards for Tier II securities are allocated to the single CLP with the most Winning Bid SETs and the single CLP with the most Winning Offer SETs.
The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .02 (k)(1) of BATS Rule 11.8 in order to allocate the daily financial rewards to CLPs on a pre-determined basis rather than on a pro rata basis. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to allocate the daily financial rewards as follows: (i) For the six months after initial listing on the Exchange in Tier I securities, the CLPs with the most and second most SET Credits will receive $150 and $100, respectively, for both the bid and the offer; and (ii) for Tier I securities that have been listed on the Exchange for more than six months and for ETPs, the CLPs with the most and second most SET Credits will receive $75 and $50, respectively, for both the bid and the offer. For Tier II securities, the CLP with the most SET Credits will continue to receive 100% of the daily financial reward for both the bid and the offer.
The Exchange also proposes to make several cleanup and clarifying changes to Interpretation and Policy .02 of BATS Rule 11.8. These changes include the following: (i) adding “the time of” between “aggregate size at the NBB at” and “each SET” to paragraph (g)(1); (ii) adding “the time of” between “aggregate size at the NBO at” and “each SET” to paragraph (g)(1); (iii) adding the word “to” between the words “order” and “meet” in paragraph (g)(1)(A); (iv) to capitalize the “b” in each instance of “bid SET” that is not capitalized in paragraph (k)(1); and (v) to capitalize the “o” in each instance of “offer SET” that is not capitalized in paragraph (k)(1).
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposal will merely improve the incentives and, in turn, the results, of its CLP Program. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes will enhance competition amongst participants in the CLP Program.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative on December 1, 2013. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Doing so will allow the Exchange to promptly implement the proposed amendments to the CLP Program, which amendments the Exchange believes will benefit both CLPs and market participants generally by incentivizing CLPs to provide tighter spreads and deeper liquidity, as well as by providing additional clarity around existing Exchange rules. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2013-057. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASDAQ proposes to make modifications to its Qualified Market Maker (“QMM”) and NBBO Setter Incentive pricing incentive programs under Rule 7014 and the pricing for its Retail Price Improvement (“RPI”) program under Rule 7018(g), and to make other changes to NASDAQ's schedule of fees and credits applicable to execution and routing of orders in securities priced at $1 or more per share. NASDAQ proposes to implement the proposed rule change on November 1, 2013. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, NASDAQ included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
Under NASDAQ's QMM Program, a member may be designated as a QMM with respect to one or more of its market participant identifiers (“MPIDs”) if:
• The member is not assessed any “Excess Order Fee” under Rule 7018 during the month;
• Through such MPID the member quotes at the national best bid or best offer (“NBBO”) at least 25% of the time during regular market hours
A member that is a QMM with respect to a particular MPID (a “QMM MPID”) is eligible to receive certain financial benefits, as fully described in Rule 7014. One of these benefits pertains to the credits available under NASDAQ's NBBO Setter Incentive Program. Under that program, NASDAQ provides an enhanced liquidity provider rebate with respect to displayed liquidity-providing orders that set the NBBO or cause NASDAQ to join another trading center with a protected quotation at the NBBO. The NBBO Setter Incentive credit is paid on a monthly basis, and the amount is determined by multiplying the applicable rate by the number of shares of displayed liquidity provided to which a particular rate applies.
NASDAQ is proposing to modify the program to eliminate the $0.0005 credit, such that a credit of $0.0002 per share executed would be paid with respect to all orders entered through a QMM MPID that displayed a quantity of at least one round lot at the time of execution and either established the NBBO or was the first order posted on NASDAQ that had the same price as an order posted at another trading center with a protected quotation that established the NBBO. The change reflects ongoing efforts to reduce costs in a period of persistent low trading volumes.
Under the RPI Program, a member (or a division thereof) approved by the Exchange to participate in the program (a “Retail Member Organization” or “RMO”) may submit designated “Retail Orders”
NASDAQ currently offers a rebate of $0.0025 per share executed to RMOs for Retail Orders that execute against RPI Orders or other orders providing price improvement with respect to the NBBO. NASDAQ is proposing to reduce this rebate to $0.0005 per share executed. For RPI Orders that provide liquidity, NASDAQ currently charges a fee of $0.0020 per share executed, which NASDAQ proposes to reduce to $0.0010 per share executed. Other charges with respect to the program remain unchanged. The change is designed to eliminate “inverted” pricing that was introduced at the commencement of the program, under which Retail Orders were paid a credit that exceeded the charge assessed against RPI Orders.
Currently, NASDAQ provides a credit of $0.0029 per share executed for displayed orders that provide liquidity if a member (i) has shares of liquidity provided in all securities during the month representing more than 0.15% of Consolidated Volume during the month, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, and (ii) Total Volume, as defined in Chapter XV, Section 2 of the Nasdaq Options Market (“NOM”) rules,
Similarly, NASDAQ is amending an existing tier, under which NASDAQ provides a credit of $0.0030 per share executed for displayed orders that provide liquidity if a member (i) has shares of liquidity provided in all securities during the month representing at least 0.45% of Consolidated Volume during the month, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, and (ii) qualifies for the Penny Pilot Tier 8 Customer and Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity under Chapter XV, Section 2 of the NOM rules during the month through one or more of its NOM MPIDs. A NOM Participant may qualify for the Tier 8 Customer and Professional Rebate if it (i) has Total Volume of 200,000 or more contracts per day in a month, of which 70,000 or more contracts per day in a month are Customer and/or Professional liquidity, or (ii) adds Customer and/or Professional liquidity of 1.00% or more of national customer volume in multiply-listed equity and ETF options classes in a month.
As with existing tiers that require participation in both the Nasdaq Market Center and NOM, these tiers recognize the prevalence of trading in which members simultaneously trade different asset classes within the same strategy. Because cash equities and options markets are linked, with liquidity and trading patterns on one market affecting those on the other, NASDAQ believes that pricing incentives that encourage market participant activity in NOM also support price discovery and liquidity provision in the Nasdaq Market Center. The changes enhance these incentives by creating a new tier and reducing the requirement for participation in another existing tier.
For members trading securities listed on NASDAQ, NASDAQ currently pays a rebate of $0.0020 per share executed for a member with shares of liquidity provided in all securities during the month representing less than 0.10% of Consolidated Volume, provided that the member provides a daily average of at least 250,000 shares of liquidity in securities listed on an exchange other than NASDAQ. Without modifying the existing criteria, NASDAQ is proposing to make this tier also available to any member that routes a daily average volume of at least 10,000 shares during the month using the QDRK routing strategy. The modified tier will also apply only to trading of securities listed on NASDAQ. QDRK is a routing option under which orders check the System for available shares and simultaneously route the remaining shares to destinations on the System routing table that are not posting Protected Quotations within the meaning of Regulation NMS.
Finally, NASDAQ is proposing to eliminate an existing pricing tier for Designated Retail Orders. A Designated Retail Order is defined as an agency or riskless principal
NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The change with respect to the NBBO Setter Incentive credit paid to QMMs is reasonable because it merely serves to limit the extent of the incentives associated with the programs, thereby causing the credits received by program participants to become more consistent with credits received by members that are not participants, while maintaining an incentive structure designed to benefit all market participants by encouraging quoting at or near the NBBO in a wide range of securities. NASDAQ hopes thereby to maintain the benefits associated with the programs while reducing their costs and making the programs sustainable in the longer term. The change is also reasonable because it does not alter the fact that QMMs continue to be provided a discount as compared with other members, thereby resulting in lower overall fees for QMMs. The change is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees because it maintains, but reduces the cost of, an incentive designed to benefit all market participants by encouraging members to quote at the NBBO in a significant number of securities and to allow NASDAQ to set or join the NBBO. The change is not unfairly discriminatory because it will make the credits received by QMMs more consistent with the credits provided to other members, while continuing to recognize the beneficial contributions of market participants that quote at the NBBO.
The changes with respect to the RPI program are reasonable because they are intended to eliminate an instance of inverted pricing. While it may be reasonable for exchanges to invert pricing in limited circumstances as a promotional incentive to use a new service, NASDAQ does not believe that the Act could be construed to require inverted pricing to be maintained indefinitely, since it results in a loss to the Exchange on each transaction to which it applies. The proposed credit of $0.0005 per share executed with respect to Retail Orders that access liquidity offering price improvement is reasonable because it will continue to result in a reduction of fees with respect to such orders, as compared with the fees that would be charged in the absence of the program, thereby reducing the costs of members that represent retail customers and that take advantage of the program, and potentially also reducing costs to the customers themselves.
The proposed fee with respect to an RPI Order that provides liquidity is reasonable because, as previously recognized by the Commission, it reflects the fact that markets often seek to distinguish between orders of individual retail investors and orders of professional traders.
The new tier for members active in both the NASDAQ Market Center and NOM, as well as the modification of one of the criteria for an existing tier, are reasonable because they reflect the
The change with respect to the existing tier providing a credit of $0.0020 per share executed is reasonable because it will increase the liquidity provider credit for an additional group of members without restricting availability to those currently qualifying. Specifically, the credit is currently available to members without an overall volume requirement (
The change with respect to pricing for Designated Retail Orders is reasonable because although it will eliminate the availability of a rebate tier, NASDAQ still provides a very high rebate of $0.0033 per share executed for Designated Retail Orders, which is higher than the highest rebate tier available for other orders that provide liquidity (of $0.00305 per share executed). Moreover, the change is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees and not unfairly discriminatory because in recent months, no market participants have qualified for the tier. Accordingly, the change will not have an actual impact on the credits paid to members that submit Designated Retail Orders.
NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Sovereign Lithium, Inc. (“Sovereign Lithium”) because of concerns regarding the accuracy and adequacy of information in the marketplace and potentially manipulative transactions in Sovereign Lithium's common stock. Sovereign Lithium is a Delaware corporation based in Denver, Colorado. It is quoted on OTC Link under the symbol SLCO.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on November 15, 2013 through 11:59 p.m. EST on November 29, 2013.
By the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that DeltaPoint Capital IV, L.P., 45 East Avenue, 6th Floor, Rochester, NY 14604, Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which constitute conflicts of interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). DeltaPoint Capital IV, L.P. provided financing to BioMaxx, Inc., 1 Fishers Road, Suite 160, Pittsford, NY 14534. The financing was contemplated for working capital purposes.
The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because DeltaPoint Capital IV (New York), L.P., an Associate of DeltaPoint Capital IV, L.P., owns more than ten percent of BioMaxx, Inc.
Therefore, this transaction is considered a financing of an Associate requiring an exemption. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 5.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Colorado (FEMA-4145-DR), dated 09/14/2013.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Colorado, dated 09/14/2013 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 12/02/2013.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-4154-DR), dated 10/31/2013.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/31/2013, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13814B and for economic injury is 13815B.
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy will hold a public meeting from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Monday, December 2, 2013 in Room SVC203-02 of the Capitol Visitor's Center at First St. SE., Washington, DC 20515.
The meeting's topic will be on “The State of Public Diplomacy in 2014” and will include representatives from the audit and research community to review the main challenges and opportunities for public diplomacy in the coming year. The Commission will also introduce its work plan for 2014.
This meeting is open to the public, Members and staff of Congress, the State Department, Defense Department, the media, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. To attend or request further information, including any requests for reasonable accommodation, contact Katherine Brown at
The United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy appraises U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. The Advisory Commission may conduct studies, inquiries, and meetings, as it deems necessary. It may assemble and disseminate information and issue reports and other publications, subject to the approval of the Chairperson, in consultation with the Executive Director. The Advisory Commission may undertake foreign travel in pursuit of its studies and coordinate, sponsor, or oversee projects, studies, events, or other activities that it deems desirable and necessary in fulfilling its functions.
The Commission consists of seven members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the Commission shall represent the public interest and shall be selected from a cross section of educational, communications, cultural, scientific, technical, public service, labor, business, and professional backgrounds. Not more than four members shall be from any one political party. The President designates a member to chair the Commission.
The current members of the Commission are: Mr. William Hybl of Colorado, Chairman; Ambassador Lyndon Olson of Texas, Vice Chairman; Mr. Sim Farar of California, Vice Chairman; Ambassador Penne Korth-Peacock of Texas; Ms. Lezlee Westine of Virginia; and Anne Terman Wedner of Illinois. One seat on the Commission is currently vacant.
The following individual has been nominated to the Commission but awaits Senate confirmation as of this writing: Alfredo Balsera of Florida.
This announcement might appear in the
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will hold its regular business meeting on December 12, 2013, in Annapolis, Maryland. Details concerning the matters to be addressed at the business meeting are contained in the
December 12, 2013, at 8:30 a.m.
Lowe House Office Building, House of Delegates, Prince George's Delegation (Room #150), 6 Bladen Street, Annapolis, Md. 21401. (The recommended parking and transportation option is to park at the Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium and take the Annapolis Transit Trolley Shuttle from there—for all available parking options, see
Richard A. Cairo, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1306; fax: (717) 238-2436.
Interested parties are invited to attend the business meeting and encouraged to review the Commission's Public Meeting Rules of Conduct, which are posted on the Commission's Web site,
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Informational presentation of general interest on the lower Susquehanna River; (2) resolution concerning FY-2015 federal funding of the Susquehanna Flood Forecast and Warning System and National Streamflow Information Program; (3) 2013 update of the
Public Law 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Invitation for applications.
Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) provides for the establishment of a roster of individuals to serve on binational panels convened to review final determinations in antidumping or countervailing duty (“AD/CVD”) proceedings and amendments to AD/CVD statutes of a NAFTA Party. The United States annually renews its selections for the Chapter 19 roster. Applications are invited from eligible individuals wishing to be included on the roster for the period April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015.
Applications should be received no later than December 3, 2013.
Applications should be submitted (i) electronically to
Arthur Tsao, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395-6987.
Article 1904 of the NAFTA provides that a party involved in an AD/CVD proceeding may obtain review by a binational panel of a final AD/CVD determination of one NAFTA Party with respect to the products of another NAFTA Party. Binational panels decide whether such AD/CVD determinations are in accordance with the domestic laws of the importing NAFTA Party, and must use the standard of review that would have been applied by a domestic court of the importing NAFTA Party. A panel may uphold the AD/CVD determination, or may remand it to the national administering authority for action not inconsistent with the panel's decision. Panel decisions may be reviewed in specific circumstances by a three-member extraordinary challenge committee, selected from a separate roster composed of fifteen current or former judges.
Article 1903 of the NAFTA provides that a NAFTA Party may refer an amendment to the AD/CVD statutes of another NAFTA Party to a binational panel for a declaratory opinion as to whether the amendment is inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”), the GATT Antidumping or Subsidies Codes, successor agreements, or the object and purpose of the NAFTA with regard to the establishment of fair and predictable conditions for the liberalization of trade. If the panel finds that the amendment is inconsistent, the two NAFTA Parties shall consult and seek to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution.
Annex 1901.2 of the NAFTA provides for the maintenance of a roster of at least 75 individuals for service on Chapter 19 binational panels, with each NAFTA Party selecting at least 25 individuals. A separate five-person panel is formed for each review of a final AD/CVD determination or statutory amendment. To form a panel, the two NAFTA Parties involved each appoint two panelists, normally by drawing upon individuals from the roster. If the Parties cannot agree upon the fifth panelist, one of the Parties, decided by lot, selects the fifth panelist from the roster. The majority of individuals on each panel must consist of lawyers in good standing, and the chair of the panel must be a lawyer.
Upon each request for establishment of a panel, roster members from the two involved NAFTA Parties will be requested to complete a disclosure form, which will be used to identify possible conflicts of interest or appearances thereof. The disclosure form requests information regarding financial interests and affiliations, including information regarding the identity of clients of the roster member and, if applicable, clients of the roster member's firm.
Section 402 of the NAFTA Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, as amended (19 U.S.C. 3432)) (“Section 402”) provides that selections by the United States of individuals for inclusion on the Chapter 19 roster are to be based on the eligibility criteria set out in Annex 1901.2 of the NAFTA, and without regard to political affiliation. Annex 1901.2 provides that Chapter 19 roster members must be citizens of a NAFTA Party, must be of good character and of high standing and repute, and are to be chosen strictly on the basis of their objectivity, reliability, sound judgment, and general familiarity with international trade law. Aside from judges, roster members may not be affiliated with any of the three NAFTA Parties. Section 402 also provides that, to the fullest extent practicable, judges and former judges who meet the eligibility requirements should be selected.
The “Code of Conduct for Dispute Settlement Procedures Under Chapters 19 and 20” (
Section 402 establishes procedures for the selection by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) of the individuals chosen by the United States for inclusion on the Chapter 19 roster. The roster is renewed annually, and applies during the one-year period beginning April 1 of each calendar year.
Under Section 402, an interagency committee chaired by USTR prepares a preliminary list of candidates eligible for inclusion on the Chapter 19 Roster. After consultation with the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means, USTR selects the final list of individuals chosen by the United States for inclusion on the Chapter 19 roster.
Roster members selected for service on a Chapter 19 binational panel will be remunerated at the rate of 800 Canadian dollars per day.
Eligible individuals who wish to be included on the Chapter 19 roster for the period April 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015, are invited to submit applications. Applications may be submitted either by fax to Sandy McKinzy at 202-395-3640 or electronically to
To submit an application via
The
Applications must be typewritten, and should be headed “Application for Inclusion on NAFTA Chapter 19 Roster.” Applications should include the following information, and each section of the application should be numbered as indicated:
1. Name of the applicant.
2. Business address, telephone number, fax number, and email address.
3. Citizenship(s).
4. Current employment, including title, description of responsibility, and name and address of employer.
5. Relevant education and professional training.
6. Spanish language fluency, written and spoken.
7. Post-education employment history, including the dates and addresses of each prior position and a summary of responsibilities.
8. Relevant professional affiliations and certifications, including, if any, current bar memberships in good standing.
9. A list and copies of publications, testimony, and speeches, if any, concerning AD/CVD law. Judges or former judges should list relevant judicial decisions. Only one copy of publications, testimony, speeches, and decisions need be submitted.
10. Summary of any current and past employment by, or consulting or other work for, the Governments of the United States, Canada, or Mexico.
11. The names and nationalities of all foreign principals for whom the applicant is currently or has previously been registered pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. 611
12. List of proceedings brought under U.S., Canadian, or Mexican AD/CVD law regarding imports of U.S., Canadian, or Mexican products in which the applicant advised or represented (for example, as consultant or attorney) any U.S., Canadian, or Mexican party to such proceeding and, for each such proceeding listed, the name and country of incorporation of such party.
13. A short statement of qualifications and availability for service on Chapter 19 panels, including information relevant to the applicant's familiarity with international trade law and willingness and ability to make time commitments necessary for service on panels.
14. On a separate page, the names, addresses, telephone and fax numbers of three individuals willing to provide information concerning the applicant's qualifications for service, including the applicant's character, reputation, reliability, judgment, and familiarity with international trade law.
Current members of the Chapter 19 roster who remain interested in inclusion on the Chapter 19 roster only need to indicate that they are reapplying and submit updates (if any) to their applications on file. Current members do not need to resubmit their applications. Individuals who have previously applied but have not been selected must submit new applications to reapply. If an applicant, including a current or former roster member, has previously submitted materials referred to in item 9, such materials need not be resubmitted.
Applications normally will not be subject to public disclosure and will not be posted publicly on www.regulations.gov. They may be referred to other federal agencies and Congressional Committees in the course of determining eligibility for the roster, and shared with foreign governments and the NAFTA Secretariat in the course of panel selection.
Pursuant to section 402(c)(5) of the NAFTA Implementation Act, false statements by applicants regarding their personal or professional qualifications, or financial or other relevant interests that bear on the applicants' suitability for placement on the Chapter 19 roster or for appointment to binational panels, are subject to criminal sanctions under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
The following statements are made in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a). The authority for requesting information to be furnished is section 402 of the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice; Request for Comments.
This notice publishes the draft initial designation of the highway Primary Freight Network (PFN), which is established by the Secretary of Transportation as required by 23 U.S.C. 167(d), and provides information about designation of Critical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFC), which are designated by the States, and establishment of the National Freight Network (NFN), which combines the two, along with the portions of the Interstate System not designated as part of the highway PFN. This notice also solicits comments on the draft initial designation of the highway PFN and other critical aspects of the NFN. A notice published in the
Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2013.
To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions, please submit them by only one of the following means:
•
•
•
•
For questions about this program, contact Ed Strocko, FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations, (202) 366-2997, or by email at
You may retrieve a copy of the notice through the Federal eRulemaking portal at:
Section 167(c) of title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.), created by Section 1115 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), directs the Secretary to establish a NFN to assist States in strategically directing resources toward improved system performance for efficient movement of freight on the highway portion of the Nation's freight transportation system, including the National Highway System (NHS), freight intermodal connectors, and aerotropolis transportation systems. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) approaches this with a full understanding that with regard to surface freight transportation, significant tonnage moves over rail, water, and pipeline networks and that this highway PFN designation does not fully reflect those aspects of the U.S. freight system.
Under 23 U.S.C. 167(c), the NFN will consist of three components: the highway PFN, the portions of the Interstate System not designated as part of the highway PFN, and CRFCs, which are designated by the States.
Congress limited the highway PFN to not more than 27,000 centerline miles of existing roadways that are most critical to the movement of freight. Congress allowed an additional 3,000 centerline miles (that may include existing or planned roads) critical to the future efficient movement of goods on the highway PFN.
Congress instructed DOT to base the highway PFN on an inventory of national freight volume conducted by the FHWA Administrator, in consultation with stakeholders, including system users, transport providers, and States. Congress defined eight factors to consider in designating the highway PFN.
The eight factors are:
1. Origins and destinations of freight movement in the United States;
2. Total freight tonnage and value of freight moved by highways;
3. Percentage of annual average daily truck traffic in the annual average daily traffic on principal arterials;
4. Annual average daily truck traffic on principal arterials;
5. Land and maritime ports of entry;
6. Access to energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas;
7. Population centers; and
8. Network connectivity.
The purpose of this notice is to publish the draft initial designation of the highway PFN as required by 23 U.S.C. 167(d), provide information regarding State designation of CRFCs and the establishment of the complete NFN, and to solicit comments on aspects of the NFN. The five areas for comment are: (1) Specific route deletions, additions, or modifications to the draft initial designation of the highway PFN contained in this notice; (2) the methodology for achieving a 27,000-mile final designation; (3) how the NFN and its components could be used by freight stakeholders in the future; (4) how the NFN may fit into a multimodal National Freight System; and (5) suggestions for an urban-area route designation process.
The process of developing a highway PFN that reflects the criteria for consideration identified by Congress and which results in a network limited to only 27,000 centerline miles of roads is highly complex. After careful consideration, DOT determined that the multitude of factors combined with the mileage cap does not yield a network that is representative of the most critical highway elements of national freight system that exists in the United States. For example, the effort to link qualifying segments to achieve a contiguous network, and to ensure sufficient connections to Mexico and Canada, requires the additional designation of thousands of miles. This reduces the number of miles left for qualifying segments and necessitates raising the qualifying threshold for level of volume, value, tonnage or other factors. In addition, DOT discovered the following challenges in designating the network required by MAP-21.
The lack of a stated application for the highway PFN and NFN introduces uncertainty into the designation process. Without a better understanding of the goals for the highway PFN, it was challenging to weight the factors for designation relative to one another and to gauge whether the resulting network would meet future public planning and investment needs. Each individual criterion yields different network coverage when compared to the simulations for the other factors. For example, a map that shows the top roads by percentage of truck traffic and a map that shows the top roads by average annual daily truck traffic yields very different results. The aggregation of all these factors results in a map that is difficult to limit to 27,000 miles without some significant prioritization of the many factors and their cut-off points. With no clear optimal solution, additional input from stakeholders is critical to prioritizing the miles to achieve a 27,000-mile designation.
Limiting the highway PFN to 27,000 centerline miles, as required by 23 U.S.C. 167(d), excludes many freight-significant Interstate and NHS routes throughout the country. In 2008, DOT looked at the question of critical U.S. freight routes as part of the Freight Story 2008
The data utilized for the development of the draft initial highway PFN comprises the best information available on freight behavior at a national level. Nevertheless, national data is not sufficient to understand fully the behavior of freight in smaller subsets of the Nation, to include goods movement in urban areas. Urban areas of 200,000 and above include a freight-generating population and in most cases, are the site of significant freight facilities where highway freight intersects with other modes—at rail yards, ports, and major airports. These “first and last mile” connections, which are also represented in rural areas, do not always show up well in data sets.
The DOT recognizes that many highway freight bottlenecks and chokepoints are located in urban areas and at first and last mile connectors, making urban areas critical to the efficiency of domestic and international supply chains. Although Federal law provides a mechanism to enable connectivity to critical freight “last mile” origins and destinations in rural areas through CRFC designation, which are designated by the States, the NFN language in 23 U.S.C. 167(d) lacks a parallel process for designating critical urban freight routes to address the need for connectivity to urban areas. Urban area mileage may only be included in the NFN if it qualifies as a highway PFN route or if it is an Interstate System route. Given the lack of precision of national data at the urban level, DOT believes there is merit in establishing a process for local, regional, or State government entities to designate critical urban freight routes that are important for freight movement to, from, and through an urban area, but which were not apparent through analysis of the national-level data.
Using national data, DOT included in the highway PFN designation connectivity to urban areas over 200,000 in population with major freight transfer facilities. However, DOT recognizes that cities, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and State Departments of Transportation (State DOTs) are best positioned to understand the complexities of freight movement in individual urban areas, including current freight movement patterns, and plans or projections for shifts in freight movement within the urban areas. The DOT strongly urges these agencies to act in partnership to reach out to freight facility owners and operators to: (1) Review and provide comments to DOT on the inclusion of these and other facilities in the highway PFN; (2) consider inclusion of these facilities in State and Metropolitan Freight Plans; (3) provide comments and suggestions to DOT for a metropolitan area process similar to the CRFC designation for critical urban freight routes; (4) undertake a metropolitan area process similar to the CRFC designation for critical urban freight routes; and (5) jointly identify for DOT more precise data that could be used in the identification of critical urban freight routes.
In undertaking the highway PFN analysis, DOT developed multiple scenarios to identify a network that represents the most critical highway portions of the United States freight system. The DOT welcomes comment on the following methodology.
The draft initial highway PFN was informed by measurable and objective national data. In performing the analysis that led to development of the draft initial highway PFN, FHWA considered the following criteria and data sources, which are further described at the following Web locations:
The methodology employed by DOT in developing a draft initial highway PFN included the following steps:
(1) The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) and Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data sets were engaged to yield the top 20,000 miles of road segments that qualify in two of the following four factors: Value of freight moved by highway, tonnage of freight moved by highway, annual average daily truck traffic (AADTT) on principal arterials, and percentage of AADTT in the annual average daily traffic on principal arterials.
(2) Segments identified in Step #1 and gaps between segments were analyzed for network connectivity purposes. A network was created by connecting segments if the gap between segments was equal to or less than 440 miles (440 miles being the distance a truck could travel in 1 day). A segment was eliminated if it was less than one-tenth of the length of the nearest qualifying segment on the highway PFN.
(3) Land ports of entry with truck traffic higher than 75,000 trucks per year were identified. These land ports of entry were then connected to the network created in Steps #1 and #2.
(4) The NHS Freight Intermodal Connectors within urban areas with a population of 200,000 or more were identified.
(5) Road segments within urban areas with a population of 200,000 or more that have an AADTT of 8,500 trucks/day or more were identified.
(6) The network was analyzed to determine the relationship to population centers, origins and destinations, maritime ports, airports, and rail yards. Minor network connectivity adjustments were incorporated into the network.
(7) The road systems in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, were analyzed using HPMS data. These routes would not otherwise qualify under a connected network model but play a critical role in the movement of products from the agriculture and energy sectors, as well as international import/export functions for their States and urban areas. Roads connecting key ports to population centers were incorporated into the draft initial highway PFN.
(8) The network was analyzed to determine the relationship to energy exploration, development, installation, or production areas. Since the data points for the energy sector are scattered around the United States, often in rural areas, and because some of the related freight may move by barge or other maritime vessel, rail, or even pipeline, DOT did not presume a truck freight correlation, electing instead to leave this to the expert consideration of States
This methodology resulted in a comprehensive map of 41,518 centerline miles, including 37,436 centerline miles of Interstate and 4,082 centerline miles of non-Interstate roads.
The DOT notes that goods movement occurs in a very fluid environment and during the drafting of MAP-21, Congress did not have access to the latest data on freight movement. As a point of comparison, the DOT took the major freight corridors map that was originally developed for Freight Story 2008 and ran an analysis in the spring of 2013 to see how that map would look using current data. This effort was done internally as part of the work to develop the highway PFN. The Freight Story 2008 map contained 27,500 miles of roads (26,000 miles based on truck data and parallel intermodal rail lines and 1,500 miles representing goods movement on parallel major bulk rail lines or waterways). Using the same methodology with 2011 HPMS and rail data, the mileage based solely on the truck and intermodal rail data grew to over 31,000 miles of roads, not including consideration of growth in other freight modes on parallel major bulk rail lines or waterways.
The Secretary of Transportation, under Section 167 of title 23, U.S.C., may increase the highway PFN by up to 3,000 centerline miles above the 27,000-mile limit, to accommodate existing or planned roads critical to future efficient movement of goods on the highway PFN.
In the February 6, 2013, notice describing the planned process for the designation of the NFN, DOT outlined a process for determining facilities to be included in these additional 3,000 miles. The DOT indicated that in determining whether a route is critical to the future efficient movement of goods on the highway PFN, the Secretary will consider the factors identified for the designation of the highway PFN as well as one or more additional factors.
In the draft initial designation of the highway PFN, DOT focused on freight routes critical to the current movement of freight. The Department is aware of emerging freight routes that will be critical to the future efficient movement of goods and believes there is value in expanding the highway PFN in the future to reflect these routes as the Nation grows.
The DOT has posted the details of the draft initial highway PFN, including the 26,966-mile draft highway PFN map, the 41,518-mile comprehensive map, State maps and lists of designated routes, tables of mileage by State, and information regarding intermodal connectors and border crossings at:
As previously noted, the statute places a cap on the designation of the highway PFN at 27,000 centerline miles. The tables and maps on the above Web site show a 41,518 mile connected network that DOT would prefer to designate if it were not constrained to 27,000 miles by the statute. The 27,000-mile subset shown in the map is only one option of many that DOT could choose to designate as the highway PFN. The DOT seeks comments on the routes identified in the draft initial highway PFN of 26,966 miles, including the specific identification of roadways that freight partners and stakeholders believe should be included or removed. In submitting comments relating to the deletion, addition or modification of roadways included in this draft highway PFN, commenters should provide information that addresses how the roadway relates to the factors identified above and in 23 U.S.C. 167(d).
Further, DOT welcomes comments on the proposed approach and methodology to achieve a 27,000 mile network, considering such questions as: Connectivity; the treatment of urban area mileage and the concept of a critical urban freight corridor process; inclusion of border crossings of a certain level of truck volume; corridor-level designation; the adequacy of the network to identify bottlenecks and other freight infrastructure or operational needs, and more.
The designation of CRFCs by the States is described in 23 U.S.C. 167(e), and provides that a State may designate a road within the borders of the State as a CRFC if the road is a rural principal arterial roadway and has at least 25 percent of the AADTT of the road measured in passenger vehicle equivalent units from trucks (FHWA vehicle class 8 to 13); provides access to energy exploration, development, installation or production areas; or connects the highway PFN, a roadway described above, or the Interstate System to facilities that handle more than 50,000 20-foot equivalent units per year, or 500,000 tons per year of bulk commodities. The designation of CRFCs will be performed by State DOTs and provided to DOT after designation of the highway PFN is complete. Further guidance and technical assistance for identifying these corridors will be provided in the coming months. The FHWA will make an initial request of the States to identify CRFCs and will maintain route information for the rural freight corridors thereafter. There is no equivalent provision in the law for States to designate routes in urban areas.
Freight in America travels over an extensive network of highways, railroads, waterways, pipelines, and airways: 985,000 miles of Federal-aid highways; 141,000 miles of railroads; 11,000 miles of inland waterways; and 1.6 million miles of pipelines. There are over 19,000 airports in the United States, with approximately 540 serving commercial operations, and over 5,000 coastal, Great Lakes, and inland waterway facilities moving cargo.
Section 167(c) of title 23, U.S.C., directs the Secretary to establish a NFN to assist States in strategically directing resources toward improved system performance for efficient movement of freight on the highway portion of the
The DOT seeks to develop a NFN to provide connectivity between and throughout the three elements that comprise the NFN (highway PFN, Remainder of the Interstate System, and CRFC). The DOT recognizes that as a highway-only network, the NFN is an incomplete representation of the system that is required to efficiently and effectively move freight in the United States. Consistent with the national freight policy in MAP-21, DOT's goal is to designate a highway PFN that will improve system performance, maximize freight efficiency, and be effectively integrated with the entire freight transportation system, including non-highway modes of freight transport.
The DOT seeks comments on how the NFN fits into a larger multimodal national freight system and how a multi-modal national freight system may be defined.
In creating the NFN, Congress stated that a NFN shall be established to assist States in strategically directing resources toward improved system performance for efficient movement of freight on the highway portion of the Nation's freight transportation system. Congress specified that the highway PFN shall be comprised of not more than 27,000 miles of existing roadways that are most critical to the movement of freight.
The DOT is seeking comments as to how the designation of the NFN and highway PFN could be used by and benefit public and freight stakeholders. We also welcome comments regarding potential undesirable applications of the NFN and highway PFN. The DOT encourages widespread input to this proposed draft to provide a thorough examination of the diverse issues presented in this notice.
The following is the approximate schedule for designation of the NFN:
1. Initial designation of highway PFN—Fall 2013
2. Compilation of State-designated CRFC routes—Late 2013—Early 2014
3. Release of the initial designation of the full NFN (including highway PFN, rest of the Interstate System, CRFCs)—2014
23 U.S.C. 167; Section 1115 of Pub. L. 112-141.
Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Supplemental notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Central Indiana Regional Transportation Authority (CIRTA), the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (Indianapolis MPO) and Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo) intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Northeast Corridor Project, nka Green Rapid Transit Line (Green Line) Project relating to proposed fixed guideway transit improvements in the Indiana counties of Marion and Hamilton. The study area is an approximately 23-mile long travel corridor extending from downtown Indianapolis to downtown Noblesville and includes the community of Fishers. Options to be considered include No-Build, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Diesel Light Rail Transit (LRT). The EIS process provides opportunities for the public to comment on the scope of the EIS, including the project's purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered, and the impacts to be evaluated. The southern terminus of all alternatives would be adjacent to the transit center in downtown Indianapolis.
An original Notice of Intent for the proposed Green Line transit improvement was published on March 9, 2010 and was followed by initial project scoping, public involvement and agency coordination. Project activities were suspended following the initial scoping activities to address funding issues and conduct additional planning related to development of the regional transit vision plan (referred to as “Indy Connect”). As funding issues are being addressed and the regional transit plan has been completed, scoping activities for the Green Line have resumed.
The purpose of this notice is to alert interested parties regarding the intent to prepare the EIS, to provide information on the nature of the proposed project and possible alternatives, to invite public participation in the EIS process, including comments on the scope of the EIS as proposed in this notice, to announce that a public scoping meeting will be conducted, and to identify participating agency contacts. This input will be used to assist decision makers in determining a locally preferred alternative (LPA) and preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Green Line. Upon selection of an LPA, the project sponsors will request permission from FTA to enter into Project Development per requirements of 49 USC 5309. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued after the project has entered Project Development.
A public scoping meeting to accept comments on the scope of the study will be held on December 5, 2013 from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. in the Julia Carson Government Center located at 300 East Fall Creek Parkway North Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana 46205. The public scoping meeting will be informal and in an open house format. Interested persons may ask questions about the proposal and the FTA's environmental review process. The project's purpose and need and the initial set of alternatives proposed for study will be presented at the meetings. CIRTA, the Indianapolis MPO, IndyGo and project team members will be available to answer questions and receive comments. A writing station will be available to those who wish to submit written comments at the public scoping meeting. Project team members will be available to listen and make notes of residents' comments.
The public scoping meeting location complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Persons needing special accommodations should contact Jeremy Moore, Project Manager, at (317) 327-5495 or
An interagency scoping meeting for federal, state, regional and local resource and regulatory agencies will be
Written comments on the scope of the EIS may be submitted to the attention of Jeremy Moore, Project Manager, Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization, City County Building, Suite 1922, 200 E. Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Phone: (317) 327-5495, Fax: (317) 327-5950, Email:
The purpose of the scoping process is to provide an opportunity for the public and agencies to comment on and provide early input to the Green Line DEIS process. On March 9, 2010, FTA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the
Project activities were suspended following the initial scoping activities in 2010 for two reasons. First, the DEIS cannot be approved unless the project is included in the fiscally constrained Long Range Transportation Plan. The fiscal constraint requirement cannot be met unless there is a reasonable expectation of an additional transit funding source. The City of Indianapolis and other local governments began advocating for legislation to allow the establishment of a dedicated local transit funding source in 2010. The Indiana House of Representatives passed the necessary enabling legislation for a local transit referendum in 2013. Transit funding proposals are still under review by the Indiana Senate. Given the significant progress since 2010, it is reasonable to resume the Green Line DEIS development activities.
The second significant reason to temporarily suspend activities was the development of the regional transit vision plan (Indy Connect). During the period 2010 to 2013, a sophisticated financial model was developed to support regional plan development, a balanced regional transit plan was defined based on realistic funding expectations, and an unprecedented public involvement program was defined and executed to promote public understanding of the plan. The context and timing of the Green Line Project have become better defined, and alternatives have been refined to better meet the needs of the corridor and the overall system.
Due to the time that has lapsed, and recognizing the changed context and alternatives definition, the project team is re-initiating project scoping with resource agencies, including those that declined to participate in 2010. Each agency and the public are again being invited to participate in the project development process for the Green Line Project. This will provide the opportunity for meaningful participation as analyses are being updated to reflect changed conditions.
The FTA, the Indianapolis MPO and CIRTA invite all interested individuals, organizations, businesses, and federal, state, and local agencies to participate in establishing the purpose and need, project alternatives, and methodologies of the environmental analysis approach for the EIS, as well as participate in an active public involvement program. During the scoping process, the public is invited to comment on (a) the purpose and need; (b) the alternatives to be addressed; (c) the transit technologies to be evaluated; (d) the alignments and station locations to be considered; (e) the environmental, social, and economic impacts to be analyzed; and (f) the evaluation approach to be used to select the LPA.
NEPA “scoping” (40 CFR 1501.7) is intended to identify the significant issues associated with alternatives that will be examined in detail and to limit consideration of issues that are not truly significant. It is in the NEPA scoping process that potentially significant environmental impacts should be identified. Environmental benefits will also be highlighted.
Once the scope of the environmental study is defined, an annotated outline of the draft EIS will be prepared and shared with interested agencies and the public. The outline will serve to: (1) Document the results of the scoping process; (2) contribute to the transparency of the process; and (3) provide a clear roadmap for concise development of the environmental document.
Public outreach activities will continue with interested residents, stakeholders and groups throughout the EIS process. The Web site,
The Green Line Project Study Area includes the main travel corridors between downtown Indianapolis and the rapidly growing areas of Hamilton County, Indiana, including the communities of Fishers and Noblesville, as well as the intervening high-density residential and commercial areas of northeastern and central Marion County. This is referred to as the northeast corridor.
As currently identified, the purpose of the Green Line Project is to improve mobility within the northeast corridor of Central Indiana through the development of improved transit options. Consistent with the purpose of the project, the EIS will address the need to: improve mobility, accessibility and travel options within the northeast corridor; support sustainable, long-term economic growth and livability; and support local transportation plans and policies.
The proposed alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS will include the following:
• No-Build Alternative: The No-Build Alternative is defined as the existing transportation system and any committed transportation
• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternatives: A two-lane dedicated busway with on-line stations and other related capital improvements would be constructed in the Hoosier Heritage Port Authority (HHPA) Railroad right of way between Noblesville and 10th Street in Indianapolis. Between 10th Street and the downtown transit center, BRT vehicles would operate on-street in mixed traffic or dedicated lanes via one of three basic alternative routes. The on-street routes utilize Fort Wayne or Massachusetts Avenue, and Pennsylvania and/or Delaware Street. Variations to these basic alignments would be considered near the downtown transit center for BRT vehicles operating in mixed traffic. All BRT alternatives would include enhanced stations with sheltered waiting areas, real-time next bus arrival information and traffic signal preemption technology. The vehicle would be a low-floor diesel-electric hybrid bus with enhanced on-board passenger amenities.
• Diesel Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternative: The existing track structure of the HHPA rail line would be completely reconstructed between Noblesville and 10th Street in Indianapolis, and new track would be constructed in-street between 10th Street and the downtown transit center. At most locations, the rail guideway in downtown Indianapolis would be in a lane dedicated for transit use. As with BRT, the LRT vehicles would utilize Fort Wayne or Massachusetts Avenue, and Pennsylvania and/or Delaware Street to access the downtown transit center. LRT alternatives would include enhanced stations with sheltered waiting areas, real-time arrival information, low-floor vehicles with enhanced on-board passenger amenities, and fully gated quiet crossings at road crossings outside downtown Indianapolis. Service would be provided by diesel powered light rail vehicles also known as diesel multiple units or DMUs.
• Downtown Indianapolis Options: Two of the downtown alternative alignments utilize Fort Wayne Avenue after leaving the HHPA Corridor and turning to the west onto 10th Street. The first alternative follows Fort Wayne Avenue to Pennsylvania Street, where two-way transit traffic is maintained to Washington Street. At Washington Street, the line turns onto Virginia Avenue and ends just west of the downtown transit center. The second Fort Wayne alternative is the same until it reaches Delaware Street, where it splits and uses Pennsylvania and Delaware Streets for one-way operation to and from the downtown transit center.
A third downtown alternative alignment is on Massachusetts Avenue south of 10th Street. In this option, the downtown transit center is accessed by means of two-way transit operations on Delaware Street.
After leaving the HHPA Corridor on 10th Street, the LRT would use College Avenue to access Massachusetts Avenue. LRT would operate in dedicated lanes over the full length of the route. Center lanes on Massachusetts Avenue would require existing 90-degree parking to be converted to parallel parking. Curb lanes would be used on each side of Delaware Street. LRT would require a section of “tail track” south of the downtown transit center to reverse direction.
If LRT is implemented on the Fort Wayne alignments, it is assumed that exclusive lanes would be provided throughout the route with the exception of a short segment of 10th Street where the street is narrow and eastbound traffic volumes are low. The transit lanes would be provided within existing curb lines and stations would be mostly in existing right of way. Implementing LRT would result in loss of travel and/or parking lanes throughout the downtown Indianapolis route.
BRT options could operate in the same exclusive transit lanes that would be used by LRT, with similar impacts to parking and travel lanes, or BRT could operate in general purpose lanes with mixed traffic, taking advantage of the effective traffic signal coordination of the Pennsylvania/Delaware one-way pair. The path for mixed traffic operations could vary in the vicinity of the downtown transit center using Washington Street and Virginia Avenue to turn around. Additionally, mixed traffic BRT could access to Massachusetts Avenue via Carrolton Avenue. This option does not exist for LRT vehicles since they are unable to make the 90-degree turns necessary to use cross streets to access Pennsylvania Street.
Based on public and agency input received during scoping, variations of the above alternatives would be considered for the Green Line Project.
The scoping process will identify the environmental impact areas most relevant to the project that merit further exploration in the EIS. The potential impact areas include: land use, zoning, potential displacements, parkland, economic development, community disruptions, environmental justice, aesthetics, air quality, noise and vibration, wildlife, vegetation, threatened and endangered species, farmland, water quality, wetlands, waterways, floodplains, hazardous materials, and cultural, historic and archaeological resources.
The EIS will take into account both positive and negative impacts, direct and indirect impacts, short-term and long-term impacts, and site specific and corridor wide impacts. Evaluation criteria will be consistent with all Federal, state, and local criteria, regulations and policies. The EIS will identify measures to avoid or mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts.
To ensure that all significant issues related to this proposed action are identified and addressed, scoping comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties.
The public involvement program will include a full range of involvement activities. Activities will include outreach to local and regional officials and community and civic groups; a public scoping process to define the issues of concern among all parties interested in the project; organizing periodic meetings with various local agencies, organizations and committees; a public hearing on release of the DEIS; and development and distribution of project information via newsletters, Web site, and social media. Specific mechanisms for involvement will be detailed in the public involvement program.
The Indianapolis MPO may seek New Starts funding for the proposed Green Line Project under 49 U.S.C. 5309 and will therefore be subject to New Starts regulations (49 CFR Part 611). MAP-21 (49 USC 5309(d)) requires that projects proposed for New Starts funding be evaluated based on project justification and local financial commitment criteria. Project justification comprises 50 percent of the overall rating and considers mobility improvements, environmental benefits, congestion relief, cost-effectiveness, economic development effects, and existing land
With respect to the FTA project development process, one of the more important changes brought about by MAP-21 was the elimination of the requirement for a standalone Alternatives Analysis that would culminate in the selection of a locally preferred alternative. The FTA will instead rely on the NEPA process for alternatives evaluation. The change will reduce redundancy in the New Starts project development process and streamline the review and selection of a locally preferred alternative.
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 Form 5307, Application for Determination for Adopters of Master or Prototype or Volume Submitter Plans.
Written comments should be received on or before January 21, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Sara Covington, at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 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)).
Written comments should be received on or before January 21, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette B. Lawrence, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Please send separate comments for each specific information collection listed below. You must reference the information collection's title, form number, reporting or record-keeping requirement number, and OMB number (if any) in your comment.
To obtain additional information, or copies of the information collection and instructions, or copies of any comments received, contact Elaine Christophe, at (202) 622-3179, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, as part of their continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the
Currently, the IRS is seeking comments concerning the following forms, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements:
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 the PTIN Supplemental Application For U.S. Citizens Without A Social Security Number Due To Conscientious Reasons.
Written comments should be received on or before January 21, 2014 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Yvette Lawrence, 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 Sara Covington, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 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.
Request for Comments: 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: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.