| Page Range | 60511-60794 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 80 FR 60793 - National Security Medal | |
| 80 FR 60791 - Honoring the Victims of the Tragedy in Roseburg, Oregon | |
| 80 FR 60789 - Child Health Day, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 60785 - Fire Prevention Week, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 60511 - Delegation of Authority Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 | |
| 80 FR 60676 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60646 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
| 80 FR 60621 - Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee | |
| 80 FR 60697 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Civil Surgeon Designation Registration, Form I-910; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection | |
| 80 FR 60685 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Developmental Disabilities Protection and Advocacy Statement of Goals and Priorities | |
| 80 FR 60671 - Receipt of Test Data Under the Toxic Substances Control Act | |
| 80 FR 60667 - Stormwater Management in Response to Climate Change Impacts: Lessons From the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes Regions | |
| 80 FR 60647 - One-Time Deauthorization of Water Resources Projects | |
| 80 FR 60690 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 60682 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 80 FR 60657 - Intent To Prepare a Draft Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Navigational Improvements to San Juan Harbor in San Juan, Puerto Rico | |
| 80 FR 60628 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 60627 - Narrow Woven Ribbons with Woven Selvedge from Taiwan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 60611 - Adoption of Statement | |
| 80 FR 60669 - Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and Federal Agency Crisis Declarations | |
| 80 FR 60545 - Butanedioic Acid, 2-Methylene-, Homopolymer, Sodium Salt; Inert Ingredient Tolerance Exemption | |
| 80 FR 60719 - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Before Administrative Judges: Lawrence G. McDade, Chairman; Dr. Michael F. Kennedy; Dr. Richard E. Wardwell; (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3) | |
| 80 FR 60689 - Public Town Hall Meeting on the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Notice | |
| 80 FR 60513 - Revisions to the Petition for Rulemaking Process | |
| 80 FR 60688 - Health IT Policy Committee Advisory Meeting; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60718 - International Space Station Advisory Committee; Charter Renewal | |
| 80 FR 60718 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Earth Science Subcommittee; Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60688 - Health IT Standards Committee Advisory Meeting; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60696 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for Review; Information Collection Request for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology, Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program (P25 CAP) | |
| 80 FR 60620 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 60704 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0165 | |
| 80 FR 60708 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0204 | |
| 80 FR 60731 - Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Results of the GSP Limited Product Review, Including Actions Related to Competitive Need Limitations (CNLs) | |
| 80 FR 60713 - Commission Recommendations to the President To Modify the Tariff Nomenclature in Chapters 3, 44, and 63 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule | |
| 80 FR 60709 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection; Control Number 1004-0025 | |
| 80 FR 60528 - Modification to Restricted Areas R-3601A & R-3601B; Brookville, KS | |
| 80 FR 60573 - Proposed Modification and Establishment of Restricted Areas; Townsend, GA | |
| 80 FR 60705 - Public Land Order No. 7842; Withdrawal of Public Lands for the New River Area of Critical Environmental Concern; Oregon | |
| 80 FR 60633 - Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Horseshoe Crabs; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit, 2015 | |
| 80 FR 60646 - Consumer Advisory Board Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60706 - Notice of Planning Area Boundary Changes for Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans in Alaska; Amendment to Notices of Intent To Prepare Resource Management Plans for Central Yukon and Bering Sea-Western Interior Planning Areas and Associated Environmental Impact Statements | |
| 80 FR 60707 - Notice of Intent To Collect Fees at the Zortman Ranger Station and Buffington Day Use Area on Public Land in Phillips County Near Zortman, Montana | |
| 80 FR 60698 - Announcement of Funding Awards for the Delta Community Capital Initiative Fiscal Year 2014 | |
| 80 FR 60698 - Announcement of Funding Awards for the Appalachia Economic Development Initiative Fiscal Year 2014 | |
| 80 FR 60750 - Interest Rate Paid on Cash Deposited To Secure U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bonds | |
| 80 FR 60720 - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (License Renewal for the In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, Nebraska); Notice of Supplemental Hearing | |
| 80 FR 60719 - AAR Site, Livonia, Michigan | |
| 80 FR 60716 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act | |
| 80 FR 60683 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 80 FR 60683 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 80 FR 60668 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, Commonwealth of Virginia | |
| 80 FR 60749 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Orders 13224. | |
| 80 FR 60732 - Revision of Thirteen Controlling Criteria for Design; Notice and Request for Comment | |
| 80 FR 60687 - Fee for Using a Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2016; Correction | |
| 80 FR 60738 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection | |
| 80 FR 60709 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Central California Resource Advisory Council | |
| 80 FR 60678 - Notice of Termination; 10309 Pierce Commercial Bank, Tacoma, WA | |
| 80 FR 60699 - Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for Seven Covered Species, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Land, Inyo and Mono Counties, California | |
| 80 FR 60740 - Hours of Service of Drivers: U.S. Department of Defense (DOD); Granting of Renewal of Exemption | |
| 80 FR 60617 - Revision of Land Management Plan for Carson National Forest; Counties of Colfax, Mora, Rio Arriba, and Taos, New Mexico | |
| 80 FR 60665 - National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request for Approval of Settlement | |
| 80 FR 60665 - Panda Patriot LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 80 FR 60664 - Southeastern Power Administration; Notice of Filing | |
| 80 FR 60664 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 60666 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 60663 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 80 FR 60665 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 80 FR 60717 - Notice of Lodging of Two Proposed Consent Decrees Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act | |
| 80 FR 60634 - Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping and to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary | |
| 80 FR 60631 - Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping and To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Wisconsin-Lake Michigan National Marine Sanctuary | |
| 80 FR 60702 - Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 80 FR 60678 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; FDIC Small Business Lending Survey; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 60623 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for Master Address File (MAF) and Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) Update Activities | |
| 80 FR 60645 - Community Broadband Workshop | |
| 80 FR 60744 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 80 FR 60743 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus | |
| 80 FR 60633 - Marine Mammals; File No. 14450 | |
| 80 FR 60678 - Notice of Termination: 10309 Pierce Commercial Bank, Tacoma, WA | |
| 80 FR 60735 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 60741 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 60747 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 60737 - Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing | |
| 80 FR 60749 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 80 FR 60622 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Age Search Service | |
| 80 FR 60539 - Apprenticeship Programs; Corrections | |
| 80 FR 60565 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region; Amendment 8; Correction | |
| 80 FR 60601 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery Off the Atlantic States and Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Amendments 7/33 | |
| 80 FR 60605 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; Framework Amendment 3 | |
| 80 FR 60568 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; State Waters Exemption | |
| 80 FR 60560 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List the Dusky Sea Snake and Three Foreign Corals Under the Endangered Species Act | |
| 80 FR 60690 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60692 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60691 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 60690 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60566 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Technical Amendment to Regulations | |
| 80 FR 60533 - International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Establishment of Tuna Vessel Monitoring System in the Eastern Pacific Ocean | |
| 80 FR 60694 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 80 FR 60714 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 80 FR 60715 - Welded Stainless Steel Pressure Pipe From India Institution of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations | |
| 80 FR 60686 - Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60726 - Triton Pacific Investment Corporation, Inc., et al.; | |
| 80 FR 60724 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Several Rules To Address Certain Order Handling Obligations on the Part of Its Floor Brokers | |
| 80 FR 60722 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Several Rules to Address Certain Order Handling Obligations on the Part of Its Floor Brokers | |
| 80 FR 60591 - Risk Reduction Program | |
| 80 FR 60684 - Federal Management Regulations; Date Change for Annual Mail Management Reporting | |
| 80 FR 60548 - Improving 911 Reliability; Reliability and Continuity of Communications Networks, Including Broadband Technologies | |
| 80 FR 60676 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 80 FR 60677 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of the Management and Budget (OMB) | |
| 80 FR 60685 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Submission for OMB Review; Transportation Requirements | |
| 80 FR 60684 - Information Collection; Value Engineering Requirements | |
| 80 FR 60730 - Florida Disaster #FL-00107 | |
| 80 FR 60718 - Public Comment on the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements | |
| 80 FR 60636 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements Project | |
| 80 FR 60529 - Revisions to the Unverified List (UVL) | |
| 80 FR 60626 - Export Trade Certificate of Review | |
| 80 FR 60751 - Policy and Implementation Plan for Public Access to Scientific Publications and Digital Data from Research Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs | |
| 80 FR 60570 - Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California; Proposed Amendments to Marketing Order and Referendum Order | |
| 80 FR 60613 - Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Field Use of Vaccines Against Avian Influenza H5 Virus Strains | |
| 80 FR 60616 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-USDA Foods in Schools Cost Dynamics | |
| 80 FR 60692 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 80 FR 60692 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60693 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60672 - Registration Review Proposed Interim Decisions; Notice of Availability | |
| 80 FR 60692 - Nominations to the Report on Carcinogens and Office of Health Assessment and Translation; Request for Information | |
| 80 FR 60674 - Notice of Receipt of Requests for Amendments To Terminate Uses in Certain Pesticide Registrations | |
| 80 FR 60750 - Agency Information Collection (VHA Homeless Programs Project CHALENG (Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education and Networking Groups) for Veterans) Activity: Under OMB Review | |
| 80 FR 60752 - Agency Information Collection (Evaluation of the Department of Veterans Affairs Mental Health Services) Activities Under OMB Review | |
| 80 FR 60615 - Information Collection; Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act Report | |
| 80 FR 60614 - Information Collection; Direct Loan Making | |
| 80 FR 60678 - Notice of Termination; 10304, The First National Bank of Barnesville, Barnesville, GA | |
| 80 FR 60677 - Notice of Termination; 10323 United Americas Bank, N.A., Atlanta, GA | |
| 80 FR 60716 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Federal Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act (Clean Air Act) | |
| 80 FR 60679 - Notice of Termination; 10157 First Security National Bank, Norcross, Georgia | |
| 80 FR 60679 - Notice of Termination; 10090 Security Bank of North Metro, Woodstock, Georgia | |
| 80 FR 60682 - Notice of Termination; 10088 Security Bank of Jones County, Gray, Georgia | |
| 80 FR 60680 - Notice of Termination; 10087 Security Bank of Houston County, Perry, Georgia | |
| 80 FR 60624 - Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews; 2013-2014 | |
| 80 FR 60680 - Notice of Termination; 10113, InBank, Oak Forest, Illinois | |
| 80 FR 60680 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection Revision; Comment Request (3064-0189) | |
| 80 FR 60552 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce and Mission Critical Systems Personnel Reliability Program (NFS Case 2015-N002) | |
| 80 FR 60555 - Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Final Listing of 2016 Light Duty Truck Lines Subject to the Requirements of This Standard and Exempted Vehicle Lines for Model Year 2016 | |
| 80 FR 60540 - Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 Lead, and 2010 NO2 | |
| 80 FR 60750 - Office of the General Counsel; Appointment of Members of the Legal Division to the Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service | |
| 80 FR 60541 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode Island; Sulfur Content of Fuels | |
| 80 FR 60576 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode Island; Sulfur Content of Fuels | |
| 80 FR 60710 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for a Prize Competition Seeking Methods or Devices That can Quantify Drift Invertebrates in River and Estuary Systems | |
| 80 FR 60657 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for the Reach Higher Career App Challenge | |
| 80 FR 60577 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Ocean Acidification; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response | |
| 80 FR 60622 - Annual Meeting | |
| 80 FR 60592 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; General Amendments | |
| 80 FR 60575 - Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rulemaking Against Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL | |
| 80 FR 60753 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Headwater Chub and a Distinct Population Segment of the Roundtail Chub | |
| 80 FR 60584 - Mercury; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response | |
| 80 FR 60701 - Hanford Reach National Monument, Adams, Benton, Franklin and Grant Counties, WA |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to clarify and streamline its process for addressing petitions for rulemaking (PRMs). These amendments are intended to improve transparency and to make the PRM process more efficient and effective.
This final rule is effective on November 6, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2009-0044 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration (ADM), telephone: 301-415-3280, email:
The NRC's requirements, policies, and practices governing the PRM process have remained substantially unchanged since their initial issuance in 1979 (44 FR 61322; October 25, 1979). During the past 20 years, the NRC has received an average of nine PRMs per year and plans its budget and assigns resources based on this average. In recent years, however, the NRC has experienced a substantial increase in the number of PRMs submitted for consideration and docketed 25 PRMS in fiscal year (FY) 2011 alone. This increase in PRMs has presented a significant resource challenge to the NRC.
In a memorandum to the other Commissioners entitled, “Streamlining the NRR [Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation] Rulemaking Process” (COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-0006), dated April 7, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060970295), then-Chairman Nils J. Diaz and then-Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr., proposed that, because of the general increase in rulemaking activities, the NRC staff should streamline its rulemaking process by removing unnecessary constraints, while simultaneously enhancing the transparency of and public participation in the process. The memorandum also invited the development of additional mechanisms for “streamlining and increasing the transparency of the rulemaking process, thus allocating the appropriate level of resources for the most important rulemaking actions and ensuring that the staff's hands are not tied by perceived or real procedural prerequisites that are necessary for a given rulemaking.”
In a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated May 31, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061510316), responding to COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-0006, the Commission directed the NRC staff to undertake numerous measures to streamline the rulemaking process, including an evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the interoffice Rulemaking Process Improvement Implementation Plan (ADAMS Accession No. ML031360205), and to “further seek to identify any other potential options that could streamline the rulemaking process.” The Commission also instructed the NRC staff to identify other potential options that could streamline the rulemaking process for all program offices.
In response to the Commission's directives, the NRC staff provided its recommendations to the Commission in SECY-07-0134, “Evaluation of the Overall Effectiveness of the Rulemaking Process Improvement Implementation Plan,” dated August 10, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071780644). The NRC staff included in SECY-07-0134 a recommendation to review the NRC's PRM process with the objective to reduce the time needed to complete an action. The NRC staff also recommended in SECY-07-0134 that
Concurrently, in an SRM responding to COMGBJ-07-0002, “Closing Out Task Re: Rulemaking on [part 51 of Title 10 of the
In response to the Commission's directives, the NRC staff examined the regulations, policies, procedures, and practices that govern the NRC's PRM process, as well as the practices and processes used by several other Federal agencies to resolve PRMs.
Consequently, the NRC published a proposed rule to amend the PRM process in the
The administrative procedures that a Federal agency must follow with respect to PRMs are codified in the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553. Paragraph 553(e) provides that “[e]ach agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.” In addition, 5 U.S.C. 555(e) provides that “[p]rompt notice shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of a written application, petition, or other request of an interested person made in connection with any agency proceeding” and that “[e]xcept in affirming a prior denial or when the denial is self-explanatory, the notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for denial.” However, the APA does not provide further detail on how agencies should disposition a PRM or what constitutes “prompt” notice. A brief survey of other Federal agencies' practices showed that the NRC has a robust and active PRM program; most agencies do not include requirements in the CFR for processing PRMs.
The NRC's requirements governing the rulemaking process are set forth in 10 CFR part 2, “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure,” subpart H, “Rulemaking.” In particular, 10 CFR 2.802, “Petition for rulemaking,” and 10 CFR 2.803, “Determination of petition,” establish the NRC's framework for disposition of a PRM concerning the NRC's regulations. The NRC's requirements for PRMs have remained substantially unchanged since their initial issuance in 1979, and the NRC's processes and procedures for PRMs historically have been established by and implemented through internal NRC policies and practices. To improve the PRM process, the NRC has reviewed both its regulatory framework associated with the PRM process and its internal policies, procedures, and practices.
This final rule clarifies and refines the NRC's long-standing practices for processing PRMs. The NRC believes that these amendments improve our current policies and practices for evaluating PRMs and communicating information on the status of PRMs and rulemaking activities to the petitioners and the public. By establishing a clearly defined administrative process to reflect agency action on a PRM, the NRC has enhanced the consistency, timeliness, and transparency of our actions and increased the efficient use of NRC resources.
A significant change in this final rule expands the consultation assistance that the NRC staff may provide to the petitioner. Currently, consultation on a PRM is limited to the pre-filing stage; the NRC has revised its requirements to allow petitioners to consult directly with the NRC staff before and after filing a PRM with the NRC and to clarify what consultation assistance the NRC is permitted to provide. This change provides an opportunity for additional interaction with the petitioner after filing and will increase communication on issues of concern to the petitioner and improve the transparency of the petition process.
This final rule also clarifies and expands the description of the kind of information that must be included in a petition. At times, a submitter may fail to include in the petition adequate information for the NRC to process the request, which creates the potential for processing delays and the need for the NRC to request additional information. In particular, this final rule adds a cross-reference to existing NRC requirements for the inclusion of an environmental report with those PRMs under 10 CFR 51.68, “Environmental report—rulemaking,” that seek exemption from licensing and regulatory requirements for authorizing general licenses for any equipment, device, commodity or other product containing byproduct material, source material or special nuclear material. This change increases the likelihood that the NRC will have complete information at the time a petition is filed, which will assist the NRC in processing the petition in a timely manner.
This final rule removes the implied and actual deadlines for docketing, for both the NRC and for the public. The NRC's internal goal to docket a new petition has not changed; the NRC will continue its current practice to docket a new petition within 30 days of receipt. However, based on the increased number and complexity of PRMs the NRC has been receiving, this final rule will not include this target so as to avoid setting unrealistic expectations in instances where NRC staff requires more than 30 days to deliberate and decide the appropriate course of action. The NRC staff may require more time to make initial decisions when a PRM includes complex issues or there are competing priorities.
This final rule also removes the deadline for a petitioner to resubmit a PRM returned by the NRC because it did not meet the NRC's docketing requirements. Formerly, the NRC would advise the petitioner when a PRM did not meet the docketing requirements and hold the PRM for 90 days to allow the petitioner to submit a revised petition, before formally rejecting the
The NRC's proposed rule would have established two separate paths for obtaining suspension of an adjudication involving licensing proceedings (“adjudicatory licensing proceeding”), in order to provide clarity to the way in which a petitioner could request suspension. The NRC received several comments that, for a variety of reasons discussed later in this final rule, did not support the proposed revisions. After considering the comments on the proposed rule, the NRC has determined that there are a number of additional factors for the NRC to consider with respect to requests for suspension of adjudicatory proceedings based on PRMs. The NRC intends to gather additional stakeholder input on those factors before developing a final NRC provision on suspension requests; therefore, to facilitate timely adoption of the clarifications and process improvements presented in the proposed PRM rule, the NRC has decided to retain, in unchanged form, the suspension language formerly located in § 2.802(d); to re-designate it as § 2.802(e) in this final rule; and to evaluate these types of suspensions in a subsequent rulemaking. However, in response to public comments, the NRC's new title for this paragraph (the former paragraph (d) did not contain a title) indicates that the suspension is with respect to an “adjudication involving licensing.” Neither the addition of the title to this paragraph nor its re-designation from paragraph (d) to (e) of § 2.802 is intended to suggest any change in the applicable NRC law governing suspensions or the application of this provision to individual suspension requests in PRMs.
This final rule has been restructured slightly from the proposed rule; for clarity, all PRM provisions that address the requirements applicable to the petitioner are in one section (§ 2.802), and the NRC's actions on a PRM are in a separate section (§ 2.803). An overview of the revised docketing process follows, and a detailed discussion of all changes, including the reorganization of §§ 2.802 and 2.803 and conforming changes, is provided in Section IV, “Section-by-Section Analysis,” of this final rule.
This final rule codifies the NRC's historical PRM docketing review policy and practice of notifying the petitioner that the NRC has received the PRM, evaluating the PRM information according to specified docketing criteria, and posting the petition online. At its discretion, the NRC may request public comment on a docketed petition through a notice published in the
The NRC describes the process and criteria it uses to determine if a PRM may be docketed in § 2.803. In the proposed rule, the NRC referred to this step as “acceptance.” In this final rule, the NRC uses the term “docketing,” and no longer uses the term “acceptance.” The NRC is making this change to prevent any potential misunderstanding that “acceptance” means that the NRC has agreed with the substance of the PRM and has decided that a rule should be developed and adopted as suggested by the petitioner in the PRM. After the close of the public comment period on this proposed rule, the NRC noted an example of possible misunderstanding in connection with public media reports on the NRC's notice of docketing for PRM-51-31, “Environmental Impacts of Spent Fuel Storage During Reactor Operation” (79 FR 24595; May 1, 2014). The NRC recognizes that it uses the terms, “acceptance review” and “acceptance” to refer to the NRC's process for evaluating a license application to determine if it meets the NRC's minimum standards for docketing. The NRC's recent experience suggests that the general public may be misled by the use of the term, “acceptance,” in the context of PRMs. Accordingly, the NRC is not using this term in paragraphs (b) or (c) of § 2.803 in this final rule.
Section 2.803 of this final rule describes, without change from the proposed rule, the NRC's docketing review process for a PRM, including what actions the NRC will take if the NRC determines that the PRM does not meet the NRC's requirements for docketing. This section also contains the criteria that the NRC uses to determine whether a PRM may be docketed. These three criteria are: (1) The PRM includes the information required by § 2.802(c), (2) the regulatory changes requested in the PRM are within the legal authority of the NRC, and (3) the PRM raises a potentially valid issue that warrants further detailed consideration by the NRC. These criteria are intended to ensure that the NRC does not unnecessarily expend rulemaking resources on unsupported petitions, petitions that the NRC has no legal authority to address through rulemaking, or on matters that are already addressed in the NRC's regulations. Including these criteria in the final rule, which reflect the NRC's existing practice but were not expressly set forth in the former language of 10 CFR part 2, subpart H, is intended to increase public understanding of the factors that the NRC uses in deciding whether to docket a PRM.
The NRC's process for dispositioning a PRM historically had been a matter of internal policy. With this final rule, the NRC is including a description of the dispositioning process in its regulations in order to enhance the transparency of its PRM process. The considerations for resolving a PRM are based on the NRC's experience in processing PRMs, insights from the NRC's initiative to streamline its PRM process, and information from the NRC's review of other Federal agencies' PRM regulations and practices. The amendments to the PRM process will allow the NRC to examine the merits of a PRM, the immediacy of the concern, the availability of NRC resources, whether the NRC is already considering the issue in other NRC processes, the relative priority of the issue raised in the PRM, any public comment received (if comment is requested), and the NRC's past decisions and current policy on the issue raised in the PRM. A summary of the NRC's considerations for dispositioning PRMs follows.
Section 2.803 of this final rule outlines the process for administrative closure of a PRM docket, once the NRC has determined its course of action for the PRM. The requirements provide two outcomes, derived from the NRC's recent review of the PRM process, for closing a PRM docket once the NRC has determined its course of action: (1) Denial of the PRM in its entirety, indicating a determination not to pursue a rulemaking action to address the issues raised in the PRM (this will also constitute final “resolution” of the PRM), or (2) initiation of a rulemaking action addressing some or all the requested rule changes in the PRM.
With either course of action, the PRM docket will be closed, although the PRM itself would not be completely and finally “resolved” until the NRC acts on the last remaining portion of the PRM's request. Final NRC action on the PRM (“resolution”) will be a final rule addressing all of the petitioner's requested changes, a final rule addressing some (but not all) of the petitioner's requested changes, or a notice published in the
Paragraph (h)(2) of § 2.803 of this final rule explains how the NRC will notify the petitioner on the determination of the petition. The NRC sends the petitioner written notification and publishes a notice in the
Paragraph (i) of § 2.803 of this final rule addresses how a PRM ultimately is resolved and distinguishes final resolution of a PRM from administrative closure of a PRM docket, as described in § 2.803(h)(2). Resolution of one or more elements of a PRM occurs when the NRC publishes a
Also, § 2.803(i) notes that the NRC's denial of the PRM at any stage of the regulatory process or the petitioner's withdrawal of the PRM before the NRC has entered the rulemaking process will conclude all planned regulatory action related to the PRM. As applicable, the
Finally, several amendments in this final rule reflect routine administrative updates to information such as instructions for submitting petitions and communicating with the NRC. In recent years, the NRC, like many Federal agencies, has been moving away from formal, printed publications and making greater use of its Web site and other online resources such as the Federal rulemaking Web site (
The NRC received seven comment letters on the proposed rule from a member of the public, a public advocacy group, non-governmental organizations, and the nuclear industry.
The majority of the comments received were in favor of the goals of the proposed amendments to the PRM process. However, three nuclear industry commenters (Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), AREVA NP Inc. (AREVA), and STARS Alliance LLC. (STARS)) opposed the proposed amendments to new paragraphs (b) and (e) of § 2.802 and new paragraphs (h) and (i) of § 2.803. One comment from the Executive Board of the Organization of Agreement States (OAS) recommended enhancements to the availability of information regarding PRM activities. Two comments from a member of the public and the public advocacy group Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA) were out-of-scope, as they did not address the merits of the proposed rule.
Information about obtaining the comments received on the proposed rule is available in Section XIV, “Availability of Documents,” of this final rule.
Comments are organized by topics included in the proposed rule, followed by the NRC's response.
1. Comment: The NRC should not adopt the changes in proposed § 2.802(e)(2) but should return to the language in current § 2.802(d) because the proposed changes would effectively allow PRM petitioners to “participate in licensing proceedings” without meeting standing and contention admissibility standards applicable to those proceedings. NEI, AREVA, STARS.
NRC Response: The NRC did not intend to allow persons requesting a suspension of an adjudication in a licensing proceeding (“adjudicatory licensing proceeding” in the proposed rule) to avoid having to meet applicable requirements for participating in the proceeding, such as the standing and contention admissibility standards for persons who wish to be a party (a person could also participate as an interested State, local government body, or Federally-recognized Indian tribe).
However, after further consideration of the comments, the NRC believes there are additional factors that the NRC must consider with respect to requests for suspension of adjudicatory proceedings based on PRMs. Stakeholder input on those factors would be desirable before developing a final NRC provision on these types of suspension requests.
Therefore, to facilitate the NRC's timely adoption of the clarifications and
2. Comment: The NRC should not adopt the changes in proposed § 2.802(e) but should return to the language in current § 2.802(d). The proposed rule appears to address extraordinary circumstances that occurred following the Fukushima accident, when petitions were filed with the NRC to initiate rulemaking to address safety issues associated with the accident or to suspend certain licensing proceedings because of issues related to the Fukushima accident.
The NRC has not explained why these petitions were problematic or why a rulemaking solution is needed, which itself has created separate problems. The Commission has inherent authority to take action in individual proceedings as necessary; in support of this comment, commenters cited the NRC's
NRC Response: The NRC agrees. The origins of the proposed changes in § 2.802(d) were the NRC's procedural and administrative lessons-learned from dealing with the rulemaking and suspension petitions filed with the NRC after the Fukushima accident. The Commission agrees that it has inherent authority to take action in individual proceedings as it deems necessary, at any time, in response to a suspension request in whatever form.
However, upon consideration, the NRC believes a number of additional factors should be considered by the NRC before making changes to the suspension provision in former § 2.802(d). Stakeholder input on those factors is desirable in developing any final NRC provision on suspension requests. Accordingly, the NRC has decided to retain, in unchanged form, the suspension language formerly located in paragraph (d) and now re-designated as paragraph (e) of § 2.802 in this final rule. The re-designation of the suspension provision from paragraph (d) to paragraph (e) of § 2.802 is an administrative change intended to minimize the need for re-designations of paragraphs in future revisions to § 2.802. The NRC is not making changes to the legal requirements governing a PRM petitioner's request for suspension as a result of this re-designation.
1. Comment: The proposed revisions to § 2.803(h) and (i), creating a two-part process for closing a PRM, will confuse, rather than clarify, the agency's procedure for resolving PRMs. Final disposition of the PRM should occur either when the NRC denies the PRM, or when the NRC grants the PRM by initiating a rulemaking. There is no reason to withhold “final action” on a PRM, which has already effectively been granted, until resolution of the resultant rulemaking proceeding. The NRC's determination of whether to deny a PRM or initiate a rulemaking should result in the PRM's closure. At that point, a decision has been made on whether the issues raised in the PRM are worthy of further review or not. That decision is sufficient to close the PRM, even if the PRM's substantive request is still subject to deliberation through the rulemaking process. NEI, AREVA, STARS.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters' assertion that the NRC's determination whether to deny a PRM or initiate rulemaking should result in the PRM's closure. The NRC also agrees with the commenters' assertion that the NRC's decision to deny (in full or part) a PRM constitutes “final agency action.”
However, an NRC decision closing a PRM docket on the basis of the NRC's intent to consider the PRM issues in a new or ongoing rulemaking is not the ultimate “resolution” of the PRM. An NRC decision closing a PRM docket and instituting rulemaking as proposed by the PRM would not constitute “final agency action,” inasmuch as the determination to consider the PRM issues in a rulemaking does not represent an NRC determination to propose or adopt a final regulation requested in the PRM (or alternatively, not to adopt a regulation as requested in the PRM). The proposed rule's new terminology was intended to distinguish between the NRC's procedures with respect to the closure of the PRM docket (“final disposition of the PRM”) versus the NRC's procedures for ultimate resolution of the rulemaking requests contained in the PRM.
The NRC recognizes that the statement of considerations for the proposed rule may not have been sufficiently clear in explaining the NRC's intent that the proposed revisions to § 2.802 are intended to (1) clearly indicate that the NRC may “dispose” of multiple requests for rulemaking in a PRM or portions of a request for rulemaking in a PRM, in two or more separate NRC actions, (2) reflect that there is no overall agency “resolution” of a PRM until there is final agency action on all of the rulemaking requests in the petition, and (3) use terms that clearly distinguish between the PRM docket (which is an NRC administrative process) and agency final action on the substantive rulemaking requests in the PRM.
This statement of considerations includes a more detailed explanation of these concepts in Section V, “Summary of the NRC's Revised Petition for Rulemaking Process,” which describes the PRM process and the rule terminology that applies to each stage and action of the PRM process. In addition, the NRC staff has developed a diagram entitled, “The Petition for Rulemaking Process” (Figure 1) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14259A474), which is available on the NRC's public Web site at
2. Comment: The commenters support the proposed rule language, which indicates that, if a PRM is “granted,” then the NRC will track the PRM through the rulemaking process. The commenters stated that the
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with the commenters' assertion that if a PRM is “granted,” then the NRC should track a PRM through the rulemaking process, as suggested by the proposed rule. No
3. Comment: The
NRC Response: The NRC disagrees. The provisions in the proposed rule for “tracking” a PRM throughout the rulemaking process supported the “closing” of the PRM docket upon the NRC's initial determination that a PRM should be denied (in part), or granted. As discussed in response to an earlier comment, the final rule distinguishes between the closing of a PRM docket versus final agency action on all or a part of the substantive rulemaking requests in the PRM. Furthermore, this final rule clarifies that the NRC may “dispose of” and/or finally determine multiple requests for rulemakings in a PRM or portions of a request for rulemaking in a PRM, in two or more separate NRC actions. If there will be multiple NRC actions for a single PRM, the NRC must keep the PRM docket “open” until there is a final “determination” of the last remaining aspects of the rulemaking request in a PRM. At that point, the PRM docket may be closed as the NRC has completed its determination of how to “treat” the rulemaking requests. That “treatment” may be denial of that last remaining aspect (which would also “resolve” the PRM) or it may be a determination that the rulemaking request should be addressed in a rulemaking activity (either through a newly initiated rulemaking activity or included in an existing rulemaking). This determination, however, is not “resolution” of the PRM. Resolution only occurs when the agency either adopts a final rule as requested in the PRM, or declines to adopt a final rule as requested in the PRM.
Given the NRC's desire to have the flexibility to act on portions of rulemaking requests in a PRM, the NRC concludes that the PRM process must reflect procedures and terminology that clearly distinguish between NRC actions with respect to the PRM docket and NRC actions on the substance of the rulemaking. The commenter's proposal would, in the NRC's view, blur this distinction and would not facilitate clear understanding by all stakeholders on the NRC's PRM process. However, as discussed in response to Comment 1 of this section, the NRC has in this statement of considerations clarified the NRC's actions when making a determination on and resolving a PRM.
4. Comment: The NRC should not remove the language in § 2.802(f), which states that a determination of the adequacy of a PRM will ordinarily be made within 30 days of the NRC's receipt of the PRM. The use of the term “ordinarily” in the existing rule appears to provide the NRC with the same flexibility with respect to the 30-day target that the proposed rule states is the basis for the removal of the 30-day language. Therefore, given that the NRC apparently intends to continue its current practice of ordinarily issuing determinations within 30 days and the current rule language allows the NRC flexibility with respect to this timeframe, the rationale provided in the proposed rule does not support removal of the 30-day timeframe. Further, removing this timeframe from the rule increases regulatory uncertainty and decreases transparency, which is contrary to the purpose of this rulemaking. The rule should continue to provide petitioners with a reasonable degree of clarity with respect to the timeframes involved in the evaluation of PRMs. AREVA, NEI, STARS.
NRC Response: The NRC confirms the commenters' supposition that the NRC intends to continue its current practice to perform a docketing review and notify the petitioner in writing of the docketing of the PRM or the deficiencies found in the PRM within a 30-day period. However, the NRC disagrees with the commenter's recommendation to continue to include the 30-day timeframe. As the NRC stated in the proposed rule's statement of considerations, past experience has shown that lengthy and complex PRMs may require more than 30 days for a thorough docketing review. Furthermore, the number of lengthy and complex PRMs being received by the NRC each year is increasing. The NRC believes that including the 30-day timeframe in the final rule sets unrealistic expectations in instances where NRC staff requires more than 30 days to deliberate and decide the appropriate course of action.
No change was made to this final rule in response to these comments.
1. Comment: The NRC should publish a list of PRM activities and make it available in an easily identified location on the agency's Web site. The locations identified in proposed § 2.803(j)(1) and (3) are hard to find on the NRC's Web site and “may cause confusion to the public.” OAS.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees. The NRC's public Web site was modified to include a list of PRM activities in an easily identified location. The NRC Web site has a new Web page that lists all “open” petitions (
In addition, the NRC will continue publishing on the agency's Web site the Rulemaking Activities by Fiscal Year report, which includes descriptions of agency actions on PRMs. This report may be accessed from the Rulemaking Documents Web site at
No change was made to this final rule in response to these comments.
1. Comment: The commenter supports the NRC's proposed amendments to revise the PRM process. The commenter agrees that the proposed revisions would streamline the NRC rulemaking process, remove unnecessary constraints, enhance transparency, and clarify and improve communications with the petitioners who submit a PRM. Health Physics Society.
NRC Response: No response necessary.
No change was made to this final rule in response to these comments.
2. Comment: The commenter commends the NRC staff on its willingness to confer informally with PRM applicants.
NRC Response: No response necessary.
No change was made to this final rule in response to these comments.
1. Comment: The comment, “The NRC completely failed us (TMIA) at every level of the rulemaking process,” and an attachment, dated October 31, 2008, set forth the commenter's views as to the adequacy of the NRC's resolution of a PRM submitted by the commenter (PRM-73-11) and the commenter's views about the NRC's statements regarding public outreach at a public meeting. TMIA.
NRC Response: The NRC considers this comment to be out of the scope because it does not address the proposed requirements governing the PRM process changes in the proposed rule.
2. Comment: The comment describes the commenter's interactions with the NRC staff regarding concerns the commenter has raised related to the TMI accident and regarding upgrades to filters and vents at nuclear power plants. TMIA.
NRC Response: The NRC considers this comment to be out of the scope because it does not address the proposed requirements governing the PRM process changes in the proposed rule.
No change was made to this final rule in response to these comments.
The NRC is amending its regulations to streamline its process for addressing PRMs. Additionally, the NRC is amending its regulations in §§ 2.802, 2.803, and 2.811 to make miscellaneous corrections and conforming changes. These changes include the reorganization of §§ 2.802 and 2.803, the addition of paragraph headings, updates to the PRM filing process, and editorial changes to the language for clarity and consistency.
Paragraph (a) of § 2.802, which informs petitioners how to submit a PRM, is revised to clarify and update the PRM filing process. Paragraph (a) specifies the regulations subject to a PRM by indicating that the NRC's regulations are contained under chapter I of 10 CFR.
Paragraph (b) of § 2.802, which provides the process by which a prospective petitioner may consult with the NRC before filing a PRM, now permits consultation with the NRC both before and after filing a PRM.
Paragraph (b)(1)(i), which establishes that petitioners may consult with the NRC staff about the process of filing and responding to a PRM, now includes other stages of the PRM process during which consultation may occur. Paragraph (b)(1)(i) limits NRC staff consultation on a PRM to describing the process for filing, docketing, tracking, closing, amending, withdrawing, and resolving a PRM. These limitations are consistent with the existing limitations on NRC participation in the filing of PRMs.
New paragraph (b)(3) is added to clearly specify that the NRC staff will not advise a petitioner on whether a PRM should be amended or withdrawn.
Paragraph (c) of § 2.802, which generally describes the content requirements of a PRM, is restructured and revised. Paragraph (c)(1) establishes that a petitioner must clearly and concisely articulate in a PRM the information required under new paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(viii). In paragraph (c)(1), the terms “clearly and concisely” are added to convey the NRC's expectation that PRMs be “clear” (
Paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(viii) specify information that must be provided in each PRM. The former text of paragraph (c)(1), which required that a PRM set forth a general solution to a problem or specify the regulation that is to be revoked or amended, is revised and redesignated as new paragraph (c)(1)(v). The additional text under paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(viii) describes the specific information required to be included in a PRM. Most of the requirements are similar to the information required in the existing rule, except that each topic is listed separately for increased clarity.
New paragraph (c)(1)(i) requires all petitioners to specify contact information—including a name, telephone number, mailing address, and email address (if available)—that the NRC may use to contact the petitioner. New paragraph (c)(1)(ii) specifies additional information for petitioners who are organizations or corporations to submit: The petitioner's organizational status, the petitioner's State of incorporation, the petitioner's registered agent, and the name and authority of the individual signing the PRM on behalf of the corporation or organization. By adding this paragraph, the NRC is reducing the likelihood of misleading the public about the organizational or corporate status and identity of a petitioner.
New paragraph (c)(1)(iii) includes information from existing paragraph (c)(3) and requires a petitioner to present the problem or issue that the petitioner believes the NRC should address through rulemaking. This added paragraph clarifies that a petitioner must specifically state the problem or issue that the requested rulemaking would address, including any specific circumstance in which the NRC's codified requirements are incorrect, incomplete, inadequate, or unnecessarily burdensome. Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) clarifies that the submittal of specific examples of incompleteness or unnecessary burden to support the petitioner's assertion that a problem or issue exists that the NRC should address through rulemaking would be of interest to the NRC when reviewing the PRM. Providing this information in the PRM will result in a clearer argument for the problems or issues being presented by a petitioner and will increase the efficiency of the NRC's review of the PRM.
New paragraph (c)(1)(iv) requires the petitioner to cite, enclose, or reference any publicly available data used to support the petitioner's assertion of a problem or issue. This requirement was in former paragraph (c)(3) but is now modified to add the phrase “Cite, enclose, or reference” to provide options to the petitioner for providing the supporting data. Paragraph (c)(1)(iv) specifies that the citations, enclosures, or references to technical, scientific, or other data must be submitted to support the petitioner's assertion that a problem or issue exists and that all submitted data must be publicly available; consequently the word “relevant” and the phrase “reasonably available to the petitioner” in former paragraph (c)(3) are removed.
New paragraph (c)(1)(v) includes information from former paragraph (c)(1) and requires a petitioner to present a proposed solution to the problems or issues identified in the PRM; this proposed solution may include revision or removal of specific regulations under 10 CFR chapter I. Rather than providing a “general
New paragraph (c)(1)(vi) requires a petitioner to provide an analysis, discussion, or argument linking the problem or issue identified in the PRM with the proposed solution. The requirement to provide supporting information was already included in former paragraph (c)(3). The requirement to explain through an analysis, discussion, or argument how the proposed solution would solve the problem or issue raised in the PRM is new.
New paragraph (c)(1)(vii) includes information from former paragraph (c)(1) and requires the petitioner to cite, enclose, or reference any other publicly available data or information that the petitioner deems necessary to support the proposed solution and otherwise prepare the PRM for the NRC's docketing review under § 2.803(b). Similar to paragraph (c)(1)(iv), the phrase “Cite, enclose, or reference” is added to provide options to the petitioner for providing the supporting data.
Text from former paragraph (c)(1) is revised and incorporated into new paragraph (c)(1)(v), as previously described. As a result, the former paragraph (c)(1) is removed.
Text from former paragraph (c)(2) is removed because it is generally incorporated into new paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iii), making the former paragraph (c)(2) unnecessary.
Text from former paragraph (c)(3), which required a petitioner to include various kinds of supporting information, is revised and incorporated into new paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iv), (c)(1)(vi), and (c)(1)(vii), as previously described. As a result, the former paragraph (c)(3) is removed.
In addition to the requirements in § 2.802(c)(1)(i)-(vii), new paragraph (c)(2) encourages the petitioner to consider the two other review criteria listed in new paragraph (b) of § 2.803 when preparing a PRM. The NRC does not intend to require specialized explanations that discourage potential petitioners from submitting PRMs. Paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) are intended to provide petitioners the opportunity to include information that will assist the NRC in its evaluation of the PRM under § 2.803(b). However, the NRC will not deny a petition solely on the basis that the petition did not provide information addressing paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii).
New paragraph (c)(3) requires the PRM to designate a lead petitioner if the petition is signed by multiple petitioners. The NRC's former practice was to treat the first signature listed on a petition as that of the lead petitioner. New paragraph (c)(3) requires that a lead petitioner be designated in a PRM and codifies the NRC's practice of sending communications about the petition to the lead petitioner. New paragraph (c)(3) also alerts the public of the lead petitioner's responsibility to disseminate communications received from the NRC to all petitioners.
Paragraph (c)(1)(viii) adds a cross-reference to the environmental assessment requirements that apply to PRMs at 10 CFR 51.68.
Paragraph (d) of § 2.802 is reserved, and the subject matter addressed in former paragraph (d), on requests for suspension of adjudications involving licensing (“licensing proceedings” in former paragraph (d)), is addressed without substantive change in paragraph (e).
Paragraph (e) of § 2.802 describes how a PRM petitioner may request a suspension of an adjudication in a licensing proceeding in which the PRM petitioner is a “participant,” on the basis of the matters addressed in the petitioner's PRM. The re-designation of the suspension provision from paragraph (d) to paragraph (e) is an administrative change intended to minimize the need for re-designations of paragraphs in future revisions to § 2.802. The NRC is not making changes to the legal requirements governing a PRM petitioner's request for suspension as a result of this re-designation.
Former paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) in § 2.802 are moved to § 2.803.
New paragraph (f) of § 2.802, which discusses amendment or withdrawal of a PRM by a petitioner, is added to inform petitioners where and how to submit these filings and what information should be included.
Section 2.803 describes how the NRC will process, consider, and make a determination on a PRM.
New paragraph (a) of § 2.803 has no counterpart in the superseded version of § 2.803. New paragraph (a) of § 2.803 indicates that the NRC shall notify the petitioner that the NRC has received the PRM.
New paragraph (b) of § 2.803 addresses docketing review—a matter that was formerly addressed in the superseded version of § 2.802(f). Paragraph (b) differs from former § 2.802(f) by stating clearly that the NRC will deny the PRM if it does not include the information required by § 2.802(c). It also differs from former § 2.802(f) by adding two new docketing criteria. Under the new docketing review process, the NRC will determine not only if the rulemaking changes requested in the petition are within the legal authority of the NRC but also that the PRM raises a potentially valid issue that warrants further detailed consideration by the NRC (
Paragraph (b) does not include the restriction in former § 2.802(f) limiting the docketing decision to the Executive Director for Operations, and is silent on which NRC official may make the docketing determination. Therefore, the Executive Director for Operations may delegate the docketing decision to the appropriate organizational level within the NRC staff.
Finally, paragraph (b) describes the process the NRC will use if the NRC determines that a PRM does not meet the requirements for docketing (
New paragraph (c) of § 2.803 addresses docketing, which was addressed in former § 2.802(e). Paragraph (c)(1) lists three criteria, each of which must be met in order for the NRC to docket a PRM. That paragraph also expressly states that the NRC will assign a docket number to a PRM that is docketed. Paragraph (c)(2) describes how the NRC will make a docketed PRM available to the public, that is, by posting the document in ADAMS (the NRC's official records management
New paragraph (d) of § 2.803 notifies the public that the NRC will send all communications to the lead petitioner identified in the petition, according to new paragraph § 2.802(c)(3), and that this communication will constitute notification to all petitioners. Therefore, any NRC obligation to inform a petitioner is satisfied when the NRC sends the required notification to the lead petitioner.
Newly designated paragraphs (e) through (f) of § 2.803 are marked “Reserved.”
New paragraph (g)(1) of § 2.803 incorporates information from former § 2.802(e) text pertaining to the NRC's discretion to request public comment on a docketed PRM. Information in the former § 2.802(e) that specified how a PRM may be published for public comment in the
When the NRC publishes a
Paragraph (g)(3) denotes that no hearing will be held on a PRM unless the Commission determines to hold a hearing as a matter of its discretion. This rule of practice, formerly in § 2.803, is moved to paragraph 2.803(g)(3) and amended for clarity. The text “the Commission deems it advisable” is replaced with “the Commission determines to do so, at its discretion.” This amendment clarifies that the NRC has discretionary authority to hold a hearing on a docketed PRM.
Existing regulations in § 2.803 require the NRC to resolve PRMs by either issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking or denying the petition. New paragraph (h)(1) of § 2.803 codifies a nonexclusive list of the methods and criteria that the NRC may use to determine a course of action for a PRM. These methods and criteria include consideration of the issues raised in the PRM about its merits, the immediacy of an identified safety or security concern, the relative availability of resources, the relative issue priority compared to other NRC rulemaking activities, whether the NRC is already considering the issues in other NRC processes, the substance of public comments received, if requested, and the NRC's past decisions and current policy.
Paragraph (h)(1)(i) establishes that the NRC will determine whether a PRM will be granted based upon the merits of the PRM. For the purpose of this final rule, the term “merits” includes the completeness and technical accuracy of the documents, logic associated with the petitioner's desired rule change, and the appropriateness or worthiness of the desired change compared to the current regulatory structure (
Paragraph (h)(1)(ii) states that the NRC may determine whether a PRM will be docketed based upon the immediacy of the safety or security concerns raised in the PRM. By adding this paragraph, the NRC intends to first determine whether immediate regulatory action (
Paragraph (h)(1)(iii) states that the NRC may determine whether a PRM will be docketed based upon the availability of NRC resources and the priority of the issues raised in the PRM compared with other NRC rulemaking activities. By adding this paragraph, the NRC will establish that if immediate action is not necessary, the NRC will consider the availability of resources and compare the issues raised in the PRM to other NRC rulemaking issues to determine the PRM's priority relative to other rulemaking activities.
Paragraph (h)(1)(iv) states that the NRC may determine whether a PRM will be docketed based on whether the NRC is already considering the issues raised in the PRM in other NRC processes. The NRC has multiple processes for considering potential issues related to its mission: For example, the allegation process, formal and informal hearings, and Commission deliberation to determine appropriate action on issues not related to rulemaking. One resulting action could be to initiate a rulemaking, but the Commission has other options available, such as addressing the issue through an order, guidance, or an internal management directive. The NRC will use the most efficient process to resolve issues raised by a petitioner.
Paragraph (h)(1)(v) states that the NRC may determine a course of action on a PRM based on the substance of any public comments received, if public comments are requested. Although the NRC may decide not to request public comments on a PRM, if public comment is requested, the NRC will consider the information commenters provide when determining a course of action for a PRM.
Paragraph (h)(1)(vi) states that the NRC may determine what action will be taken on a PRM based on the NRC's past decisions and current policy related to the issues raised in the PRM. This paragraph will inform the public that the NRC could consider past Commission decisions when determining a course of action for a PRM.
Paragraph (h)(2) establishes a process for administrative closure of a PRM docket once the NRC has determined its course of action for the PRM using the methodology and criteria in paragraph (h)(1). Paragraph (h)(2) establishes that a PRM docket will be administratively closed when the NRC responds to the PRM by taking a regulatory action and publishing a document in the
Paragraph (h)(2)(i) provides that the NRC may administratively close a PRM docket if the NRC decides not to engage in rulemaking to address the issues in the PRM. The NRC will publish a notice in the
With regard to new rulemakings, paragraph (h)(2)(ii) provides that the NRC may administratively close a PRM docket if the NRC decides to address the subject matter of the PRM in a new rulemaking. The NRC will publish a notice in the
With regard to planned rulemakings, paragraph (h)(2)(ii) provides that a PRM docket may be administratively closed if the NRC is currently planning a rulemaking related to the subject of the PRM and the NRC decides to address the PRM in that planned rulemaking. The NRC will publish a notice in the
With regard to ongoing rulemakings, paragraph (h)(2)(ii) provides that a PRM docket may be administratively closed if the NRC has a rulemaking in progress that is related to the issues raised in the PRM. The NRC will publish a notice in the
The list of potential rulemaking actions in new paragraph (h)(2)(ii) is not intended to be exhaustive because the NRC may initiate other rulemaking actions, at its discretion, on issues raised in the PRM. For example, the NRC could extend the comment period for a proposed rule that addresses the subject matter of the PRM to allow it to be addressed in the ongoing rulemaking.
For all PRM dockets that are closed by initiating a rulemaking action, as described in paragraph (h)(2), the NRC will include supplementary information in the published proposed and final rule discussing how the NRC decided to address the issues raised in the PRM.
As further discussed in new paragraph (i)(2) of § 2.803, if the NRC closes a PRM docket under paragraph (h)(2)(ii) by initiating a rulemaking action, resolution will require the ultimate publication of a final rule discussing how the PRM is addressed in the published final rule. However, if later in the rulemaking process the NRC decides to terminate the associated rulemaking, termination of that rulemaking also constitutes denial of the PRM. The NRC will describe the agency's grounds for denial in a
Under the former text in § 2.803, the NRC was required to resolve PRMs either by addressing the PRM issues in a final rule or by denying the petition. New paragraph (i) of § 2.803,
The former text in paragraph (g) of § 2.802 indicated that a semiannual summary of PRMs before the Commission will be publicly available for inspection and copying. This statement is removed from this final rule because the NRC no longer publishes this semiannual summary. Instead, members of the public can find updates on the status of PRMs by the means described in paragraph (j) of § 2.803.
New paragraph (j) of § 2.803 explains where the public can view the status of PRMs and adds the heading,
As previously discussed, if the NRC closes a PRM docket by initiating a rulemaking action under new paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of § 2.803 but later determines that a final rule should not be published, the NRC will publish a notice in the
Paragraph (e),
Any person may submit a PRM to the NRC, requesting that the NRC adopt a new regulation, amend (revise the language of) an existing regulation, or revoke (withdraw) an existing regulation. A “person” may be an individual or an entity such as an organization, company (corporation), a governmental body (
When a PRM is received by the NRC, the NRC acknowledges the receipt of the petition by sending correspondence to the petitioner informing the petitioner of the NRC's receipt. The NRC then assigns the PRM for consideration to the NRC technical staff.
If the PRM does not include the information required by § 2.802, or the information provided is insufficient for the NRC to docket the petition, then the NRC sends a letter to the petitioner explaining the reasons why the NRC cannot docket the petition and begin to consider the requests in the petition. The NRC identifies what information is not included in the petition, or why the information provided is insufficient, and includes a reference to the corresponding paragraph in § 2.802(c) requiring the information.
The petitioner may resubmit the petition, with deficiencies addressed, at any time without prejudice or time limitation. If the petitioner provides the requested information and the information provided is determined by the NRC to be complete and meet the requirements in § 2.802(c), then the NRC dockets the petition and publishes a notice in the
The NRC's resolution of a PRM may occur, in whole or in part, by one or more of the following actions: (1) The NRC decides to adopt a final rule addressing the problem raised in the PRM (“granting” the PRM); (2) the NRC decides not to adopt a new regulation or change an existing regulation as requested in the PRM (“denying” the PRM); or (3) the petitioner decides to withdraw the request before the NRC has entered the rulemaking process. Complete resolution of the PRM does not occur until
If the PRM is denied by the NRC, or if the petition is withdrawn by the petitioner, the NRC will publish a notice in the
The NRC staff has developed a diagram entitled, “The Petition for Rulemaking Process” (Figure 1) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14259A474), which provides a visual representation of the NRC's PRM process under §§ 2.802 and 2.803, as amended in this final rule. This diagram is also available as a separate document on the NRC's public Web site at
This rule clarifies and streamlines the NRC's process for addressing PRMs. The amendments in this rule improve transparency and make the PRM process more efficient and effective. These amendments do not result in a cost to the NRC or to petitioners in this process, and a benefit accrues to the extent that potential confusion over the meaning of the NRC's regulations is removed.
The more substantive changes in this rule do not impose costs upon either the NRC or petitioners but instead benefit both. The process improvements for evaluating PRMs and activities addressing PRMs and establishing an administrative process for closing a PRM docket to reflect agency action on a PRM reduce burdens on petitioners, the NRC, and participants in the process.
The option of preserving the status quo is not preferred. Failing to correct errors and clarify ambiguities would result in continuing confusion over the meaning of the petition for rulemaking rules, which could lead to the unnecessary waste of resources. The NRC believes that this rule improves the consistency, timeliness, efficiency, and openness of the NRC's actions and increases the efficient use of the NRC's resources in its PRM process.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule does not apply to this final rule because these amendments are administrative in nature and do not involve any changes that impose backfitting as defined in 10 CFR chapter 1, or are inconsistent with any of the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act, as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action that is a categorical exclusion under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
This final rule does not contain information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This final rule is a rule as define in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, OMB has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC has revised its regulations to streamline the process the NRC uses when it receives a PRM. This action concerns the NRC's procedures governing its consideration and resolution of PRMs. These procedures do not constitute a “government unique standard” within the meaning and intention of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through the methods indicated.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Confidential business information; Freedom of information, Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 2.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 29, 53, 62, 63, 81, 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2239, 2241, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 114(f), 134, 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10154, 10155, 10161); Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 553, 554, 557, 558); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. Section 2.205(j) also issued under Sec. 31001(s), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note).
(a)
(b)
(1) In any consultation regarding the drafting or amendment of a petition for rulemaking, the assistance that the NRC staff may provide is limited to the following:
(i) Describing the process for filing, docketing, tracking, closing, amending, withdrawing, and resolving a petition for rulemaking;
(ii) Clarifying an existing NRC regulation and the basis for the regulation; and
(iii) Assisting the petitioner to clarify a petition for rulemaking so that the Commission is able to understand the issues of concern to the petitioner.
(2) In any consultation regarding the drafting or amendment of a petition for rulemaking, in providing the assistance permitted in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the NRC staff will not draft or develop text or alternative approaches to address matters in the petition for rulemaking.
(3) In any consultation regarding a petition for rulemaking, the NRC staff will not advise a petitioner on whether a petition should be amended or withdrawn.
(c)
(i) Specify the name of the petitioner, a telephone number, a mailing address, and an email address (if available) that the NRC may use to communicate with the petitioner;
(ii) If the petitioner is an organization, provide additional identifying information (as applicable) including the petitioner's organizational or corporate status, the petitioner's State of incorporation, the petitioner's registered agent, and the name and authority of the individual who signed the petition on behalf of the organizational or corporate petitioner.
(iii) Present the specific problems or issues that the petitioner believes should be addressed through rulemaking, including any specific circumstances in which the NRC's codified requirements are incorrect, incomplete, inadequate, or unnecessarily burdensome;
(iv) Cite, enclose, or reference publicly-available technical, scientific, or other data or information supporting the petitioner's assertion of the problems or issues;
(v) Present the petitioner's proposed solution to the problems or issues raised in the petition for rulemaking (
(vi) Provide an analysis, discussion, or argument that explains how the petitioner's proposed solution solves the problems or issues identified by the petitioner; and
(vii) Cite, enclose, or reference any other publicly-available data or information supporting the petitioner's proposed solution; and
(viii) If required by 10 CFR 51.68 of this chapter, submit a separate document entitled “Petitioner's Environmental Report,” which contains the information specified in 10 CFR 51.45.
(2) To assist the NRC in its evaluation of the petition for rulemaking, the petitioner should clearly and concisely:
(i) Explain why the proposed rulemaking solution is within the authority of the NRC to adopt; and
(ii) Explain why rulemaking is the most favorable approach to address the problem or issue, as opposed to other NRC actions such as licensing, issuance of an order, or referral to another Federal or State agency.
(3) If the petition is signed by multiple petitioners, the petition must designate a lead petitioner who is responsible for disseminating communications received from the NRC to co-petitioners.
(d) [Reserved]
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(2) If the NRC determines that the petition for rulemaking does not include
(3) The petitioner may resubmit the petition for rulemaking without prejudice.
(c)
(i) The petition for rulemaking includes the information required by paragraph § 2.802(c),
(ii) The regulatory change sought by the petitioner is within the NRC's legal authority, and
(iii) The petition for rulemaking raises a potentially valid issue that warrants further consideration.
(2) A copy of the docketed petition for rulemaking will be posted in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) and on the Federal rulemaking Web site at:
(d)
(e) [Reserved]
(f) [Reserved]
(g)
(2) The NRC will post all comment submissions at
(3) No adjudicatory or legislative hearing under the procedures of 10 CFR part 2 will be held on a petition for rulemaking unless the Commission determines to do so, at its discretion.
(h)
(i) The merits of the petition;
(ii) The immediacy of the safety, environmental, or security concern raised;
(iii) The availability of NRC resources and the priority of the issues raised in relation to other NRC rulemaking issues;
(iv) Whether the problems or issues are already under consideration by the NRC in other NRC processes;
(v) The substance of any public comment received, if comment is requested; and
(vi) The NRC's relevant past decisions and current policies.
(2)
(i) Deciding not to undertake a rulemaking to address the issue raised by the petition for rulemaking, and informing the petitioner in writing of the grounds for denial.
(ii) Initiating a rulemaking action (
(i)
(2)
(j)
(2) The NRC includes a summary of the NRC's planned and ongoing rulemakings in the Government-wide
(3) All docketed petitions, rulemakings, and public comments are posted online in ADAMS and at
(e)
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
This action amends Restricted Areas R-3601A and R-3601B, Brookville, KS, to re-define the restricted area boundary segments described using the Missouri Pacific Railroad Track visual landmark. The restricted areas using agency information is also updated to include the military service of the using agency. This action does not affect the overall restricted area boundaries, designated altitudes, times of designation, or activities conducted within the restricted areas. Additionally, boundary segment amendments of the Smoky and Smoky High military operations areas (MOA), ancillary to the restricted areas amendments, are being made. Since R-3601A and R-3601B share boundaries with the Smoky and Smoky High MOAs, the FAA included discussion of the Smoky and Smoky High MOAs amendments in this rule. Lastly, the MOAs using agency is being amended to match the restricted areas using agency information.
Effective date 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it makes administrative changes to the descriptions of restricted areas R-3601A and R-3601B, Brookville, KS.
In August 1970, the FAA published a rule in the
When the restricted areas lateral boundaries were combined in 2007, the boundaries descriptions for R-3601A and R-3601B used the Missouri Pacific Railroad Track to identify a segment of the restricted area boundaries. The railroad track was removed years ago and portions of the railroad right-of-way is mostly obscured by trees or has been plowed under for agriculture. Satellite imagery was used to confirm that the railroad right-of-way is no longer clearly visible and is of little use to Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft trying to navigate by ground reference in the Salina, KS, local area.
The FAA worked with the USAF to re-define the affected boundary segments using geographic (latitude/longitude) coordinates only. The new restricted area boundary descriptions overlay the boundaries previously identified by the visual landmarks that no longer exist. As a result of amending the restricted area boundaries, corresponding amendments to the Smoky and Smoky High MOAs boundaries are also necessary to retain shared boundary segments between the restricted areas and the MOAs.
Additionally, the R-3601A and R-3601B using agency information does not reflect the military service of the using agency listed. To correct this absence of information, the using agency information for the restricted areas is being updated. To ensure standard using agency information for the restricted areas and MOAs supporting the Smoky Hill Air National Guard Range, the Smoky and Smoky High MOAs using agency information is also being updated.
MOAs are established to separate or segregate non-hazardous military flight activities from aircraft operating in accordance with instrument flight rules (IFR), and to advise pilots flying under VFR where these activities are conducted. IFR aircraft may be routed through an active MOA only by agreement with the using agency and only when air traffic control can provide approved separation from the MOA activity. VFR pilots are not restricted from flying in an active MOA, but are advised to exercise caution while doing so. MOAs are nonregulatory airspace areas that are established or amended administratively and published in the National Flight Data Digest (NFDD) rather than through rulemaking procedures. When a nonrulemaking action is ancillary to a rulemaking action, FAA procedures allow for the nonrulemaking changes to be included in the rulemaking action. Since the Smoky and Smoky High MOAs amendments are ancillary to the R-3601A and R-3601B amendments being made, the MOA changes are addressed
The Smoky and Smoky High MOAs boundary descriptions are being amended to incorporate the geographic coordinates used in the R-3601A and R-3601B boundary descriptions to redefine the boundary segments previously defined by the Missouri Pacific Railroad Track. This amendment will ensure shared boundaries with the updated restricted area descriptions and prevent airspace conflict with any potential SUA overlap resulting from the redefined boundary segments. Also, the Smoky and Smoky High MOAs using agency information is being amended to match the associated restricted areas using agency amendments. The amended boundary descriptions and using agency information for the MOAs will be published in the NFDD; the rest of the MOAs legal descriptions remain unchanged.
This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by modifying restricted areas R-3601A and R-3601B Brookville, KS. The FAA is taking this action to accurately define the restricted area boundaries using geographic coordinates to overcome the loss of the visual landmark used previously and update the using agency information to include the military service. The following restricted areas boundary and using agency information is amended as indicated:
The R-3601A and R-3601B boundary segments previously described by the Missouri Pacific Railroad Track are redefined using the geographic coordinates, “lat. 38°39′45″ N., long. 97°46′01″ W.; to lat. 38°38′20″ N., long. 97°47′31″ W.”
The R-3601A and R-3601B using agency information is amended by prefacing the existing using agency with “U.S. Air Force.”
This change does not affect the boundaries, designated altitudes, activities conducted within the restricted areas or the actual physical location of the airspace; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
The corresponding restricted area boundary segment amendments noted above are also being made to the Smoky and Smoky High MOAs boundary information, as needed, to retain shared boundaries with R-3601A and R-3601B. And, the Smoky and Smoky High MOAs using agency information is amended to match the restricted areas using agency information. The amended Smoky and Smoky High MOAs boundary and using agency information changes addressed in this rule will be published in the NFDD as a separate action with a matching effective date.
This action does not affect the overall restricted area or MOA boundaries; designated altitudes; times of designation; or activities conducted within the restricted areas and MOAs.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5d. This action is an administrative change to the technical description of the affected restricted areas and is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding twelve (12) persons to the Unverified List (the “Unverified List” or UVL), adding additional addresses for four (4) persons currently listed on the UVL, and removing two (2) persons
Kevin Kurland, Director, Office of Enforcement Analysis, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-4255 or by email at
The Unverified List, found in Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 to the EAR, contains the names and addresses of foreign persons who are or have been parties to a transaction, as that term is described in § 748.5 of the EAR, involving the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR, and whose
End-use checks cannot be completed for a number of reasons, including reasons unrelated to the cooperation of the foreign party subject to the end-use check. For example, BIS sometimes initiates end-use checks and cannot find a foreign party at the address indicated on export documents, and cannot locate the party by telephone or email. Additionally, BIS sometimes is unable to conduct end-use checks when host government agencies do not respond to requests to conduct end-use checks, are prevented from scheduling such checks by a party to the transaction other than the foreign party that is the proposed subject of the end-use check, or the parties refuse to schedule them in a timely manner. Under these circumstances, although BIS has an interest in informing the public of its inability to verify the foreign party's
Furthermore, BIS sometimes conducts end-use checks but cannot verify the
As provided in § 740.2(a)(17) of the EAR, the use of license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) involving a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL is suspended. Additionally, under § 744.15(b) of the EAR, there is a requirement for exporters, reexporters, and transferors to obtain (and keep a record of) a UVL statement from a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL before proceeding with exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to such persons, when the exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) are not subject to a license requirement.
Requests for removal of a UVL entry must be made in accordance with § 744.15(d) of the EAR. Decisions regarding the removal or modification of UVL listings will be made by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, based on a demonstration by the listed person of its
Among other things, this rule adds twelve (12) persons to the UVL by amending Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 of the EAR to include their names and addresses. BIS adds these persons in accordance with the criteria for revising the UVL set forth in § 744.15(c) of the EAR. The new entries consist of one person located in Canada, one person located in the Czech Republic, one person located in Georgia, four persons located in Hong Kong, and five persons located in the United Arab Emirates. Each listing is grouped within the UVL by country and accompanied by the party's name(s) in alphabetical order under the country, available alias(es) and address(es), as well as the
This rule also adds new addresses for four current UVL persons in Hong Kong: (1) AST Technology Group (HK) Ltd.; (2) E-Chips Technology; (3) Ling Ao Electronic Technology Co. Ltd., a.k.a. Voyage Technology (HK) Co. Ltd.; and (4) Narpel Technology Co., Limited. BIS has determined that these persons are receiving U.S. exports at addresses other than those originally included in their UVL entries.
Lastly, this rule removes from the UVL two entries: One located in Hong Kong and one located in Pakistan.
The following entry (at three different locations) under the country heading Hong Kong is removed:
Ditis Hong Kong Ltd., Room 227-228, 2/F, Metre Centre II, 21 Lam Hing Street, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong
The following entry under the country heading Pakistan is removed:
Fauji Fertilizer Company Ltd., 156 The Mall, Rawalpindi, Cantt, Pakistan.
These persons are removed from the UVL based on BIS's ability to confirm their
Shipments (1) removed from license exception eligibility or that are now subject to requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR as a result of this regulatory action,; (2) eligible for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license before this regulatory action; and (3) on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on October 7, 2015, pursuant to actual orders, may proceed to that UVL listed person under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license so long as the items have been exported from the United States, reexported or transferred (in-country) before November 6, 2015. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before midnight, on November 6, 2015, are subject to the requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR in accordance with this regulation.
Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, has been in lapse. However, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015 (80 FR 48233 (Aug. 11, 2015) has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
2. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable to this rule—which is adding 12 persons, removing two persons, and updating the addresses of four other persons listed on the UVL—because this regulation involves military or foreign affairs under § 553(a)(1). BIS implements this rule to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by requiring a license for items being exported, reexported, or transferred (in country) involving a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, the entities being added to the UVL by this action and those entities operating at previously unlisted addresses would continue to be able to receive items without additional oversight by BIS and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the UVL, and create an incentive for these persons to accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR in furtherance of activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and/or take steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing once a final rule is effective.
The Department finds there is good cause to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and a thirty day delay of the effective date, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to the provision of this rule removing two persons from the UVL because doing so is contrary to the public interest and unnecessary. The removals are being made following the completion of successful end-use checks. If the rule were to be delayed to allow for public comment, U.S. exporters may face unnecessary economic losses as they turn away potential sales because the customer remained a listed person on the UVL even after BIS was able to verify that entity's
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
4. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 to 774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
The additions and revisions read as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS is issuing regulations under the Tuna Conventions Act to implement Resolution C-14-02 of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) by establishing requirements for any U.S. commercial fishing vessel that is 24 meters (78.74 feet) or more in overall length engaging in fishing activities for either tuna or tuna-like species in the eastern Pacific Ocean. This rule is necessary to ensure full U.S. compliance with its international obligations under the IATTC Convention.
This rule is effective January 1, 2016.
Copies of supporting documents prepared for this final rule, including the Categorical Exclusion memo, Regulatory Impact Review, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and other supporting documents, are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Rachael Wadsworth, NMFS WCR, 562-980-4036.
On May 19, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a supplemental proposed rule in the
The public comment period for the supplemental proposed rule was open until June 18, 2015, and NMFS accepted public comment at a hearing held at the NMFS West Coast Region (WCR) Long Beach office on June 9, 2015. The public comment period for the original proposed rule was open until March 10, 2014, and NMFS accepted public comment at a hearing held at the NMFS WCR Long Beach office on February 28, 2014.
The final rule is implemented under the authority of the Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951
The supplemental proposed rule contained additional background information, including information on the IATTC, the international obligations of the United States as an IATTC member, and the need for regulations. The differences between this final rule and the supplemental proposed rule are explained below.
This final rule establishes requirements for any U.S. commercial fishing vessel that is 24 meters (78.74 feet) or more in overall length and engaging in fishing activities for tuna or tuna-like species in the Convention Area, and for which either of the following permits is required: Pacific highly migratory species permit under 50 CFR 660.707, or high seas fishing permit under 50 CFR 300.13. The Convention Area is bounded by the west coast of the Americas and on the north, south, and west respectively, by the 50° N. and 50° S. parallels, and the 150° W. meridian.
Commercial fishing vessels that are 24 meters or more in overall length are required to install, activate, carry, and operate VMS units (also known as “mobile transmitting units”). The VMS units and mobile communications service providers must be type-approved by NOAA for fisheries in the IATTC Convention Area. Information for current NOAA type-approved VMS units can be obtained from: NOAA, Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), 1315 East-West Hwy, Suite 3301, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282; telephone at (888) 210-9288. Or, by contacting NOAA OLE VMS Helpdesk: Telephone: (888) 219-9228, ext. 2; email:
Federal funds may be available to vessel owners or operators for reimbursement for type-approved VMS units. The VMS units must be installed by a VMS dealer approved by a type-approved VMS unit manufacturer. To qualify for reimbursement, the VMS unit must be purchased and installed before December 1, 2015, and reimbursement must be requested no later than December 15, 2015. The availability of reimbursement funds for the cost of purchasing a VMS unit is not guaranteed; the funds are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Information on the VMS Reimbursement Program is available online at:
Compliance with the existing VMS requirements at 50 CFR parts 300, 660, or 665 would satisfy these new requirements relating to the installation, carrying, and operation of VMS units, provided that (1) the VMS unit and mobile communications service provider are type-approved by NOAA for fisheries in the Convention Area, (2) the VMS unit is operated continuously at all times while the vessel is at sea, unless the Assistant Director, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, Pacific Islands Division (or designee) (AD) authorizes a VMS unit to be shut down, and (3) the requirements for the case of VMS unit failure are followed.
This final rule also updates: (1) The definition of “Convention Area,” and (2) the description of the purpose and scope of part 300, subpart C, § 300.20 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
NMFS received comments on both the original and supplemental proposed rules during the public comment periods. For the original proposed rule, four persons participated in the public hearing, one of whom also submitted written comments. NMFS also received a written comment from a commenter that did not attend the public hearing. NMFS received one written comment in response to the supplemental proposed rule and no persons participated in the public hearing.
Five of the six commenters expressed concern about the burden of operating the VMS units while participating in fisheries for species other than tuna. These same commenters raised questions and provided suggestions regarding the flexibility of the VMS requirements as they apply to vessels that participate in other fisheries. One commenter indicated support for the VMS requirements for tuna fisheries as a worthwhile method to enhance monitoring. Summaries of the comments received for both the supplemental and original proposed rules and NMFS' responses appear below.
Since the original proposed rule stage, NMFS revised the VMS requirements to reduce the burden on vessels by allowing an additional option for a vessel owner or operator to shut down a VMS unit. If a vessel owner or operator receives verbal or written authorization by the AD, the VMS unit may be shut down, if, after the end of the fishing season, the vessel will no longer engage in fishing activities in the Convention Area for which either a Pacific highly migratory species permit or a high seas fishing permit is required.
NMFS notes that, since the original proposed rule, NOAA added an additional option for a vessel owner or operator to shut down a VMS unit. In this final rule, if a vessel owner or operator receives verbal or written authorization by the AD (or designee), the VMS unit may be shut down, if, after the end of the fishing season, the vessel will no longer engage in fishing activities in the Convention Area for which either a Pacific highly migratory species permit or a high seas fishing permit is required.
For these reasons, NMFS believes that the benefits of requiring position reports everywhere at sea, aside from the exceptions provided in the rule, outweigh any associated burden.
No recent judicial rulings justify or require that NMFS increase the reporting interval of the VMS units covered by this final rule because of recent judicial rulings. If determined necessary for the needs of the monitoring program, NMFS could make a fleet-wide change to this reporting interval through the notice and comment rulemaking process. This rule sets up the reporting interval at once per hour, and maintains that rate for normal operations, and we will not change that default rate except through the notice and comment rulemaking process. However, NOAA maintains the ability to temporarily, and under special circumstances only, increase the reporting interval, to support active enforcement investigations of specific vessels. Under these circumstances NOAA would be responsible for the costs of the increased reporting interval.
As described in responses to Comments 2 and 3, NMFS revised the VMS requirements since the original proposed rule stage, to allow an additional condition to authorize a vessel owner or operator to shut down a VMS unit. If a vessel owner or operator receives verbal or written authorization by the AD, the VMS unit may be shut down if, after the end of the fishing season, the vessel will no longer engage in fishing activities in the Convention Area for which either a Pacific highly migratory species permit or a high seas fishing permit is required.
Vessel owners and operators should also be aware of fees charged by communication service providers to shut down VMS units and to reactivate the VMS units after they are powered off.
In § 300.26(c)(5) and (d), under the heading, “Vessel monitoring system (VMS),” the references to “50 CFR 300.219, 50 CFR 660.712, or 50 CFR 665.19” have been replaced by “part 300 of this title, part 660 of this title, or part 665” to clarify that future VMS requirements that may be added to any section in those three parts would also be deemed to satisfy the VMS requirements under this rule. Also in § 300.26, paragraph (d) has been clarified to say that NOAA may pay for the VMS-associated costs for VMS carried and operated under part 300 of this title, part 660 of this title, or part 665 of this title, but only to the extent that the applicable regulations specify costs are the responsibility of NOAA.
In § 300.26, paragraph (c)(1) has been revised to clarify that “NOAA, the USCG, and other authorized entities are authorized to receive and relay transmissions from the VMS unit.” This revision was intended to clarify that the vessel owner and operator do not need to provide additional authorization to NOAA, the USCG, and other authorized entities. In § 300.26, paragraph (d) has been revised for consistency with the previously described change in paragraph (c)(1). Therefore, the following language was removed from the paragraph: “. . . the owner or operator has authorized NOAA to receive and relay transmissions from the VMS unit . . . .”
In § 300.26, paragraph (c)(1) was revised to clarify the that it is the responsibility of the vessel owner or operator to arrange for a NOAA-approved mobile communications service provider to receive and relay transmissions from the VMS unit to NOAA at a default reporting interval of at least once per hour. Therefore, the following language was removed from the paragraph “. . . the owner and operator must authorize NOAA to set up the reporting interval of the VMS unit as once per hour . . . .”
In § 300.26, paragraph (d) was revised to clarify that NOAA is responsible for the cost of any temporary increase in the default reporting interval to support active enforcement investigations of specific vessels.
In addition, throughout § 300.26, several references to “the SAC, or Special-Agent-In-Charge” have been replaced by “the AD, or Assistant Director” to reflect a change in title. AD means the Assistant Director, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, Pacific Islands Division (or designee).
In § 300.26, paragraph (a)(2) has been revised to add “ext. 2” after the phone number for the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement's VMS Helpdesk.
The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, as revised, and other applicable laws.
This action is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6. A memorandum for the file has been prepared that sets forth the decision to use a categorical exclusion and a copy of is available from NMFS (see
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
The analysis provided in the IRFA is not repeated here in its entirety. The need for, the reasons why action by the agency is being considered, and the
As discussed in the preamble, the provisions in the rule would apply to commercial fishing vessels that are 24 meters or more in overall length and engaging in fishing activities for tuna or tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area, and for which either of the following permits is required: (1) Pacific highly migratory species permit under 50 CFR 660.707, or (2) high seas fishing permit under 50 CFR 300.13. To estimate affected entities, the number of vessels authorized to fish for highly migratory species in the EPO through highly migratory species and high seas fishing permits was considered a reasonable proxy. As of August 2015, approximately 15 vessels did not have VMS units installed and would be subject to the regulations in the final rule. Gear types for U.S. West Coast commercial vessels that would be impacted include purse seine and hook-and-line (
No public comments specific to the IRFA were received and, therefore, no public comments are addressed in this FRFA. Certain comments with socio-economic implications are addressed in the comment and response section of the preamble, specifically, the response to Comments 1, 2, and 3. As described in responses to Comments 2 and 3, NMFS revised the VMS requirements since the original proposed rule stage. The requirements lessen the burden on fishermen.
Because the action will not have any significant impacts to small entities, there was no need to include additional alternatives that would minimize any disproportionate adverse economic burdens on a substantial number of small entities while achieving the objectives of the action.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the West Coast Region, and the guide will be sent to vessels that hold a Pacific highly migratory species permit and/or a high seas fishing permit for fisheries in the IATTC Convention Area. The guide and this final rule will be available upon request and on the West Coast Region Web site:
This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number (0648-0690). Public reporting burden for VMS is estimated as an average per individual response for each requirement. The estimated time for initial VMS unit installation is 4 hours. The estimated time to maintain or repair a VMS unit is 1 hour annually. The estimated response time for respondents to prepare and submit activation reports is estimated to be 5 minutes per report. The estimated response time to prepare and submit each on/off report is also 5 minutes. These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 300 are amended as follows:
44 U.S.C. 3501
(b) * * *
16 U.S.C. 951
The regulations in this subpart are issued under the authority of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 (Act) and apply to persons and vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
(y) Fail to install, activate, or operate a VMS unit as required in § 300.26(c).
(z) In the event of VMS unit failure or interruption; fail to repair or replace a VMS unit; fail to notify the Special-Agent-In-Charge, NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, Pacific Islands Division (or designee); and follow the instructions provided; or otherwise fail to act as provided in § 300.26(c)(4).
(aa) Disable, destroy, damage or operate improperly a VMS unit installed under § 300.26, or attempt to do any of the same, or fail to ensure that its operation is not impeded or interfered with, as provided in § 300.26(e).
(bb) Fail to make a VMS unit installed under § 300.26 or the position data obtained from it available for inspection, as provided in § 300.26 (f) and (g).
(a)
(2) The contact information for the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement's VMS Helpdesk is telephone: (888) 219-9228, ext. 2; email:
(b)
(c)
(2)
(i) Turn on the VMS unit to make it operational;
(ii) Submit a written activation report to the AD, via mail, facsimile or email, that includes the vessel's name; the vessel's official number; the VMS unit manufacturer and identification number; and telephone, facsimile or email contact information for the vessel owner or operator; and
(iii) Receive verbal or written confirmation from the AD that the proper VMS unit transmissions are being received from the VMS unit.
(3)
(i) Prior to shutting down the VMS unit, reports to the AD or the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement's VMS Helpdesk via facsimile, email, or web-form the following information: The intent to shut down the VMS unit; the vessel's name; the vessel's official number; an estimate for when the vessel's VMS may be turned back on; and telephone, facsimile or email contact information for the vessel owner or operator. In addition, the vessel owner or operator shall receive verbal or written confirmation from the AD before shutting down the VMS unit after the end of the fishing season; and
(ii) When turning the VMS unit back on, report to the AD or the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement's VMS Helpdesk, via mail, facsimile or email, the following information: That the VMS unit has been turned on; the vessel's name; the vessel's official number; and telephone, facsimile or email contact information for the vessel owner or operator; and
(iii) Prior to leaving port, receive verbal or written confirmation from the AD that proper transmissions are being received from the VMS unit.
(4)
(i) If the vessel is at port: The vessel owner or operator shall repair or replace the VMS unit and ensure it is operable before the vessel leaves port.
(ii) If the vessel is at sea: The vessel owner, operator, or designee shall contact the AD by telephone, facsimile, or email at the earliest opportunity during the AD's business hours and identify the caller and vessel. The vessel operator shall follow the instructions provided by the AD which could include, but are not limited to, ceasing fishing, stowing fishing gear, returning to port, and/or submitting periodic position reports at specified intervals by other means; and repair or replace the VMS unit and ensure it is operable before starting the next trip.
(5)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Correcting amendments.
The EEOC is correcting a cross-reference in its regulation concerning the procedures for requesting an exemption for apprenticeship programs from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) pursuant to Section 9 of the Act.
Carol R. Miaskoff, Assistant Legal Counsel, at (202) 663-4645 (voice) or Raymond L. Peeler, Senior Attorney-Advisor, at (202) 663-4537 (voice) or (202) 663-7026 (TDD). Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY), or the Publications Information Center at 1-800-669-3362 (toll free).
In 1996, the Commission issued a regulation finding that apprenticeship programs were covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),
When the EEOC most recently exercised its exemption authority on an unrelated matter, in 2007, it also moved the procedures for requesting an exemption to a new section—29 CFR 1625.30. However, the Commission neglected to update the cross-reference in the apprenticeship program regulation to reflect this change. The regulation originally cross-referenced in the apprenticeship program regulation, 29 CFR 1627.15, no longer exists. Therefore, the EEOC replaces the now incorrect reference in 29 CFR 1625.21 with language reflecting the new citation for the agency's procedures for requesting an administrative exemption from ADEA prohibitions—29 CFR 1625.30.
Although the EEOC's rulemakings on apprenticeship programs and administrative exemptions are not currently a priority for regulatory review, the Commission is taking this action, consistent with the EEOC Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules,
The Commission finds that public notice-and-comment on this rule is unnecessary, because the revision makes no substantive change; it merely corrects an internal cross-referencing error. The rule is therefore exempt from the notice-and-comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This technical correction also is not “significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, and therefore is not subject to review by Office of Management and Budget.
Since this technical correction contains no substantive changes to the law, EEOC certifies that it contains no new information collection requirements subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), it requires no formal cost-benefit analysis pursuant to E.O. 12866, it creates no significant impact on small business entities subject to review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and it imposes no new economic burden requiring further analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This correction is defined as a rule under the Congressional Review Act, but not as a major rule. As a result, it was provided to Congress and the General Accountability Office pursuant to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 801 as interpreted by Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-99-13.
Advertising, Age, Employee benefit plans, Equal employment opportunity, and Retirement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission amends 29 CFR part 1625 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 621-634; 5 U.S.C. 301; Pub. L. 99-502, 100 Stat. 3342; Secretary's Order No. 10-68; Secretary's Order No. 11-68; sec. 2, Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1978, 43 FR 19807; Executive Order 12067, 43 FR 28967.
All apprenticeship programs, including those apprenticeship programs created or maintained by joint labor-management organizations, are subject to the prohibitions of sec. 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 623. Age limitations in apprenticeship programs are valid only if excepted under sec. 4(f)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 623(f)(1), or exempted by the Commission under sec. 9 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 628, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR 1625.30.
For the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of North Dakota to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act, CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on March 12, 2008; lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008; and nitrogen dioxide (NO
This rule is effective November 6, 2015.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0974. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, 303-312-6563,
Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are provided in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41450).
The NPR proposed approval of North Dakota's submissions with respect to the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb, and 2010 NO
No comments were received on our July 15, 2015 NPR.
EPA is approving the following infrastructure elements for the 2008
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves relevant 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, Oct. 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, Aug. 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, Feb. 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 December 7, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, 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 to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d) EPA is approving the following infrastructure elements for the 2008 ozone, 2008 Pb
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island on June 26, 2014, with supplemental submittals on March 25, 2015 and August 28, 2015. This SIP revision includes a regulation that has been revised to require a lower sulfur content for petroleum-based distillate and residual fuel oils. In addition, outdated provisions in the regulation have been removed. The intended effect of this action is to approve this regulation into the Rhode Island SIP. This action is
This direct final rule will be effective December 7, 2015, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 6, 2015. 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 Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0605 by one of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In addition, copies of the state submittals are also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency; Office of Air Resources, Department of Environmental Management, 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767.
Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas
On May 22, 2012, EPA approved Rhode Island's initial Regional Haze plan into the SIP. See 77 FR 30214. As part of the Rhode Island Regional Haze Plan, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) stated that it intended to adopt low-sulfur fuel oil requirements.
On June 26, 2014, with supplemental submittals on March 25, 2015 and August 28, 2015, the RI DEM submitted a SIP revision to EPA. This SIP revision includes Rhode Island's revised Air
RI DEM Regulation No. 8, “Sulfur Content of Fuels,” was previously approved into the Rhode Island SIP on January 8, 1986. See 51 FR 755. The SIP-approved rule states that “no person shall store for sale, offer for sale, sell or deliver for use in Rhode Island and no person shall use or store high sulfur fuel.” High sulfur fuel oil is defined in the regulation to be “any fuel except fuel oil containing more than 0.55 pounds of sulfur per million Btu (British thermal unit) heat release potential or fuel oil containing more than 1.0 percent sulfur by weight.”
The revised rule, effective June 24, 2014, states that no person shall store for sale, offer for sale, sell or deliver for use in Rhode Island and no person shall use any fuel oil having a sulfur content in excess of that in the following table:
These sulfur content emission limits are more stringent than the previously required 1% limit. In addition, the revised rule maintains the previously SIP-approved requirement that no person shall store for sale, offer for sale, sell or deliver for use in Rhode Island any solid fossil fuel containing more than 0.55 pounds of sulfur per million Btu heat release potential.
An exemption from the requirements of Regulation No. 8 extends to fuel used in combination with an approved stack cleaning process provided that the emissions from the stack are no greater than if the applicable sulfur content fuel were used, fuel used for fuel blending with ultra-low sulfur fuel to meet the applicable standard, and fuel oil which met the applicable requirements when received for storage in Rhode Island.
In addition, the revised rule does not include three flexibilities allowed in the previously SIP-approved rule. Specifically, the following sections are not included in the revised rule: (1) “Emission Bubbling,” whereby a facility with more than one fuel burning device could propose to meet total emission control requirements for a given pollutant through a mix of different control technologies; (2) “Conversion and Conservation Incentive,” which allowed the continued use of high sulfur fuel, for up to 30 months, for select facilities, so that monies saved from the price differential between high sulfur fuel and low sulfur fuel could be used to finance the necessary modifications or installation of pollution control needed to meet the low sulfur limits; and (3) “Sulfur Variability in Coal,” which established a 24-hour averaging period for demonstrating compliance.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(
EPA has determined that the approval of Rhode Island's revised Regulation No. 8, effective June 24, 2014, as submitted by the State, will strengthen the Rhode Island SIP. Therefore, EPA is approving Rhode Island's June 26, 2014, with supplemental submittals on March 25, 2015 and August 28, 2015, SIP revision.
EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Rhode Island SIP, Rhode Island's revised Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 8 “Sulfur Content of Fuels,” (excluding Section 8.7 “Fuel Supply Shortages” which was not submitted by the State) effective in the State of Rhode Island on June 26, 2014.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on December 7, 2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on December 7, 2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 8, “Sulfur Content of Fuels,” excluding Section 8.7 “Fuel Supply Shortages,” as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 December 7, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 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 this
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.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt; when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Itaconix Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt on food or feed commodities.
This regulation is effective October 7, 2015. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 7, 2015, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0395, is available at
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0395 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 7, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0395, by one of the following methods.
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” and specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
7. The polymer's number average MW of 3936 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive functional groups.
Thus, butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt.
For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt is 3936 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA has not found butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt.
Not Available.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
The Codex has not established a MRL for butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt.
Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, homopolymer, sodium salt from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.
This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) clarifies annual reliability certification requirements for Covered 911 Service Providers in response to a Petition for Reconsideration. Specifically, the Commission clarifies that Covered 911 Service Providers may implement and certify an alternative measure for any of the elements specified in the certification as long as they provide an explanation of how such alternative measures are reasonably sufficient to mitigate the risk of failure. This clarification provides flexibility for Covered 911 Service Providers, including those with Internet protocol (IP)-based networks, to certify alternative measures in lieu of diversity audits and tagging of critical 911 circuits as long as they explain how such alternatives will mitigate risk at least to a comparable extent as the measures specified in the Commission's rules.
Effective November 6, 2015.
Eric P. Schmidt, Attorney Advisor, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-1214 or
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. In December 2013, the Commission adopted rules requiring 911 communications providers to take reasonable measures to provide reliable service, as evidenced by an annual certification.
2. In this
3. Specifically, we clarify that under section 12.4 of the Commission's rules, Covered 911 Service Providers may implement and certify an alternative measure for
4. The 911 Reliability Order adopted section 12.4 of our rules, which defines the scope of Covered 911 Service Providers and sets forth the elements for an annual certification requirement with respect to circuit auditing, backup power, and network monitoring. As pertinent here, under the circuit auditing portion of the certification, the elements specified by the rules require Covered 911 Service Providers to certify annually whether they have (1) audited the physical diversity of critical 911 circuits or equivalent data paths to any public safety answering point (PSAP) served, (2) tagged such circuits to reduce the probability of inadvertent loss of diversity between audits, and (3) eliminated all single points of failure in critical 911 circuits or equivalent data paths serving each PSAP. If a Covered 911 Service Provider has not implemented the third element (
5. The elements that comprise these certification requirements are designed to reinforce the core responsibility imposed by section 12.4(b) of our rules, which is to take reasonable measures to provide reliable 911 service with respect to circuit diversity, central-office backup power, and diverse network monitoring. Section 12.4(b) provides, however, that “[i]f a Covered 911 Service Provider cannot certify that it has performed a given element, the Commission may determine that such provider nevertheless satisfies the requirements of this subsection (b) based upon a showing in accordance with subsection (c) that it is taking alternative measures with respect to that element that are reasonably sufficient to mitigate the risk of failure, or that one or more certification elements are not applicable to its network.” The Commission intended this certification approach to be more flexible than uniform standards, while providing assurance to PSAPs and the public that known vulnerabilities in 911 networks will be identified and corrected promptly.
6. The
7. Intrado observes that the structure and numbering of section 12.4(c) can be interpreted to require that
8. Intrado argues that two issues may prevent it and other IP-based providers from being able to audit and certify the precise path of their circuits or equivalent data paths for 911 call traffic at any given time. First, “the underlying carriers could conflate their respective physical paths so that they are combined on one of their networks or on the network of a third-party carrier for one or more segments,” in which case “Intrado has no way of ensuring that the underlying provider informs Intrado if such conflation occurs.” Second, “a significant portion of Intrado's facilities rely on multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) technology, which does not permit the underlying provider—let alone Intrado—to track its circuit path at any given moment.”
9. Intrado cites the apparent conflict between sections 12.4(b) and 12.4(c) as a basis for requesting clarification of those rules such that “[p]roviders may take reasonable alternative measures to meet the Commission's standards in lieu of implementing
10. In response, the Commission received one comment and one reply comment, both in support of Intrado's position. Texas 911 Entities “support[s] the Commission . . . providing additional clarification or interpretation regarding the Order in the context of more modern 9-1-1 network designs,” including MPLS networks and situations “where the network provided by a subcontractor or commercial vendor may be one component of a larger governmental entity solution.” AT&T “fully supports the
11. We first clarify that the certification framework adopted in the
12. Moreover, flexibility is essential to support and encourage the transition to NG911. In the
13. Events since the adoption of the
14. To be clear, this flexibility is limited by the substantive standard in Section 12.4(b) of requiring “reasonable measures” to provide reliable 911 service, and is not an invitation for any Covered 911 Service Provider to avoid certification obligations. As provided in the
15. We clarify that Covered 911 Service Providers responding to the circuit auditing portion of the certification under section 12.4(c)(1) may certify their implementation of reasonable alternative measures in lieu of auditing and tagging critical 911 circuits, provided that they include an explanation of such alternative measures and why they are reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, we amend section 12.4(c)(1)(ii) to make clear that this option applies to all of the elements of section 12.4(c)(1)(i) and not just subsection 12.4(c)(1)(i)(C).
16. The circuit auditing requirement adopted in the
17. As the
18. The
19. Where Covered 911 Service Providers are leasing or subcontracting for critical 911 circuits, the Commission's assessment of whether alternative measures in lieu of circuit audits or tagging are reasonable under the circumstances will be informed, in part, by certification responses identifying the parties involved, as well as details about the contractual provisions—or lack thereof—governing such relationships. For example, do IP-based Covered 911 Service Providers increase the diversity of their networks by dividing traffic among two different MPLS service providers? In cases where a PSAP depends on IP network access for its 911 services, Covered 911 Service Providers might also promote reliability of each PSAP's IP network access by ordering redundant access for the PSAP from multiple providers (such as ILEC, cable, and wireless providers). In addition, for cases where MPLS is used to provide 911 services, MPLS service level agreements, reliability objectives, and remedies specified for failure to meet such requirements and/or objectives may also ensure accountability for reliable service. We will expect Covered 911 Service Providers that provide critical 911 circuits to PSAPs in partnership with other service providers or that share responsibility for circuit diversity with another service provider to include a description of such arrangements and the identity of such third parties as part of their explanation of alternative measures. Descriptions of alternative measures may also include references to any services provided under contract where circuit diversity is not expressly defined, but is instead achieved through a service level agreement providing comparable assurances of resiliency. These and other affirmative steps, in lieu of circuit audits and tagging, may demonstrate reasonable measures to provide reliable service, depending on individual circumstances, while improving the Commission's situational awareness regarding NG911 deployment and resiliency. Explanations submitted through the annual certification process will have the added benefit of providing the Commission with up-to-date, empirical information about the transition to NG911 throughout the Nation.
20. Finally, and for the reasons discussed above, we clarify that Covered 911 Service Providers responding to the network monitoring portion of the certification under section 12.4(c)(3) may certify their implementation of reasonable alternative measures in lieu of conducting diversity audits of monitoring links and aggregation points for network monitoring data, provided that they include an explanation of such alternative measures and why they are reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, we amend the text of section 12.4(c)(3)(ii) to make clear that this option applies to all of the elements of section 12.4(c)(3)(i) and not just subsection 12.4(c)(3)(i)(C).
21. Intrado argues that “[b]ased on the text of the [
22. This document contains a non-substantive and non-material modification of information collection requirements that were previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 3060-1202. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
23. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of various requirements adopted in the
24. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared the following Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this
25. That said, the Commission's certification approach to 911 reliability continues to “allow[ ] flexibility for small or rural providers to comply with our rules in the manner most appropriate for their networks, and certain requirements will, by their nature, only apply to larger providers.” In contrast to more prescriptive reliability requirements, the option to certify reasonable alternative measures in lieu of specified best practices minimizes regulatory burdens on small entities by recognizing a variety of acceptable approaches to providing reliable 911 service. If anything, the clarifications provided above offer additional flexibility to small entities by making clear that they may certify reasonable alternative measures in lieu of circuit audits and tagging depending on their individual circumstances and network architecture. Thus, the rules as clarified in this
26. The Commission will send a copy of this
27. Accordingly,
28.
29.
30.
31.
Resiliency, Redundancy and Reliability of Communications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 12 as follows:
Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 5(c), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 219, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 316, 332, 403, 405, 615a-1, 615c, 621(b)(3), and 621(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154 (j), 154 (o), 155(c), 201(b), 214(d), 218, 219, 251(e)(3), 301, 303(b), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309(a), 316, 332, 403, 405, 615a-1, 615c, 621(b)(3), and 621(d) unless otherwise noted.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) If a Covered 911 Service Provider does not conform with all of the elements in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section with respect to the 911 service provided to one or more PSAPs, it must certify with respect to each such PSAP:
(3) * * *
(ii) If a Covered 911 Service Provider does not conform with all of the elements in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, it must certify with respect to each such 911 Service Area:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Final rule.
NASA is issuing a final rule amending the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to remove requirements related to the discontinued Space Flight Mission Critical Systems Personnel Reliability Program and to revise requirements related to contractor drug and alcohol testing.
Effective November 6, 2015.
Marilyn Chambers, NASA, Office of Procurement, email:
The revision to this rule is part of NASA's retrospective plan under Executive Order (EO) 13563 completed in August 2011. NASA published a proposed rule in the
NASA has reviewed the public comment submitted in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made as a result of those comments is provided, as follows:
There is one minor change made in the final rule in response to the public comment received.
One respondent submitted five comments.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
NASA has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (FRFA), 5 U.S.C. 601,
This rule is necessary to amend the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to remove requirements related to the Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program, which was discontinued effective April 8, 2014. The NFS contained a clause at 1852.246-70, Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program, which implemented the requirements of the Program on NASA contracts involving critical positions designated in accordance with 14 CFR 1214.5, Mission Critical Space System Personnel Reliability Program. With the discontinuance of the Program, the clause is no longer necessary and is removed.
Removal of the NFS clause at 1852.246-70 necessitated changes to the prescription at NFS 1823.570-2, Contract clause and to the clause at 1852.223-74, Drug- and Alcohol-Free
• Moving the guidance on the use of a controlled substance from the definition to a separate paragraph;
• Referencing NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 3792.1, NASA's Plan for a Drug Free Workplace, on “Testing Designated Positions” (TDPs) for federal employees, as a guide for contractors to use when designating “sensitive” positions;
• Updating outdated references to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, published by the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Transportation's procedures at 49 CFR part 40 and updating the list of drugs required to be tested in accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs; and
• Clarifying that post-accident testing is required when the contractor determines the employee's actions are reasonably suspected of having caused or contributed to an accident resulting in death or personal injury requiring immediate hospitalization or damage to Government or private property estimated to exceed $20,000 and that the contracting officer may request the results of this post-accident testing.
The rule does not change the application of the clause at 1852.223-74, Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce. This proposed rule imposes no new reporting requirements.
This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternatives were identified that would meet the objectives of the rule. Excluding small business concerns that may be subject to the rule would not be in the best interest of the small business concerns or the Government, because drug and alcohol testing of contractors performing functions related to mission critical space systems is statutorily mandated and is necessary in order to protect human life and the nation's civil space assets.
The final rule does not contain information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1823, 1846, and 1852 are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 1823 is revised to read as follows:
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.1823.570-1.
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.223-74, Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce, in all solicitations and contracts exceeding $5 million in which work is performed by an employee in a sensitive position. However, the contracting officer shall not insert the clause at 1852.223-74 in solicitations and contracts for commercial items.
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.246-73, Human Space Flight Item, in solicitations and contracts for human space flight hardware and flight-related equipment if the highest available quality standards are necessary to ensure astronaut safety.
51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.
(a) Definitions.
(b)(1) The Contractor shall institute and maintain a program for achieving a drug- and alcohol-free workforce. As a minimum, the program shall provide for pre-employment, reasonable suspicion, random, post-accident, and periodic recurring (follow-up) testing of contractor employees in sensitive positions for use, in violation of applicable law or Federal regulation, of alcohol or a controlled substance. The Contractor may establish its testing or rehabilitation program in cooperation with other contractors or organizations.
(2) In determining which positions to designate as “sensitive,” the contractor may use the guidelines for determining testing designated positions in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 3792.1, NASA's Plan for a Drug Free Workplace, as a guide for the criteria and in designating “sensitive” positions for contractor employees.
(3) This clause neither prohibits nor requires the Contractor to test employees in a foreign country. If the Contractor chooses to conduct such testing, this does not authorize the Contractor to violate foreign law in conducting such testing.
(4) The Contractor's program shall conform to the “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs” published by the Department of Health and Human Services (73 FR 71858) and the procedures in 49 CFR part 40, “Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs.”
(i) The Contractor shall test for the following drugs: Marijuana, Cocaine, Amphetamines, Opiates and Phencyclidine (PCP) in accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs Mandatory Guidelines, Section 3.1, and 49 CFR 40.85.
(ii) The contractor shall comply with the requirements and procedures for alcohol testing at 49 CFR part 40.
(iii) The use of a controlled substance in accordance with the terms of a valid prescription, or other uses authorized by law shall not be subject to the requirements this clause.
(5) The contractor shall conduct post-accident testing when the contractor determines the employee's actions are reasonably suspected of having caused or contributed to an accident resulting in death or personal injury requiring immediate hospitalization or damage to Government or private property estimated to exceed $20,000. Upon request, the Contractor shall provide the results of post-accident testing to the Contracting Officer.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Final rule.
This final rule announces NHTSA's determination that there are no new model year (MY) 2016 light duty truck lines subject to the parts-marking requirements of the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard because they have been determined by the agency to be high-theft or because they have major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of passenger car or MPV lines. This final rule also identifies those vehicle lines that have been granted an exemption from the parts-marking requirements because the vehicles are equipped with antitheft devices determined to meet certain statutory criteria.
The amendment made by this final rule is effective October 7, 2015.
Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Consumer Standards Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., (NVS-131, Room W43-302), Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-4807. Her fax number is (202) 493-0073.
The theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) applies to (1) all passenger car lines; (2) all multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) lines with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less; (3) low-theft light-duty truck (LDT) lines with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less that have major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of passenger car or MPV lines; and (4) high-theft LDT lines with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less.
The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle theft by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard seeks to facilitate such tracing by requiring that vehicle identification numbers (VINs), VIN derivative numbers, or other symbols be placed on major component vehicle parts. The theft prevention standard requires motor vehicle manufacturers to inscribe or affix VINs onto covered original equipment major component parts, and to inscribe or affix a symbol identifying the manufacturer and a common symbol identifying the replacement component parts for those original equipment parts, on all vehicle lines subject to the requirements of the standard.
Section 33104(d) provides that once a line has become subject to the theft prevention standard, the line remains subject to the requirements of the standard unless it is exempted under § 33106. Section 33106 provides that a manufacturer may petition annually to have one vehicle line exempted from the requirements of § 33104, if the line is equipped with an antitheft device meeting certain conditions as standard equipment. The exemption is granted if NHTSA determines that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with the theft prevention
The agency annually publishes the names of those LDT lines that have been determined to be high theft pursuant to 49 CFR part 541, those LDT lines that have been determined to have major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of passenger car or MPV lines and those vehicle lines that are exempted from the theft prevention standard under section 33104. Appendix A to Part 541 identifies those LDT lines that are or will be subject to the theft prevention standard beginning in a given model year. Appendix A-I to Part 541 identifies those vehicle lines that are or have been exempted from the theft prevention standard.
For MY 2016, there are no new LDT lines that will be subject to the theft prevention standard in accordance with the procedures published in 49 CFR part 542. Therefore, Appendix A does not need to be amended.
For MY 2016, the list of lines that have been exempted by the agency from the parts-marking requirements of Part 541 is amended to include ten vehicle lines newly exempted in full. The ten exempted vehicle lines are the BMW X1(MPV), Lincoln MKX, Chevrolet Spark, Honda CRV, Jaguar XF, Maserati Ghibli, Mazda CX-3, Mercedes-Benz smart Line Chassis, Toyota Sienna and the Audi TT.
When publishing the August 11, 2014 final rule (See 79 FR 46715), the agency erroneously omitted the Chrysler 200 vehicle line from the Appendix A-I listing of ten vehicles that were exempted from the parts marking requirements for MY 2015. This notice corrects that error.
We note that the agency also removes from the list being published in the
The vehicle lines listed as being exempt from the standard have previously been exempted in accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR part 543 and 49 U.S.C., 33106. Therefore, NHTSA finds for good cause that notice and opportunity for comment on these listings are unnecessary. Further, public comment on the listing of selections and exemptions is not contemplated by 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331. For the same reasons, since this revised listing only informs the public of previous agency actions and does not impose additional obligations on any party, NHTSA finds for good cause that the amendment made by this notice should be effective as soon as it is published in the
A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies provide for making determinations on whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Orders. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
This final rule was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It will not impose any new burdens on vehicle manufacturers. This document informs the public of previously granted exemptions. Since the only purpose of this final rule is to inform the public of previous actions taken by the agency no new costs or burdens will result.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment as it merely informs the public about previous agency actions. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is required.
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that it does not have sufficient federal implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. As discussed above, this final rule only provides better information to the public about previous agency actions.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually ($120.7 million as adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). The assessment may be combined with other assessments, as it is here.
This final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments or automobile manufacturers and/or their suppliers of more than $120.7 million annually. This document informs the public of previously granted exemptions. Since the only purpose of this final rule is to inform the public of previous actions taken by the agency, no new costs or burdens will result.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,”
The Department of Transportation has not submitted an information collection request to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This rule does not impose any new information collection requirements on manufacturers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Labeling, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 541 is amended as follows:
49 U.S.C. 33101, 33102, 33103, 33104, 33105 and 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
We, NMFS, issue a final rule to list three foreign corals and the dusky sea snake under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We considered comments submitted on the proposed listing rule and have determined that the three foreign corals (
This final rule is effective November 6, 2015.
Chief, Endangered Species Division, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA.
Dwayne Meadows, Ph.D., NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, (301) 427-8403.
On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We found that the petitioned actions may be warranted for 27 of the 81 species and announced the initiation of status reviews for each of the 27 species (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). On December 16, 2014, we published a proposed rule to list the dusky sea snake (
We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” We interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of the following five threat factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We are also required to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the species' status and after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the species.
In making a listing determination, we first determine whether a petitioned species meets the ESA definition of a “species.” Next, using the best available information gathered during the status
We then assess efforts being made to protect the species, to determine if these conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the existing threats. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a listing determination for a species, to take into consideration those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect the species.
In response to our request for comments on the proposed rule, we received three comments on the three foreign corals, and the Australian Government Department of the Environment submitted a letter neither supporting nor opposing our proposed listing of the dusky sea snake. The letter stated that the dusky sea snake is listed under Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and thus it is currently illegal to kill, injure, take or trade dusky sea snakes. Because this information was acknowledged and considered in our status review, this information did not affect the proposal to list the species as endangered under the ESA. Three parties commented on the three corals.
Status reviews for the petitioned species addressed in this finding were conducted by NMFS staff. Separate draft status reviews were completed for dusky sea snake (Manning, 2014), and the three foreign corals (Meadows, 2014). In order to complete the status reviews, we compiled information on the species' biology, ecology, life history, threats, and conservation status from information contained in the petition, our files, a comprehensive literature search, and consultation with experts. We also considered information submitted by the public and peer reviewers. Prior to publication of the proposed rule, all status reviews were subjected to peer review. Peer reviewer comments are available at
The status review reports provide a thorough discussion of life history, demographic risks, and threats to the particular species. We considered all identified threats, both individually and cumulatively, to determine whether the species responds in a way that causes actual impacts at the species level. The collective condition of individual populations was also considered at the species level, according to the four demographic viability factors discussed above.
The proposed rule (79 FR 74953, December 16, 2014) summarizes general background information on the species' natural history, range, reproduction, population structure, distribution and abundance; none of which has changed since the proposed rule. All of that information is incorporated herein by reference.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information described above and in the status review reports, we have determined that the dusky sea snake (
Next we consider whether any one or a combination of the five threat factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA contribute to the extinction risk of these species. None of the information we received from public comment on the proposed rule affected any of our discussion or conclusions regarding any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their interactions for these species, so we incorporate the discussion of these factors from the proposed rule (79 FR 74953, December 16, 2014) by reference herein.
None of the information we received from public comment on the proposed rule affected our extinction risk evaluations of these four species. As such, our evaluations for these species remain the same as in the status review reports and the discussion in the proposed rule (79 FR 74953, December 16, 2014), and that discussion is incorporated herein by reference.
Finally, we considered conservation efforts to protect each species and evaluated whether these conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the existing threats to the point where extinction risk is significantly lowered and the species' status is improved. None of the information we received from public comment on the proposed rule affected any of our discussion or conclusions regarding conservation efforts to protect the dusky sea snake or the three foreign coral species, so we incorporate the discussion of these efforts from the proposed rule (79 FR 74953, December 16, 2014) by reference herein.
We have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, including the petition, the information in the status review reports, public comment, and the comments of peer reviewers. Based on the best available information, we find that the dusky sea snake (
Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); Federal agency requirements to consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); designation of critical habitat if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). In addition, recognition of the species' plight through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and state agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals. Because the ranges of these four species are entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, the main effects of these endangered listings are prohibitions on export and import.
Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. It is unlikely that the listing of these species under the ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because these species occur entirely outside of the United States and are unlikely to be affected by Federal actions.
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat shall not be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(h)).
The best available scientific and commercial data as discussed above identify the geographical areas occupied by
On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that requires us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not likely constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. Because we are listing the dusky sea snake and the three foreign corals as endangered, all of the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA will apply to these species. These include prohibitions against the import, export, use in foreign commerce, or “take” of the species. These prohibitions apply to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including in the United States, its territorial sea, or on the high seas. Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effects of this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' ranges. Activities that we believe could (subject to the exemptions set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539) result in a violation of section 9 prohibitions for these species include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Possessing, delivering, transporting, or shipping any individual or part (dead or alive) taken in violation of section 9(a)(1);
(2) Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce any individual or part, in the course of a commercial activity;
(3) Selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any individual or part;
(4) Importing or exporting any individual or part;
(5) Releasing captive animals into the wild without a permit issued under section 10(a)(1)(A). Although animals held non-commercially in captivity at the time of listing are exempt from the prohibitions of import and export, the individual animals are considered listed and afforded most of the protections of the ESA, including most importantly, the prohibition against injuring or killing. Release of a captive animal has the potential to injure or kill the animal. Of an even greater conservation concern, the release of a captive animal has the potential to affect wild populations through introduction of diseases or inappropriate genetic mixing; and
(6) Harming captive animals by, among other things, injuring or killing a captive animal, through experimental or potentially injurious care or conducting research or sexual breeding activities on captive animals, outside the bounds of normal animal husbandry practices. Captive sexual breeding of corals is considered potentially injurious. Furthermore, the production of coral progeny has conservation implications (both positive and negative) for wild populations. Experimental or potentially injurious care or procedures and research or sexual breeding activities of corals or dusky sea snake may, depending on the circumstances, be authorized under an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for scientific research or the enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species.
Although the determination of whether any given activity constitutes a violation is fact dependent, we consider the following actions, depending on the circumstances, as being unlikely to violate the prohibitions in ESA section 9:
(1) Take authorized by, and carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of, an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by NMFS for purposes of scientific research or the enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species;
(2) Continued possession of parts that were in possession at the time of listing. Such parts may be non-commercially exported or imported; however the importer or exporter must be able to provide evidence to show that the parts meet the criteria of ESA section 9(b)(1) (
(3) Continued possession of live corals or dusky sea snakes that were in captivity or in a controlled environment (
(4) Provision of care for live corals or dusky sea snakes that were in captivity at the time of listing. These individuals are still protected under the ESA and may not be killed or injured, or otherwise harmed, and, therefore, must receive proper care. Normal care of captive animals necessarily entails handling or other manipulation of the animals, and we do not consider such activities to constitute take or harassment of the animals so long as adequate care, including veterinary care, when such practices, procedures, or provisions are not likely to result in injury, is provided.
Section 11(f) of the ESA gives NMFS authority to promulgate regulations that may be appropriate to enforce the ESA. NMFS may promulgate future regulations, including to regulate holding of these species, if necessary. NMFS will provide the public with the opportunity to comment on future proposed regulations.
We revise and add table subheadings in the Code of Federal Regulations to accommodate these new listings in our list of endangered species at 50 CFR 224.101 and revisions to the table subheadings for our list of threatened species at 50 CFR 223.102. We add the subheading “Corals” to our table at 50 CFR 224.101. This subheading has already been added to our table at 50 CFR 223.102 in a previous rulemaking (79 FR 20802; April 14, 2014). We are revising the subheading of “Sea Turtles” in the endangered species table at 50 CFR 224.101 and the threatened species table at 50 CFR 223.102 by changing the subheading to “Reptiles.” This new subheading will encompass all currently listed sea turtles as well as other marine reptiles like the dusky sea snake. These revisions and addition are not substantive changes, but having these headings will help the public identify
A complete list of the references used in this final rule is available upon request (see
The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in
As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. In addition, this final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism assessment is not required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 224 are amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; subpart B, §§ 223.201 and 223.202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361
(e) * * *
16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361
The additions read as follows:
(h) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correcting amendment.
NMFS corrects the final rule that implemented management measures described in Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region (FMP)(Amendment 8), which published in the
This correction is effective October 7, 2015.
Karla Gore, 727-824-5305; email:
On July 17, 2015, NMFS published a final rule in the
The regulatory text in the Amendment 8 final rule in § 622.224(b)(1) contains three waypoints that were incorrectly listed for describing the Oculina Bank HAPC. These waypoints were correctly identified in Amendment 8 but were incorrectly converted to the coordinate format used for the proposed and final rules for Amendment 8. The incorrect waypoints are the origin point and points 7 and 8 for the Oculina Bank HAPC.
Additionally, the proposed and final rules for Amendment 8 incorrectly described the gear stowage provisions for vessels transiting the Oculina Bank HAPC with rock shrimp onboard. The regulatory text in the Amendment 8 final rule in § 622.224(b)(1)(i)(C) states that appropriate stowage for shrimp trawl fishing gear includes the trawl doors and nets being out of the water and onboard the vessel deck or below deck. However, as described in the Amendment 8, the correct gear stowage for the trawl doors and nets is to have the doors and nets out of the water. Requiring the trawl doors and nets to be on deck was contrary to the intent of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and not consistent with Amendment 8.
This notification corrects the table in § 622.224(b)(1) with the correct coordinates and corrects the gear stowage language in § 622.224(b)(1)(i)(C) by incorporating the necessary language from Amendment 8 back into the regulations.
As published, the final rule for Amendment 8, published on July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42423), incorrectly listed three waypoints for the Oculina Bank HAPC and incorrectly described gear stowage language for vessels transiting the area. Coordinates are added to § 622.224(b)(1) and language is revised in § 622.224(b)(1)(i)(C) to correct these errors.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this correcting amendment is necessary for the
This correcting amendment has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for additional public comment for this action because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This correcting amendment corrects the positions for the Oculina Bank HAPC and the associated gear stowage provisions that were incorrectly described in the final rule. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because not correcting the waypoints will cause confusion among the affected fishers and will not properly protect the Oculina Bank HAPC. With regard to the gear stowage requirements, not correcting these regulations will require fishers to comply with gear stowage methods that are not those recommended by the Council. The Council developed the gear stowage requirements in coordination with the affected fishers and these stowage requirements represent a safer approach for these fishers given the offshore conditions they may encounter. It would be impracticable to subject this action to notice and comment because the provisions of Amendment 8 are currently in effect and any delay in implementation of this rule would further any confusion that exists on the location of the waypoints and the gear stowage requirements.
For the same reasons, the Assistant Administrator also finds good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), to waive the 30-day delay in effective date for this correcting amendment. If this rule is not implemented immediately, it would cause confusion among the affected fishers of the location of the waypoints for Oculina Bank HAPC, would result in inadequate protection of the Oculina Bank HAPC, and require fishers to comply with gear stowage methods that were not recommended by the Council.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
Coral, Coral Reefs, Fisheries, Fishing, HAPC, Shrimp, South Atlantic.
Accordingly, 50 CFR part 622 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Fish for or possess rock shrimp in or from the Oculina Bank HAPC, except a shrimp vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for rock shrimp that possesses rock shrimp may transit through the Oculina Bank HAPC if fishing gear is appropriately stowed. For the purpose of this paragraph, transit means a direct and non-stop continuous course through the area, maintaining a minimum speed of five knots as determined by an operating VMS and a VMS minimum ping rate of 1 ping per 5 minutes; fishing gear appropriately stowed means that doors and nets are out of the water.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; technical amendments.
NMFS is hereby making technical amendments to the regulations for Atlantic highly migratory species—specifically, to several restricted fishing areas—without altering the substance of the regulations. Also, this action re-inserts the longstanding statutorily required limit on length of gillnets that was erroneously removed from the regulations in late 2012, and corrects the end date of the Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted areas from May 30 to May 31. These changes will make the cross-references in regulations accurate, the gillnet length limit consistent with statutory requirements, and the dates on restrictions consistent with the supporting analyses and management goals. The rule is administrative in nature and does not make any change with substantive effect to the regulations governing Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) fisheries.
This final rule is effective on October 7, 2015.
Copies of other documents relevant to this rule are available from the HMS Management Division Web site at
Andrew Rubin or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503.
Atlantic HMS are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
The regulations at 50 CFR part 635 contain cross-references to several restricted fishing areas described in 50 CFR part 622. The cross-references in 50 CFR part 635 ensure consistency with the regulations at 50 CFR part 622 to protect certain reef species and/or habitat managed by the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. With the reorganization of the 50 CFR part 635 regulations due to the final rule for Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (79 FR 71509, December 2, 2014), the cross-references to the Tortugas marine reserve habitat area of particular concern (HAPC), the Mutton snapper spawning aggregation area (SAA), the Red hind SAA, and the Grammanik Bank closed areas were mistakenly overwritten. This technical amendment corrects the cross-references in the HMS regulations.
A longstanding statutory limit on the length of gillnet gear (see 16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(M)) was erroneously removed from the regulations in 2012. This technical amendment re-inserts the language to the regulations to ensure consistency with the statutory requirements.
The regulatory end date of the Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted areas in § 635.21(c)(2)(vi) was mistakenly written as “May 30” when it should be on the last day of the month, “May 31.” This technical amendment changes the date to be consistent with the original analyses, outreach, and supporting documents of this regulation and to meet management goals appropriately. As the correct date was analyzed as part of the preferred alternative in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, this modification to the regulations should not be unexpected and will not have any impacts beyond those already considered.
Currently, the regulations in § 635.21(a)(3)(i) cross-reference § 622.34(a)(3) only. This final action corrects the cross-reference by adding a cross-reference to § 622.74(c), which is missing, in order to properly include and specify the boundaries of the “Tortugas marine reserve HAPC.”
Currently, the regulatory end date of the Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted areas in § 635.21(c)(2)(vi) is written as “May 30.” This final rule corrects the date and changes it to “May 31.”
Currently, the regulations at § 635.21(d)(1)(ii) contain a cross-reference to areas designated at § 622.33(a)(1) through (3) to indicate the Mutton snapper spawning aggregation area (SAA), the Red hind SAA, and the Grammanik Bank closed area. This final action corrects the cross-reference in § 635.21(d)(1)(ii) by changing it from § 622.33(a)(1) through (3) to § 622.435(a)(2)(i) through (iii).
Currently, the regulations at § 635.21(g) do not contain the statutorily-required regulatory limits on the length of gillnet for persons fishing for sharks. This final rule inserts the language that was removed regarding the length restriction of gillnets into the regulations at § 635.21(g)(4) into the regulations.
The AA has determined that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of U.S. fisheries and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its amendments, and ATCA.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This final rule adds only corrective, non-substantive changes to correct cross-references, re-inserts language, and corrects dates to HMS regulations and is solely administrative in nature. These changes should not be unexpected. None of these changes will have a substantive impact beyond those already considered in previous supporting documents. There is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. The basis for this waiver is that it not a substantive rule but, rather, corrects cross-references, re-inserts regulatory language, and corrects a mistaken date in HMS regulations. Furthermore, failure to implement this rule immediately would cause continued confusion among the regulated community.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
NMFS has determined that fishing activities conducted pursuant to this rule will not affect endangered and/or threatened species or critical habitat listed under the Endangered Species Act, or marine mammals protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act because the action will not result in any change or increase in fishing activity, and is solely administrative in nature.
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.
16 U.S.C. 971
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 971
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) No person may fish for, catch, possess, or retain any Atlantic HMS or anchor a fishing vessel that has been issued a permit or is required to be permitted under this part, in the areas and seasons designated at § 622.34(a)(3) of this chapter, and in the Tortugas marine reserves HAPC designated at § 622.74(c) of this chapter.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) In the Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted area from April 1 through May 31 each year;
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The areas designated at § 622.435(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this chapter, year-round; and
(g) * * *
(4) No person may fish for sharks with a gillnet with a total length of 2.5 km or more. No vessel may have on board a gillnet with a total length of 2.5 km or more.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS approves and implements an exemption for Northern Gulf of Maine federally permitted vessels with state-waters permits issued from the State of Maine to continue fishing in the Maine state-waters portion of the Northern Gulf of Maine management area once NMFS has announced that the Federal total allowable catch has been fully harvested in a given year. Maine requested this exemption as part of the Scallop State Water Exemption Program, which specifies that a state may be eligible for a state waters exemption to specific Federal regulations if it has a scallop fishery and a scallop conservation program that does not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality/effort limit objectives of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan. Based on the information that Maine has submitted, NMFS has determined that Maine qualifies for this exemption and that this exemption will not have an impact on the effectiveness of Federal management measures for the scallop fishery overall or within the Northern Gulf of Maine management area.
Effective November 6, 2015.
Documents supporting this action, including the State of Maine's request for the exemption and Framework Adjustment 26 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) are available upon request from John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. The Framework 26 Environmental Assessment and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis are also accessible via the Internet at
Copies of the small entity compliance guide are available from John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, or available on the Internet at
Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9244.
The Scallop State Waters Exemption Program specifies that a state with a scallop fishery may be eligible for state waters exemptions if it has a scallop conservation program that does not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality and effort limit objectives of the Scallop FMP. Under the Program, if NMFS determines that a state is eligible, federally permitted scallop vessels fishing in state waters may be exempted from specific Federal scallop regulations. One of these exemptions enables some scallop vessels to continue to fish in state waters within the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) management area once the Federal NGOM total allowable catch (TAC) is reached. Any state interested in applying for this exemption must identify the scallop-permitted vessels that would be subject to the exemption (
NMFS received a request from Maine to expand its current exemptions to allow federally NGOM-permitted vessels with Maine state-waters permits to fish in the Maine state-waters portion of the NGOM management area once we project the Federal NGOM TAC to be fully harvested. This provision allows those vessels to continue to fish in state waters along with state permitted vessels that do not have Federal permits. Although the 70,000-lb (31,751-kg) NGOM Federal TAC has never been exceeded since the NGOM management area was created in 2008, there is now a higher potential that the TAC will be reached because scallop effort has increased in the NGOM in recent years as the stock has improved, particularly in state waters. Without this exemption, federally permitted vessels are unable to participate in Maine's state water fishery if the Federal NGOM TAC is reached; state-only permitted scallop vessels are able to continue to fish in state waters after the Federal closure.
Based on the information Maine submitted regarding its scallop conservation program, as outlined in the preamble to the proposed rule, and considering comments received during the public comment period, NMFS determines that the state qualifies for the NGOM state waters exemption under the Scallop FMP. Maine's scallop fishery restrictions are as restrictive as Federal scallop fishing regulations and this exemption will not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality and effort limit objectives of the FMP. Allowing for this NGOM exemption will have no impact on the effectiveness of Federal management measures for the scallop fishery overall or within the NGOM management area because the NGOM Federal TAC is set based only on the portion of the resource in Federal waters.
This exemption applies only to vessels with Federal NGOM permits. All other federally permitted scallop vessel categories are prohibited from retaining, possessing, and landing scallops from within the NGOM management area, in both Federal and state waters, once the NGOM hard TAC is fully harvested.
NMFS received two comment letters in response to the proposed rule, one from from the Maine Department of Marine Resources and the other from a member of the general public. We provide responses below to the issues these commenters raised.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant according to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications, as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(4) The Regional Administrator has determined that the State of Maine has a scallop fishery conservation program for its scallop fishery that does not jeopardize the biomass and fishing mortality/effort limit objectives of the Scallop FMP. A vessel fishing in State of Maine waters may fish under the State of Maine state waters exemption, subject to the exemptions specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, provided the vessel is in compliance with paragraphs (e) through (g) of this section. In addition, a vessel issued a Federal Northern Gulf of Maine permit fishing in State of Maine waters may fish under the State of Maine state waters exemption specified in paragraph (d) of this section, provided the vessel is in compliance with paragraphs (e) through (g) of this section.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule and referendum order.
This rulemaking proposes three amendments to Marketing Order No. 925 (order), which regulates the handling of table grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California. Two amendments are based on proposals made by the California Desert Grape Administrative Committee (Committee), which is responsible for the local administration of the order. These two amendments would increase term lengths for Committee members and alternates from one to four fiscal periods and would allow new members and alternates to agree to accept their nominations prior to selection. The amendments are intended to increase the Committee's effectiveness and bolster industry participation in Committee activities.
In addition to the Committee's two amendments, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) would amend the order to add authority for periodic continuance referenda which would allow producers to indicate whether or not there is continuing support for the order.
The referendum will be conducted from January 21, 2016 through February 4, 2016. The representative period for the purpose of the referendum is January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.
Geronimo Quinones, Marketing Specialist, or Michelle P. Sharrow, Rulemaking Branch Chief, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email:
This proposal is issued under Marketing Order No. 925, as amended (7 CFR part 925), regulating the handling of table grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” Section 608c(17) of the Act and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900) authorize amendments of the order through this informal rulemaking action.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rulemaking shall not be deemed to preclude, preempt, or supersede any State program covering table grapes grown in southeastern California.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed no later than 20 days after the date of entry of the ruling.
Section 1504 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110-246) amended section 18c(17) of the Act, which in turn required the addition of supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR part 900 (73 FR 49307; August 21, 2008). The amendment of section 18c(17) of the Act and additional supplemental rules of practice authorize the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend Federal fruit, vegetable, and nut marketing agreements and orders. USDA may use informal rulemaking to amend marketing orders based on the nature and complexity of the proposed amendments, the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities, and any other relevant matters.
AMS has considered these factors and has determined that the amendment proposals are not unduly complex and the nature of the proposed amendments is appropriate for utilizing the informal rulemaking process to amend the order. A discussion of the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities is discussed later in the “Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis” section of this proposed rule.
Two amendments were unanimously recommended by the Committee following deliberations at a public meeting held on November 5, 2013. In addition to these amendments, AMS would amend the order to add authority to provide for periodic continuance referenda.
A proposed rule soliciting comments on the proposed amendments was issued on June 1, 2015, and published in the
The Committee's proposed amendments would amend the marketing order by: (1) Increasing the
In addition to these proposed amendments, AMS proposes to add authority to provide for periodic continuance referenda. AMS has determined that continuance referenda are an effective means to allow the industry to indicate whether or not there exists continuing support for the marketing order. AMS would also consider all other relevant information concerning the operation of the order and the relative benefits and disadvantages to the industry.
This proposal would amend § 925.21 by increasing the length of the term of office for Committee members and alternates from one to four fiscal periods. The change would provide more time for new members and alternates to learn the details of the Committee's operations and business during their tenure. In addition, longer terms would eliminate the annual turnover of the Committee and the perennial need for new members and alternates. If this amendment is adopted, members and alternate members would be selected for a four-year term of office beginning with the first term after the amendments become effective.
For the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 925.21 be modified to increase the length of the term of office for Committee members and alternates from one to four fiscal periods.
This proposal would modify § 925.25 to allow new members and alternates to agree to accept their nominations prior to selection for the Committee by the Secretary.
Committee members and alternates are nominated by their peers to serve and are then selected by the Secretary. After the selections are made, Committee members and alternates are required to formally accept the appointment by signing and submitting an acceptance letter indicating they are willing to serve. The Committee believes this final step in the selection process is redundant and not efficient. The order would be revised to specify that before a person is selected as a member or alternate member of the Committee, that person must complete a questionnaire outlining their qualifications. This would eliminate the requirement to complete and submit a separate acceptance letter after being nominated. Because the nominee qualifications questionnaire already includes a statement indicating the person is willing to serve on the Committee, if selected by the Secretary, AMS modified the proposed regulatory text originally submitted by the Committee.
For the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 925.25 be revised to remove the requirement to file a written acceptance with the Secretary after being notified of selection.
AMS would amend § 925.63, Termination, to require that continuance referenda be conducted every six years to gauge industry support for the order. Currently, there is no provision in the marketing order that requires periodic continuance referenda. Continuance referenda provide an industry with a means to measure grower support for the marketing order program. Since marketing orders benefit growers, it follows that they should be afforded the opportunity to express whether they support the programs on a periodic basis. Under this proposal, the Department would consider termination of the order if less than two-thirds of the producers voting in the referendum or producers of less than two-thirds of the volume of table grapes represented in the referendum favor continuance. In evaluating the merits of continuance versus termination, USDA would not only consider the results of the referendum. The Department would also consider all other relevant information concerning the operation of the order and its relative benefits and disadvantages in order to determine whether continued operation of the order would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
For the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 925.63—Termination, be amended by redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and adding a new paragraph (c) to provide that a continuance referendum shall be conducted six years after the amendment becomes effective and every six years thereafter. The new paragraph (c) in this proposed rule and referendum order has been corrected to require a continuance referendum six years after the new paragraph becomes effective, not six years after part 925 becomes effective. The new paragraph (c) of § 925.63 would further specify that the Department may terminate the order if continuance is not favored by two-thirds of the growers participating in the referendum, or voters representing two-thirds of the production volume represented in the referendum.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
Based on Committee data, there are approximately 15 handlers of southeastern California table grapes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 41 grape producers in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Ten of the 15 handlers subject to regulation have annual grape sales of less than $7,000,000 according to USDA Market News Service and Committee data. Based on information from the Committee and USDA's Market News Service, it is estimated that at least 10 of the 41 producers have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, it may be concluded that a majority of grape handlers regulated under the order and about 10 of the producers could be classified as small entities under SBA definitions.
The amendments proposed by the Committee would provide authority to increase the term length for members and alternates from one to four fiscal periods under the Federal marketing order for California table grapes. They also would allow new members and alternates of the Committee to agree to accept their nominations before the selection process begins. An amendment proposed by AMS would provide for continuance referenda every six years.
The Committee's proposed amendments were unanimously recommended at a public meeting on November 5, 2013.
If these proposals are approved in referendum, there would be no direct
The Committee believes these changes represent the needs of the Committee and industry. No economic impact is expected if the amendments are approved because they would not establish any regulatory requirements on handlers, nor do they contain any assessment or funding implications. There would be no change in financial costs, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements if either of these proposals is approved.
AMS' proposal to add a provision for continuance referenda is expected to afford producers the opportunity to indicate continuing support for the order and its programs. Support for the program is expected to benefit all producers and handlers by ensuring that the program continues to meet the industry's needs.
Alternatives to these proposals, including making no changes at this time, were considered. However, the Committee believes it would be beneficial to streamline the nomination and selection process to reduce the costs required for completing the process annually and to provide new members and alternates with more time to learn the details of the Committee's operations and business during their tenure.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the termination of the Letter of Acceptance was previously submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As a result, the current number of hours associated with OMB No. 0581-0189, Generic Fruit Crops, would remain the same: 7,786.71 hours.
As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California table grape production area. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the November 5, 2013, meeting was public, and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on these proposals.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
The findings and conclusions and general findings and determinations included in the proposed rule set forth in the June 5, 2015, issue of the
Annexed hereto and made a part hereof is the document entitled “Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Table Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California.” This document has been decided upon as the detailed and appropriate means of effectuating the foregoing findings and conclusions. It is hereby ordered, that this entire proposed rule be published in the
It is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted in accordance with the procedure for the conduct of referenda (7 CFR part 900.400-407) to determine whether the annexed order amending the order regulating the handling of table grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California is approved by growers, as defined under the terms of the order, who during the representative period were engaged in the production of table grapes in the production area. The representative period for the conduct of such referendum is hereby determined to be January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.
The agents of the Secretary to conduct such referendum are designated to be Rose Aguayo and Kathie Notoro, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487-5901, or Email:
The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
1. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
2. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, regulates the handling of table grapes grown in a designated area of Southeastern California in the same manner as, and is applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing order;
3. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, is limited in application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;
4. The marketing order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of table grapes produced in the production area; and
5. All handling of table grapes produced in the production area as defined in the marketing order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.
It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date hereof, all handling of table grapes grown in a designated area of southeastern California shall be in conformity to, and in compliance with, the terms and conditions of the said order as hereby proposed to be amended as follows:
The provisions of the proposed marketing order amending the order contained in the proposed rule issued by the Administrator on June 1, 2015, and published in the
Grapes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 925 is proposed to be amended as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
The term of office of the members and alternates shall be four fiscal periods.* * *
Any person selected as a member or alternate member of the Committee shall, prior to such selection, qualify by filing a qualifications questionnaire advising the Secretary that he or she agrees to serve in the position for which nominated.
(c) Within six years of the effective date of this paragraph the Secretary shall conduct a referendum to ascertain whether continuance of this part is favored by producers. Subsequent referenda to ascertain continuance shall be conducted every six years thereafter. The Secretary may terminate the provisions of this part at the end of any fiscal period in which the Secretary has found that continuance of this part is not favored by a two thirds majority of voting producers, or a two thirds majority of volume represented thereby, who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the production for market of table grapes in the production area. Such termination shall be announced on or before the end of the production year.
Dated: October 1, 2015.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This notice proposes to modify the restricted airspace at the Townsend Bombing Range, GA, by expanding the lateral limits of R-3007A to allow construction of additional targets and impact areas. The modification is needed so that precision guided munitions (PGM) can be used on the range. The proposed change would be completely contained within the existing outer boundaries of the R-3007 complex. The using agency name also is updated.
Comments must be received on or before November 23, 2015.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-3338 and Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-7, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitile VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify restricted airspace at the Townsend Bombing Range, GA, to permit essential aircrew training in the employment of PGM at the Range.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-3338 and Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-7) and be submitted in triplicate to
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-3338 and Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-7.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person at the Dockets Office (see
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.
The Townsend Bombing Range, located in Long and McIntosh Counties, GA, has been used for air-to-ground ordnance delivery dating back to the 1940's. Currently, the Range consists of four restricted areas: R-3007A, B, C and D. The Range is owned by Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort, SC, and is operated by the Georgia Air National Guard's Combat Readiness Training Center in Savannah, GA.
Although the Range impact area (
The U.S. Marine Corps is acquiring 28,630 acres of real estate to make the Range viable for this essential aircrew training. Purchase of that land would allow a larger section of the existing restricted airspace to be lowered from the current 100 feet above ground level (AGL) floor, down to ground level to permit construction of the additional targets and expanded impact area needed for PGMs.
Restricted area R-3007A is the primary weapons impact area. It is a circular area with a 1.5-nautical mile (NM) radius that extends from the ground up to but not including 13,000 feet mean sea level (MSL). R-3007B is a narrow area to the southeast of R-3007A. It extends from 1,200 feet AGL up to but not including 13,000 feet MSL. R-3007C is the largest part of the complex. It surrounds R-3007A and is bounded on the west by the Altamaha River, and by lines roughly 9 NM north of R-3007A and 7 NM northeast of R-3007A, and by R-3007B to the southeast of R-3007A. R-3007C extends from 100 feet AGL up to but not including 13,000 feet MSL. R-3007D overlies subareas A, B and C and extends from 13,000 feet MSL to Flight Level (FL) 250.
The land acquisition parcel underlies roughly the eastern half of R-3007C. The airspace over this parcel would be incorporated into R-3007A thereby allowing the floor of the airspace in that area to be lowered from 100 feet AGL down to ground level. This proposed expansion of R-3007A would leave a small, isolated piece of restricted airspace (along the boundary of R-3007B and formerly a part of R-3007C) with a floor of 100 feet AGL. This small area would be redesignated as R-3007E and would extend from 100 feet AGL up to but not including 13,000 feet MSL.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to expand restricted area R-3007A to include the part of R-3007C that overlies a land parcel being acquired by the U.S. Marine Corps. The floor of R-3007C is 100 feet AGL. By adding the airspace over this land parcel into R-3007A, the restricted area floor in that area could be lowered from 100 feet AGL down to ground level. This change is proposed to provide additional ground level restricted airspace needed for the construction of targets and impact areas so that PGMs can safely be employed at the Range. The small slice of restricted airspace with a 100-foot AGL floor that remains to the east of the expanded R-3007A would be redesignated as R-3007E extending from 100 feet AGL up to but not including 13,000 feet MSL.
Minor corrections would be made to several boundary coordinates for R-3007B and R-3007D to match the current National Hydrology Dataset for the Altamaha River boundary where that river forms the boundary of the restricted areas. The name of the using agency for all subareas would be updated to reflect the current organizational title.
A color chart of the proposed areas will be posted on the
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subjected to an environmental analysis in accordance
Airspace, Prohibited Areas, Restricted Areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
By removing the current boundaries and using agency and inserting the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31°41′52″ N., long. 81°35′53″ W.; to lat. 31°42′31″ N., long. 81°33′59″ W.; to lat. 31°39′24″ N., long. 81°30′31″ W.; to lat. 31°37′49″ N., long. 81°30′56″ W.; to lat. 31°36′35″ N., long. 81°31′15″ W.; to lat. 31°34′17″ N., long. 81°31′56″ W.; to lat. 31°33′07″ N., long. 81°32′41″ W.; thence counterclockwise along a 1-NM radius arc from a point centered at lat. 31°32′26″ N., long. 81°31′49″ W.; to lat. 31°32′37″ N., long. 81°32′58″ W.; to lat. 31°30′59″ N., long. 81°33′57″ W.; to lat. 31°30′45″ N., long. 81°34′19″ W.; to lat. 31°30′29″ N., long. 81°34′41″ W,; to lat. 31°30′38″ N., long. 81°35′06″ W.; to lat. 31°31′13″ N., long. 81°35′02″ W.; to lat. 31°31′35″ N., long. 91°36′32″ W.; to lat. 31°33′04″ N., long. 81°37′27″ W.; to lat. 31°33′30″ N., long. 81°36′32″ W.; to lat. 31°34′25″ N., long. 81°36′13″ W.; to lat. 31°35′32″ N., long. 81°35′59″ W,; to lat. 31°35′55″ N., long. 81°35′19″ W.; to lat. 31°36′38″ N., long. 81°35′18″ W.; to lat. 31°36′43″ N., long. 81°35′41″ W.; to lat. 31°37′20″ N., long. 81°35′37″ W.; to lat. 31°37′23″ N., long. 81°35′47″ W.; to lat. 31°40′29″ N., long. 81°36′13″ W.; to lat. 31°40′48″ N., long. 81°35′33″ W.; to the point of beginning.
Using agency. ANG, Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center (CRTC), Office of Townsend Bombing Range, GA.
By removing the current boundaries and using agency and inserting the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31°38′01″ N., long. 81°28′59″ W.; to lat. 31°37′31″ N., long. 81°28′14″ W.; to lat. 31°32′31″ N., long. 81°27′29″ W.; to lat. 31°26′16″ N., long. 81°31′29″ W.; to lat. 31°25′26″ N., long. 81°36′05″ W.; to lat. 31°27′26″ N., long. 81°33′39″ W.; to lat. 31°31′26″ N., long. 81°31′58″ W.; thence clockwise along a 1-NM radius arc from a point centered at lat. 31°32′26″ N., long. 81°31′49″ W.; to lat. 31°33′18″ N., long. 81°31′13″ W.; to the point of beginning.
Using agency. ANG, Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center (CRTC), Office of Townsend Bombing Range, GA.
By removing the current boundaries and using agency and inserting the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31°37′54″ N., long. 81°47′21″ W.; to lat. 31°41′52″ N., long. 81°35′53″ W.; to lat. 31°40′48″ N., long. 81°35′33″ W,; to lat. 31°40′29″ N., long. 81°36′13″ W.; to lat. 31°37′23″ N., long. 81°35′47″ W.; to lat. 31°37′20″ N., long. 81°35′37″ W.; to lat. 31°36′43″ N., long. 81°35′41″ W.; to lat. 31°36′38″ N., long. 81°35′18″ W.; to lat. 31°35′55″ N., long. 81°35′19″ W.; to lat. 31°35′32″ N., long. 81°35′59″ W.; to lat. 31°34′25″ N., long. 81°36′13″ W.; to lat. 31°33′30″ N., long. 81°36′32″ W.; to lat. 31°33′04″ N., long. 81°37′27″ W.; to lat. 31°31′35″ N., long. 81°36′32″ W.; to lat. 31°31′13″ N., long. 81°35′02″ W.; to lat. 31°30′38″ N., long. 81°35′06″ W.; to lat. 31°30′29″ N., long. 81°34′41″ W.; to lat. 31°30′45″ N., long. 81°34′19″ W.; to lat. 31°30′59″ N., long. 81°33′57″ W.; to lat. 31°32′37″ N., long. 81°32′58″ W.; thence counterclockwise along a 1-NM radius arc from a point centered at lat. 31°32′26″ N., long. 81°31′49″ W.; to lat. 31°31′26″ N., long. 81°31′58″ W.; to lat. 31°27′26″ N., long. 81°33′39″ W.; to lat. 31°25′26″ N., long. 81°36′05″ W.; thence west along the Altamaha River to the point of beginning.
Using agency. ANG, Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center (CRTC), Office of Townsend Bombing Range, GA.
By removing the current boundaries and using agency and inserting the following:
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31°37′54″ N., long. 81°47′21″ W.; to lat. 31°41′52″ N., long. 81°35′53″ W.; to lat. 31°42′31″ N., long. 81°33′59″ W.; to lat. 31°39′24″ N., long. 81°30′31″ W.; to lat. 31°38′01″ N., long. 81°28′59″ W.; to lat. 31°37′31″ N., long. 81°28′14″ W.; to lat. 31°32′31″ N., long. 81°27′29″ W.; to lat. 31°26′16″ N., long. 81°31′29″ W.; to lat. 31°25′26″ N., long. 81°36′05″ W.; thence northwest along the Altamaha River to the point of beginning.
Using agency. ANG, Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center (CRTC), Office of Townsend Bombing Range, GA.
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31°39′24″ N., long. 81°30′31′W.; to lat. 31°38′01″ N., long. 81°28′59″ W.; to lat. 31°33′18″ N., long. 81°31′13″ W.; thence counterclockwise along a 1-NM radius arc from a point centered at lat. 31°32′26″ N., long. 81°31′49″ W.; to lat. 31°33′07″ N., long. 81°32′41″ W.; to lat. 31°34′17″ N., long. 81°31′56″ W.; to lat. 31°36′35″ N., long. 81°31′15″ W.; to lat. 31°37′49″ N.; long. 81°30′56″ W.; to the point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. 100 feet AGL to but not including 13,000 feet MSL.
Time of designation. 0700-2200 local time, Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance.
Controlling agency. FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC.
Using agency. ANG, Savannah Combat Readiness Training Center (CRTC), Office of Townsend Bombing Range, GA.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
This document withdraws FinCEN's February 17, 2011, proposed rulemaking to impose the fifth special measure against Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL (“LCB”) as a financial institution of primary money laundering concern, pursuant to the United States Code (U.S.C.).
As of October 7, 2015 the proposed rule published February 17, 2011, at 76 FR 9268, is withdrawn.
The FinCEN Resource Center at (800) 767-2825.
The Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314 and 5316-5332, promotes the prevention, detection, and prosecution of money laundering, tax evasion, the financing of terrorism, and other financial crimes. Regulations implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter X. The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (“the Secretary”) to administer the BSA and its implementing regulations has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.
Section 5318A of the BSA grants the Secretary authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a foreign jurisdiction, foreign financial institution, class of international transactions, or type of account is of “primary money laundering concern,” to require domestic financial institutions and domestic financial agencies to take certain “special measures” against the primary money laundering concern.
Based upon review and analysis of relevant information, consultations with relevant Federal agencies and departments, and after consideration of the factors enumerated in section 311, the Director of FinCEN found that reasonable grounds existed for concluding that LCB was a financial institution of primary money laundering concern. FinCEN published a proposed rule proposing to impose the fifth special measure on February 17, 2011, pursuant to the authority under 31 U.S.C. 5318A.
Since FinCEN's notice of proposed rulemaking, material facts regarding the circumstances of the proposed rulemaking have changed. On September 20, 2011, the Lebanese central bank and monetary authority, with control over bank supervision and regulation, the Banque du Liban (BDL), revoked the banking license of LCB and delisted LCB from the list of banks published by BDL. LCB's former shareholders sold its assets and liabilities to the Societé Generale de Banque au Liban SAL (SGBL). Because of the action taken by the Lebanese banking authorities and the liquidation of the LCB's assets, LCB no longer exists as a foreign financial institution. FinCEN will therefore not proceed with the rule proposed on February 17, 2011.
For the reasons set forth above, FinCEN hereby withdraws the February 17, 2011 proposed rule proposing to impose the fifth special measure authorized by 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5) regarding LCB. FinCEN's withdrawal of the proposed rule does not acknowledge any remedial measure taken by LCB, but results from the fact that LCB no longer exists as a foreign financial institution due to the decision by its former shareholders to liquidate the bank and the revocation of its banking license.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island on June 26, 2014, with supplemental submittals on March 25, 2015 and August 28, 2015. This SIP revision includes a regulation that has been revised to require a lower sulfur content for petroleum-based distillate and residual fuel oils. In addition, outdated provisions in the regulation have been removed. The intended effect of this action is to propose approval of this regulation into the Rhode Island SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before November 6, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0605 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
Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697, email
In the Final Rules Section of this
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Petition; reasons for Agency response.
This document provides the reasons for EPA's denial of a petition it received under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) from the Center for Biological Diversity and Donn J. Viviani, Ph.D. The petitioners requested EPA to initiate rulemaking under TSCA to address risks related to carbon dioxide emissions, particularly those associated with ocean acidification, or, in the alternative, that EPA initiate rulemaking under TSCA to require testing to determine toxicity, persistence, and other characteristics of carbon dioxide emissions that affect human health and the environment. After careful consideration, EPA denied the TSCA section 21 petition for the reasons discussed in this document.
EPA's response to this TSCA section 21 petition was signed September 25, 2015.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to sources of carbon dioxide emissions, such as power plants, cement plants, pulp and paper mills, and various types of mobile sources. 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 TSCA section 21 petition, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0487, is available at
Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition within 90 days of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the
Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition “set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary” to issue the rule or order requested (15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1)). Thus, TSCA section 21 implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the requested actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA section 21 petition (15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B)). Accordingly, EPA has relied on the standards in TSCA section 21 and in the provisions under which actions have been requested to evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition.
Of particular relevance to this TSCA section 21 petition are the legal standards regarding TSCA section 6 rules and TSCA section 4 rules.
To promulgate a rule under TSCA section 6, the EPA Administrator must find that “there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture . . . presents or will present an unreasonable risk” (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)). This finding cannot be made considering risk alone. Under TSCA section 6, a finding of “unreasonable risk” requires the consideration of costs and benefits. Furthermore, the control measure adopted is to be the “least burdensome requirement” that adequately protects against the unreasonable risk (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)).
In addition, TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B) provides the standard for judicial review should EPA deny a request for rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a): “If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence that . . . there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of such a rule . . . is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury,” the court shall order the EPA Administrator to initiate the requested action (15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B)).
Also relevant to the issuance of regulations under TSCA section 6, TSCA section 9(b) directs EPA to take regulatory action on a chemical substance or mixture under other statutes administered by the Agency if the EPA Administrator determines that actions under those statutes could eliminate or reduce to a sufficient extent a risk posed by the chemical substance or mixture. If this is the case, the regulation under TSCA section 6 can be promulgated only if the EPA determines that it is in the “public interest” to protect against that risk under TSCA
To promulgate a rule under TSCA section 4, EPA must find that data and experience are insufficient to reasonably determine or predict the effects of a chemical substance or mixture on health or the environment and that testing of the chemical substance is necessary to develop the missing data (15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1)). In addition, EPA must find either that: (1) The chemical substance or mixture may present an unreasonable risk of injury; or (2) The chemical substance is produced in substantial quantities and may either result in significant or substantial human exposure or result in substantial environmental release (15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1)).
In the case of a mixture, EPA must also find that “the effects which the mixture's manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal or any combination of such activities may have on health or the environment may not be reasonably and more efficiently determined or predicted by testing the chemical substances which comprise the mixture” (15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(2)).
On June 30, 2015, the Center for Biological Diversity and Donn J. Viviani, Ph.D., petitioned EPA under TSCA section 21 to determine that carbon dioxide (CO
If EPA determines that the available data and information are insufficient to permit EPA to reasonably determine or predict the effects of CO
Tests of CO
Vulnerability assessments for marine and coastal species and ecosystems.
Forecasts, using modeling, of species' responses to ocean acidification.
Assessments of the economic values of ecosystems at risk and the costs of reducing CO
Petitioner Viviani submitted a supplement supporting all actions requested in the petition and including additional information and requests (Ref. 2). The supplement requests further that, with any TSCA section 6 or TSCA section 4 action, EPA also consider health effects from climate change and ocean acidification, direct and indirect economic impacts, insurance impacts, and environmental justice implications. Petitioner Viviani also suggested that EPA include, in any TSCA section 6 rule, options to sequester carbon emissions, including sequestration that relies on alternative energy and/or produces net carbonates, as well as the use of economic incentives to encourage sequestration efforts by the private sector. Alternately, the Viviani supplement specifically asks that EPA use TSCA section 4 to gather information on sequestration technologies and offers a suggested cost apportionment method.
The supplement includes a variety of additional requests and observations. For example, the supplement urges EPA to consider making an imminent hazard finding under TSCA section 7 in order to complement other Agency actions and to inform the public on the risks, causes, and methods for mitigating ocean acidification resulting from anthropogenic CO
The petitioners contend that CO
In addition to describing the environmental impacts of ocean acidification, the petitioners provided some socioeconomic information to establish that the impacts will be more widespread and may include our nation's food security. The petitioners cited the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity for a 2014 prediction that the oceans will lose more than $1 trillion in value annually from ocean acidification by 2100 (Ref. 3). The petitioners also cited a 2010 report from the United Nations Environment Programme that ocean acidification's impact on marine organisms is a threat to food security for the billions of people that have a marine-based diet (Ref. 4). The petitioners contend that the US economy is dependent on the health of the ocean, citing 2009 information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that estimated that the ocean economy contributes over $223 billion annually to the gross domestic product and provides more than 2.6 million jobs (Ref. 5).
After review and consideration of the support provided, EPA denied the petition. EPA has acknowledged the impacts of CO
EPA and other parts of the federal government are working diligently on many fronts to address climate change and related concerns, including ocean acidification. The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 created the Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification (IWG-OA), which is chaired by NOAA and consists of a dozen federal agencies including EPA. Over the past several years, the member agencies have conducted and funded research into the effects of acidification on ocean ecosystems and the economy. The IWG-OA released its Strategic Plan for Federal Research and Monitoring of Ocean Acidification in 2014 (Ref. 7). The group's Third Report on Federally Funded Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Activities, a report to Congress issued in April 2015 (Ref. 8), highlights the wide variety of research aimed at understanding the impacts of acidification, including the following activities undertaken or funded by EPA:
A study of coastal acidification impacts on shellfish in Narragansett Bay.
Studies of plankton community and macro-algal responses to acidification.
Support for the development of biophysical models and new methodologies to determine the economic and intrinsic value of coral reefs and shellfish.
Research to assess the economic impacts of ocean acidification on US mollusk fisheries to support quantification of the damages resulting from greenhouse gas emissions.
Support for monitoring acidification in National Estuary Program study areas.
Support for the development of computational models that will predict changes in biogeochemical parameters of coastal waters.
The current Administration has focused on ocean policy comprehensively, including ocean acidification. In 2009, President Obama established an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force charged with developing recommendations to enhance national stewardship of the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes. The Task Force received and reviewed nearly 5,000 written comments from Congress, stakeholders, and the public before issuing final recommendations. On July 19, 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order 13547, adopting the final recommendations of the Task Force and establishing a national policy for the stewardship of the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes. This National Ocean Policy recognizes the importance of marine and lake ecosystems in providing jobs, food, energy resources, ecological services, transportation, and recreation and tourism opportunities. In April of 2013, the final plan for implementing the National Ocean Policy was issued, after additional opportunities for stakeholders and the general public to comment (Ref. 9). The implementation plan describes specific actions Federal agencies will take to address key ocean challenges, while at the same time giving states and communities greater input in Federal decisions, streamlining Federal operations, and promoting economic growth. In relation to ocean acidification, the implementation plan (and its appendix) focus on information development and dissemination, as well as coastal resiliency and adaptation.
President Obama released a Climate Action Plan in 2013 which laid out a vision for reducing greenhouse gases based on three key pillars, namely domestic greenhouse gas reductions, preparations for future impacts, and leading international efforts to address climate change (Ref. 10). Reductions of CO
Much of the domestic regulatory activity has been under the authority of the CAA. In 2009, under CAA section 202(a), the Administrator determined that six well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO
Subsequently, EPA promulgated emissions standards for light duty vehicles for model years 2012-2016 (Ref. 11) and model years 2017-2025 (Ref. 12) controlling emissions of CO
Also with respect to mobile sources, EPA is required to set annual standards
While mobile sources are important contributors to greenhouse gas pollution, power plants are the largest stationary source of carbon pollution in the United States and about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution comes from the generation of electricity by power plants. On August 3, 2015, EPA issued the Clean Power Plan, which includes standards for new and existing power plants (Ref. 15). Under the authority of CAA section 111(b), the Plan sets carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants. Emission limits, based on the best adequately demonstrated system of emission reduction for the type of unit, are set for new, modified, and reconstructed stationary combustion turbines as well as new, modified, and reconstructed coal-fired steam generating units. Under the authority of CAA section 111(d), the Clean Power Plan also establishes interim and final CO
In addition, since January of 2011, under the CAA, EPA has required that the construction of large stationary sources of air pollution (including power plants) incorporate the best technology available for controlling emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO
EPA has developed many programs and projects that partner with industry and others to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Examples include ENERGY STAR, the Green Power Partnership, and the Combined Heat and Power Partnership. Through voluntary energy and climate programs, EPA's partners reduced over 345 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2010 alone (equivalent to the emissions from 81 million vehicles).
In addition to taking actions to reduce CO
In addition, EPA issued a March 2010 request for comment on consideration of the effects of ocean acidification in the implementation of the program for listing of impaired waters under CWA section 303(d) (Ref. 22). Under that section, states, territories, and authorized tribes develop lists of impaired waters and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the pollutant(s) causing the impairment. In the notice, EPA asked for comment on what considerations to take into account when deciding how to address the listing of waters as threatened or impaired for ocean acidification under the 303(d) program. In November 2010, EPA distributed a memorandum entitled “Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions Related to Ocean Acidification” (Ref. 23). Among other things, the memorandum explained that states should continue to list waters that do not attain applicable water quality standards, including marine pH water quality criteria, on the lists of impaired waters submitted to EPA, and should continue to solicit existing and readily available information on ocean acidification using the current section 303(d) listing program framework. EPA also committed to providing additional guidance to states, territories, and tribes when future ocean acidification research efforts provide the basis for improved monitoring and assessment methods.
In 2012, EPA took actions to approve the 2010 list of impaired waters for the State of Washington and to establish the 2010 list of impaired waters for the State of Oregon. Neither of those lists included waters impaired due to pollutants associated with or conditions attributable to ocean acidification, and EPA's actions were challenged in court. In 2015, the court upheld EPA's determination that existing and readily available data and information, including confounding and incomplete data that might otherwise support listing the States' coastal and estuarine waters as impaired, did not require listing of such waters as impaired due to ocean acidification (Ref. 24).
While the petitioners stated an overall goal of mitigating ocean acidification under TSCA, and suggested a variety of actions that could be used to achieve this goal,
The finding of unreasonable risk under TSCA section 6 encompasses both the anticipated benefits of regulatory action as well as the anticipated costs. As noted above, EPA has acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions impact ocean acidification and the petitioners have provided evidence that CO
In addition to a TSCA section 6 rule regulating CO
The petitioners' suggestion to consider TSCA section 6(a)(7)(C) is misplaced. While EPA agrees that this provision gives EPA some authority to address past harms, it is intended to address chemical substances and mixtures that move in the stream of commerce, not air pollution that is a byproduct of industrial and other activity on a global scale. According to the statute, when the appropriate findings are made, EPA can require manufacturers or processors to repurchase or replace chemical substances or mixtures, but the regulated manufacturers and processors must be permitted to decide whether to repurchase or replace. In EPA's view, the authority to require replacement or repurchase of a chemical substance or mixture does not include the authority to require extraction from the environment of widely dispersed chemicals. EPA reads this provision as applying when a distinct person or persons who received the chemical substance or mixture and from whom the manufacturer or processor can elect to repurchase or replace can be identified. Applying this provision to past anthropogenic CO
In addition, TSCA section 9(b) requires EPA's Administrator to coordinate actions taken under TSCA with actions taken under other laws administered by EPA. When EPA determines that actions under other authorities can eliminate or reduce a risk to health or the environment to a sufficient extent, the Administrator must use the other authorities unless she determines it is in the public interest to protect against the risk by action taken under TSCA. While the petitioners recognize that anthropogenic CO
The CAA is the comprehensive federal law designed to regulate air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. As discussed above, EPA has issued rules under the CAA that address CO
In addition to the CAA, the CWA provides some limited authorities that may be used to reduce the risk associated with ocean acidification. As noted above, EPA has explained that states should continue to list waters that do not attain applicable water quality standards, including marine pH water quality criteria, on the lists of impaired waters submitted to EPA, and should continue to solicit existing and readily available data and information regarding pollutants contributing to and conditions associated with ocean acidification using the current CWA section 303(d) listing program framework. Where such data and information supports a finding that a water body is impaired, the state must establish a total maximum daily load for relevant pollutants and implement a plan to control the pollutants from contributing sources. Thus far, neither EPA nor any states have listed any water bodies as impaired due to pollutants contributing to nor conditions associated with ocean acidification.
The petitioners also requested that EPA promulgate a test rule under TSCA section 4 if EPA was unable to determine, based on available data, whether anthropogenic CO
In order to promulgate a test rule under TSCA section 4, EPA must find that data and experience are insufficient to reasonably determine or predict the effects of a chemical substance or mixture on health or the environment and that testing of the substance or mixture with respect to such effects is necessary to develop the missing data. EPA must also find that either the chemical substance or mixture may present an unreasonable risk or that it is produced in substantial quantities and may either result in significant or substantial human exposure or result in substantial environmental release. EPA does not dispute that anthropogenic CO
Regardless of whether the information described by the petitioners is information that can be developed using the authority of TSCA section 4, EPA and other federal agencies are working diligently to further our collective understanding of the impacts of ocean acidification. Some research underway matches the petitioners' recommendations for information to seek under TSCA section 4. For example, the petitioners suggest conducting vulnerability assessments for marine and coastal species and ecosystems. In the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, NOAA, the Department of the Interior (DOI), EPA, the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation were tasked with developing best practices for climate change and ocean acidification vulnerability assessments for Federally-funded and/or Federally-managed coastal and ocean facilities and infrastructure in high-hazard areas (Ref. 9). In August of 2014, EPA issued “Being Prepared for Climate Change: A Workbook for Developing Risk-Based Adaptation Plans” (Ref. 25). This document provides guidance for conducting risk-based climate change vulnerability assessments and developing adaptation action plans. In addition, EPA and NOAA have collaborated on studies of coastal acidification impacts on shellfish in Narragansett Bay, and EPA is working with the University of Rhode Island on studies of plankton communities and macroalgal responses to acidification. The petitioners suggest studying the economic values of ecosystems that are at risk from ocean acidification. In recent years, NOAA and EPA have allocated funding for socioeconomic studies related to ocean acidification. EPA supported the development of biophysical models and new methodologies to determine the economic and intrinsic value of coral reefs and shellfish. EPA has also conducted research to assess the economic impacts of ocean acidification
Several other EPA actions were requested in the supplement. The petitioners suggest action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) would be triggered if EPA issues a TSCA section 7 “notice informing the public of the serious risks to coral reefs associated with ocean acidification, its causes, and what must be done to mitigate it” (Ref. 1). As an initial matter, under TSCA section 21, a petitioner is limited to requesting relief under TSCA sections 4, 5, 6, or 8. In addition, the action authorized under TSCA section 7 is for EPA to bring a civil action in district court to seize an imminently hazardous chemical or seek other relief. Section 7 does not provide authority to make a finding of imminent hazard independent of a civil action.
The supplement also outlines potential EPA actions under other statutes, such as Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the CAA (Ref. 2). EPA is asked to reevaluate pesticide tolerances based on the increased grain consumption that will occur as fish farming increases due to ocean acidification. To the extent that fish farming increases grain consumption, EPA will consider that in any need for changes to pesticide tolerances during the Agency's regular reassessment of those tolerances.
The supplement also discusses the possibility of giving formal notification under section 115(a) of the CAA to the Governors of States found to emit pollution that endangers public health and welfare in other countries. The supplement, however, does not seek to demonstrate that the prerequisites for action under CAA section 115 have been met at this time or that any specific notifications are warranted. Moreover, to the extent that the discussion of potentially available CAA remedies constitutes a request for action, EPA denies the requests because they are not actions that can be petitioned for under TSCA section 21. The relief that may be requested under TSCA section 21 is limited to actions under TSCA sections 4, 5, 6, or 8.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Petition; reasons for Agency response.
This document provides the reasons for EPA's denial of a petition it received under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The TSCA section 21 petition was received from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA) on June 24, 2015. The petitioners requested EPA to “promulgate a TSCA section 8(a) rule that requires persons who manufacture, process, or import into the United States mercury, mercury compounds, or mercury-added products to keep records of and submit information to EPA concerning such manufacture, processing, or importation of mercury.” After careful consideration, EPA denied the TSCA section 21 petition for the reasons discussed in this document.
EPA's response to this TSCA section 21 petition was signed September 21, 2015.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce mercury, mercury compounds, or mercury-added products. 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 TSCA section 21 petition, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0626, is available at
Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition within 90 days of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the
Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition “set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary” to issue the rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21 implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the requested actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA has relied on the standards in TSCA section 21 and in the provisions under which actions have been requested to evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition.
On June 24, 2015, NRDC and NEWMOA petitioned EPA to “promulgate a TSCA section 8(a) rule that requires persons who manufacture, process, or import into the United States mercury, mercury compounds, or mercury-added products to keep records of and submit information to EPA concerning such manufacture, processing, or importation of mercury” (Ref. 1). In describing the framework for the envisioned rule, the petitioners offer definitions for various terms and modifications to exemptions to TSCA section 8(a) information-gathering rules (see 40 CFR 704.5); describe persons who would be required to report in the envisioned information collecting and reporting apparatus; explain why existing quantity- and sales-based reporting thresholds should or should not apply to the persons who must report; establish the minimal amounts of information EPA should request via sets of example questions applicable to mercury, mercury compounds, mixtures containing mercury, and mercury-added products; and set forth their preferred frequency and format for reporting, as well as certification and recordkeeping requirements (Ref. 1).
The petitioners state that a “lack of comprehensive data on mercury production and use in the United States has been acknowledged by virtually all of the federal and state agencies involved in tracking or regulating the chemical in commerce” (Ref. 1). The petitioners state that there is “no mechanism in place to obtain such data,” which is underscored by describing data gaps in the Interstate Mercury Education Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) and discussing the limitations of Agency resources, including the September 2014 “EPA Strategy to Address Mercury-Containing
After careful consideration, EPA denied the petition. EPA found that the continued implementation of its published EPA Strategy (Ref. 2) is sufficient to carry out TSCA, as well as preferable for achieving the goal it shares with the petitioners: To acquire the information needed to allow EPA to better understand continuing uses of mercury, to further reduce such uses, and to prevent potential exposure and risk to human health and the environment linked to releases of mercury into the environment. A copy of the Agency's response, which consists of a letter to the petitioners, is available in the docket for this TSCA section 21 petition.
EPA agrees with many aspects of the petition. The Agency agrees that mercury poses potential risks to human health and the environment and that there is value in gathering additional information to better understand continuing uses of mercury, to further reduce such uses, and to prevent potential risks to human health and the environment from mercury exposure. However, EPA believes that continued implementation of its EPA Strategy is a faster, more efficient pathway towards achieving our shared goals and is confident that the actions contemplated under the Strategy are both sufficient to carry out TSCA and preferable to the requested rulemaking.
The EPA Strategy consists of five phases: (1) Update EPA's information on
The EPA Strategy specifically targets updating data regarding mercury quantities in “new products entering the market, with particular attention to switches and relays” and “as appropriate, processes that use mercury as a catalyst” (Ref. 2). For example, the use of mercury in switches and relays (including thermostats) sold in the United States decreased from approximately 68 metric tons in 2001 to approximately 18 metric tons in 2010—a nearly 74 percent decrease in under a decade. However, at 33 percent of mercury used in products sold in the United States, switches and relays also represent the largest category of mercury-added products. In fact, in joining the Minamata Convention, the United States demonstrated that mercury used in eight of nine subject categories was reduced to
The Agency has sufficient information on the use of mercury in certain categories of other mercury-added products (
The Agency is currently in the first phase of implementing its Strategy, which lists priority mercury-added product and process categories (switches, relays, new products, and catalysts), describes the progression of stakeholders from whom information is to be collected (mercury manufacturers and importers, mercury processors, and other stakeholders), and commits to conducting outreach throughout the implementation of the Strategy (Ref. 2). Following this phase, EPA will assess information gathered and compare data to existing Agency baselines derived from IMERC, the TRI program, the CDR Rule, and other research (Phase 2). Results of the second phase will be used to define or modify product categories and identify remaining data gaps or other limitations that could affect the planning and prioritization of reduction activities (Phase 3). At this juncture, the Agency could consider the use of voluntary efforts to reduce the use of mercury (Phase 4), as well as a Section 8(a) rule or other appropriate regulatory measure (Phase 5). At this point in time, however, EPA believes the implementation of the EPA Strategy, which uses a variety of both voluntary and regulatory measures as needed, is sufficient to carry out TSCA.
While the petitioners express skepticism with this approach due to its initiation with only nine companies, this was a strategic approach that the Agency expected to yield relevant information. The initial list of nine was derived from more than one hundred potential companies based on thorough research and professional judgment to identify companies likely to provide a reasonably complete picture of the domestic market for recycling and selling mercury. This approach allowed for the systematic elimination of companies less likely to have significant information from consideration and minimized the potential burden to both stakeholders and the Agency. In fact, the information received led EPA to further narrow its investigation to five companies it believes to be the primary recyclers and distributors of mercury in the United States. Based on those efforts—and the failure of certain companies from the narrowed list of five to voluntarily provide agreed to information—EPA issued subpoenas in March 2015 to those five companies (Ref. 5).
Due to extensions granted to certain companies, some responses were submitted after the initial 30-day deadline. This resulted in the initial completion of the full data set at the end of June 2015, only days after the petitioners submitted their petition that concluded that certain approaches outlined in the EPA Strategy were inadequate. The Agency is currently evaluating the information submitted in response to the five March 2015 subpoenas. As necessary, EPA has followed up with companies and clarified responses submitted. Based on its initial review of submitted information, the Agency now has a better understanding of the flow of mercury in the U.S. marketplace and has an inventory of recent lists of companies that purchase elemental mercury from the five companies, including volumes and trends of mercury in key channels of commerce (
The petitioners express disappointment with the “months” that elapsed since the initiation of the voluntary inquiries to companies in October 2014 and the submission of their petition in June 2015 (Ref. 1). In fact, the Agency conducted the voluntary portion of data collection between October 2014 and December 2014. When that process was not fruitful, the subpoenas were sent in March 2015. Responses to the March 2015 subpoenas were received by the end of June 2015. For comparison, new federal rulemakings often take several years to complete from development through the proposal, public comment, and finalization phases. A final information collection rule would then need to provide for some period of time following promulgation for the submission of the required information. EPA notes that it already collected data on mercury voluntarily and via subpoena and, based on that experience, could expeditiously issue any further needed subpoenas, whereas the timing of a rulemaking process is less predictable. The Agency gathered information via its Strategy in several months, new data to be collected by the petitioners' requested rule—or another Section 8(a) rule—may not be obtained for several years. For those reasons, EPA believes that the current approach used to collect information from companies that manufacture, recycle, and distribute in commerce elemental mercury has been successful, is more efficient than the development of a new rule, and is sufficient—with some adaptation of the substance of information requests for companies that use mercury in products and processes—to carry out TSCA.
The petitioners also describe various ways in which the TRI program and CDR Rule collect data on mercury and mercury compounds yet how idiosyncrasies within each program prevent the reporting of the specific information they request to be collected. Where the petitioners see insufficiency, the Agency sees opportunity to use existing tools and resources to pinpoint specific data gaps, which may or may not require new regulatory or voluntary actions to gather information. EPA is using quantitative and qualitative information, particularly activity and use information reported to the TRI program, to help narrow the scope of potential stakeholders to be contacted as needed to collect information that EPA determines to be necessary. For example, EPA is reviewing information reported to the TRI program to identify and prioritize how to gather such information.
The TRI program requires facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than 10 pounds of mercury or mercury compounds during the calendar year to report amounts released to the environment or managed through recycling, energy recovery and treatment (Ref. 6). While the TRI program does not require quantitative reporting for all manufacturing, processing, or use categories, a facility is required to report activities and uses of the toxic chemical including, but not limited to “import,” “for sale/distribution,” “as a reactant,” “as an article component,” and “as a chemical processing aid” (Ref. 7). In this instance, EPA does not see the lack of quantitative reporting as a dead end, but rather as a tool to narrow the number of companies to ask for more specific information related to the use of mercury in their products and processes. For example, a review of data submitted to the TRI program for “mercury” in 2013 yields 447 facilities that manufactured, processed, or otherwise used mercury. That number can be narrowed to 60 facilities that processed mercury “as an article component” (
It is important to note that the 2016 reporting cycle for the CDR Rule (applicable to production volume information for calendar years 2012,
Looking at the specific information requested in the petition, the petitioners request two sets of notification requirements between two categories: (1) Mercury, mercury compounds, and mixtures containing mercury; and (2) mercury-added products. The petitioners' request of eight notification requirements for information to be reported for mercury, mercury compounds, and mixtures containing mercury can be broken down into three general categories. The first category consists of location and contact information for company headquarters, facilities that manufacture or process such substances, and technical staff. For mercury and mercury compounds, information comparable to the requests in the first category of notification requirements is reported to the TRI program and the CDR Rule. The second category includes quantitative data on such substances manufactured and processed for distribution in commerce, sold or transferred off-site, and stored on-site. Due to the similarity with questions posed in the March 2015 subpoenas, EPA is satisfied that it ascertained sufficient quantitative information for how mercury is used in such activities. For mercury compounds, EPA believes that information reported to the TRI program for activities and uses can be used to identify and prioritize companies and facilities that could be contacted using the same approach that the Agency used when reaching out to and ultimately issuing subpoenas to individual recyclers and distributors of mercury. The third category requests narrative descriptions of manufacturing and processing processes and end uses of such materials. EPA is not persuaded that such information for mercury or mercury compounds is necessary to carry out TSCA. In particular, it is more appropriate to pose questions regarding end uses to companies or facilities that use mercury or mercury compounds in products or manufacturing processes and not companies that recover mercury from various waste streams. Finally, the Agency is not persuaded that information on mixtures containing mercury is necessary to carry out TSCA. To the best of the Agency's knowledge, the only point in the cycle of mercury manufacture, use, recovery, and reuse when mixtures play a significant role is when mercury is recovered from mercury waste such as contaminated soil or impure laboratory mercury. The resulting elemental mercury is used, but EPA is not aware of any significant manufacture, processing, or use of mercury mixtures. As EPA reviews the information it has and will collect on mercury and mercury compounds, it will assess the need for information on mixtures and pursue such data as needed.
For mercury-added products, the petitioners also request eight notification requirements. As discussed in regard to mercury, mercury compounds, and mixtures containing mercury, the notification requirements for location and contact information for company headquarters and technical staff pertain to comparable information reported to the TRI program or the CDR Rule. The Agency agrees that collection of the kinds of information listed in three of the eight notification requests suggested by the petitioners can be valuable: Quantities of mercury used in products (per unit and total for all units produced in a calendar year), descriptions of product categories produced, and a breakdown of products manufactured (including imported), sold domestically, and exported. Such requirements would provide quantitative information that would benefit the implementation of TSCA by helping to define the overall volume of mercury used, particularly in the priority category of switches and relays. EPA also agrees that it is helpful to ascertain information related to whether switches or relays are “manufactured or processed solely for the purpose of replacement where no feasible mercury-free alternative for replacement is available” (Ref. 1). This information would help the Agency better estimate costs and benefits associated with not only ongoing uses of the switches and relays themselves, but also the larger equipment and systems that use them as components. However, the Agency is not persuaded that notification requirements for descriptions of mercury-added components, including the number of and location in larger products, is necessary. At this time, EPA anticipates that quantitative data on amounts of mercury contained in or added to such products and processes is likely to be sufficient to make regulatory determinations.
As previously discussed, switches and relays are the largest remaining domestic use of mercury in products by volume in the United States. Better defining the total quantity of mercury in that category, especially given the cessation of reporting of such information via IMERC, is a priority data point within a priority product category. Regardless, even in instances where EPA agrees with the notification requirements proposed by the petitioners, the Agency is not persuaded that the overarching proposed Section 8(a) rule is the appropriate means to collect such information. At this time, the Agency continues to implement its Strategy to determine its next steps, including, but not limited to using TSCA section 11, to collect information from additional companies on mercury used in products and processes. The assessment of information collected to date under the EPA Strategy will inform next steps in the current and future phases of the implementation. In so doing, the Agency is employing the variety of existing tools, including IMERC, the TRI program, and the CDR Rule, as well as the aforementioned voluntary outreach and targeted
The lack of adequate data on mercury use in products and processes prevents a complete accounting of the full extent of the human health risks from exposure to mercury . . . [and] EPA cannot fully address the health and environmental risks from mercury exposure without adequate data about ongoing mercury uses . . . In addition, such data collection is necessary to allow EPA to monitor any development of new mercury uses, so that the agency can assess the risks to human health that may be presented by such new uses. (Ref. 1).
The petitioners go on to state “incomplete and non-comprehensive data hampers EPA's ability to effectively assess risks from exposure to mercury” (Ref. 1). The petitioners then cite various EPA statements regarding risk management decision-making that speak to the availability and adequacy of information, as well as the EPA Strategy and its intent to gather more and updated information related to mercury used in products and processes (Ref. 1). The petitioners then conclude that without “comprehensive national data about ongoing mercury uses in products and processes . . . EPA
At this stage of implementing the strategy, the Agency also is uncertain what, if any, information is needed on mercury compounds beyond use as catalysts in manufacturing processes. Where products are concerned, for example, the product category of greatest concern (switches and relays) contains elemental mercury, not mercury compounds. Although certain batteries contain mercury oxide, that product group is of lesser concern than switches and relays. EPA will collect information on use of mercury compounds in products if, in the course of carrying out its Strategy, the Agency determines such information to be necessary. At this stage, requiring reporting for mercury compounds in all products while an Agency assessment of needs for such information is pending would require unnecessary reporting under TSCA section 8(a)(1).
Thus, while the Agency is mindful of the petitioners' analysis of mercury-related concerns (
Furthermore, while the petition discusses the toxicity and potential risk associated with exposure to mercury and methylmercury, it does not provide a basis for finding that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the requested rule is necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk. The finding of unreasonable risk under TSCA encompasses consideration of both the anticipated benefits of action under consideration as well as the anticipated costs. In this instance, the petition would need to provide a basis for EPA to conclude that any additional risk reduction that would be achieved by the requested rule, beyond that which will be achieved by EPA's current efforts, would justify the additional costs to EPA and the regulated community.
In discussing risks associated with releases of mercury, the petitioners describe how mercury releases during the product lifecycle “significantly” contribute to the total reservoir of “mercury pollution” (Ref. 1). After release, the petitioners describe how mercury cycles through environmental media, can be converted to methylmercury, and can potentially contaminate fish and humans (Ref. 1). The petitioners provide an estimate of the number of newborns exposed to methylmercury (376 to 14,293 cases annually) from all sources and the costs to care for children exposed to levels of methylmercury associated with cognitive impairment considered mental retardation ($500 million to $17.9 billion annually) (Ref. 1). The petitioners then cite several EPA significant new use rules (SNURs) applicable to mercury used in various motor vehicle switches (Ref. 9); flow meters, natural gas manometers, and pyrometers (Ref. 10); and barometers, manometers, hygrometers, and psychrometers (Ref. 11), to demonstrate previous Agency efforts to reduce risks from mercury based on potential releases of mercury during the product lifecycle (Ref. 1). The petitioners also cite estimated reporting costs for a TSCA section 8(a) rule of “approximately $8,000 to $9,000 per report for the initial cycle . . . and between $5,000 and $6,000 for each reporting cycle” (Ref. 1). However, the information provided in the petition on the impacts of mercury exposure, including the monetized risk estimate, relates to all sources of mercury pollution; it provides limited information to support the need for the requested rule to collect information as to ongoing uses. In addition, the petition does not provide a basis to conclude that the requested rule would provide for any additional risk reduction beyond that which will be achieved by EPA's current efforts, or that any such reduction would justify the additional cost to EPA and the regulated community. EPA notes in this regard that the petition misstates the baseline for judging the benefits of the requested rule by not accounting for the significant reduction in the CDR reporting threshold for mercury, as discussed above.
In sum, the Agency finds that the requested promulgation of a TSCA section 8(a) is neither timely nor warranted to carry out TSCA pending the continued implementation of the approaches set forth in the EPA Strategy.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under
15 U.S.C. 2601
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Proposed rule; notice of comment period reopening.
On February 27, 2015, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would require certain railroads to develop a Risk Reduction Program (RRP). On September 29, 2015, the RRP Working Group of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) held a meeting to review and discuss comments received in response to both the NPRM and an August 27, 2015, public hearing on the NPRM. FRA is reopening the comment period for this proceeding to allow interested parties to submit written comments in response to views or information provided at the RRP Working Group meeting.
The comment period for this proceeding, consisting of the proposed rule published February 27, 2015, at 80 FR 10950, the August 27, 2015, hearing, announced at 80 FR 45500, July 30, 2015, and a prior notice of comment period reopening, announced at 80 FR 55285, September 15, 2015, is reopened. Written comments must be received by October 21, 2015. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense or delay.
•
•
•
•
Miriam Kloeppel, Staff Director, Risk Reduction Program Division, Office of Safety Analysis, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-6224,
The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) requires the development and implementation of railroad safety risk reduction programs. Risk reduction is a comprehensive, system-oriented approach to safety that (1) determines an operation's level of risk by identifying and analyzing applicable hazards and (2) involves the development of acctions to mitigate that risk. Each RRP is statutorily required to be supported by a risk analysis and an RRP Plan, which must include a Technology Implementation Plan and a Fatigue Management Plan. On February 27, 2015, FRA published an NPRM that would require certain railroads to develop an RRP. FRA also held a public hearing on August 27, 2015, to provide interested persons an opportunity to provide oral comments on the proposal.
On September 29, 2015, the RSAC's RRP Working Group held a meeting to review and discuss comments received in response to both the NPRM and the public hearing. FRA established RSAC as a collaborative forum to provide advice and recommendations to FRA on railroad safety matters. The RSAC includes representatives from all of the agency's major stakeholder groups, representing various railroad industry perspectives. See the RSAC Web site for details on prior RSAC activities and pending tasks at
FRA is reopening the comment period for this proceeding to allow interested parties to submit written comments in response to views or information provided at the RRP Working Group meeting on September 29, 2015. Written comments must be received by October 21, 2015. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense or delay.
Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
FMCSA proposes to amend the regulations for “Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation,” and “Inspection, Repair and Maintenance,” of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) in response to several petitions for rulemaking from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) and the American Trucking Associations (ATA), and two safety recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Specifically, the Agency proposes to add a definition of “major tread groove;” revise the rear license plate lamp requirement to provide an exception for truck tractors registered in States that do not require tractors to have a rear license plate; provide specific requirements regarding when violations or defects noted on a roadside inspection report need to be corrected; amend Appendix G to the FMCSRs, “Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards,” to include provisions for the inspection of antilock braking systems (ABS), automatic brake adjusters, and brake adjustment indicators, speed-restricted tires, and motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages; and amend the periodic inspection rules to eliminate the option for motor carriers to use a violation—free roadside inspection report as proof of completing a comprehensive inspection at least once every 12 months. In addition, the Agency proposes to eliminate introductory text from Appendix G to the FMCSRs because the discussion of the differences between the North American Standard Inspection out-of-service criteria and FMCSA's periodic inspection criteria is unnecessary.
You must submit comments on or before December 7, 2015.
You may submit comments identified by docket number FMCSA-2015-0176 using any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” heading under the
If you have questions about this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, telephone: 202-366-5370;
FMCSA is responsible for regulations to ensure that all commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained and that all parts and accessories necessary for the safe operation of CMVs are in safe and proper operating condition at all times. In response to several petitions for rulemaking from CVSA and ATA and two safety recommendations from the NTSB, FMCSA proposes to amend various provisions in parts 393 and 396 of the FMCSRs. The proposed amendments generally do not involve the establishment of new or more stringent requirements, but instead clarify existing requirements to increase consistency of enforcement activities.
Specifically, the Agency proposes to (1) add a definition of “major tread groove” in § 393.5; (2) delete the requirement in Table 1 of § 393.11 for truck tractors to have a rear license plate light when State law does not require the vehicle to have a rear license plate; (3) clarify § 396.9 regarding when violations or defects noted on a roadside inspection report need to be corrected; (4) amend Appendix G to the FMCSRs, “Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards,” to include provisions for the inspection of (a) ABS, automatic brake adjusters, and brake adjustment indicators, (b) speed-restricted tires, and (c) motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages; (5) amend § 396.17(f) to eliminate references to roadside inspections; and (6) amend § 396.19(b) regarding inspector qualifications as a result of the amendments to § 396.17(f) described above. In addition, the Agency proposes to eliminate as unnecessary a portion of Appendix G to the FMCSRs that describes the differences between the out-of-service criteria and FMCSA's annual inspection.
The Agency believes the potential economic impact of these changes is negligible because the proposed amendments generally do not involve new or more stringent requirements, but a clarification of existing requirements.
FMCSA encourages you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (FMCSA-2015-0176), indicate the heading of the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments and as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 [1935 Act] and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 [1984 Act].
The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that “[t]he Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a private motor carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation” (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)).
This NPRM would amend the FMCSRs to respond to several petitions for rulemaking. The adoption and enforcement of such rules is specifically authorized by the 1935 Act. This proposed rulemaking rests squarely on that authority.
The 1984 Act provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety.” The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for CMVs. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that: (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of CMVs is adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely; (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) that drivers are not coerced by motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to operate a vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (which is the basis for much of the FMCSRs) or 49 U.S.C. chapters 51 or 313 (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)).
This proposed rule concerns (1) parts and accessories necessary for the safe operation of CMVs, and (2) the inspection, repair, and maintenance of CMVs. It is based primarily on section 31136(a)(1) and (2), and secondarily on section 31136(a)(4). This rulemaking would ensure that CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely by requiring certain vehicle components, systems, and equipment to meet minimum standards such that the mechanical condition of the vehicle is not likely to cause a crash or breakdown. Section 31136(a)(3) is not applicable because this rulemaking does not deal with driver qualification standards. Because the amendments proposed by this rule are primarily technical changes that clarify existing requirements and improve enforcement consistency, FMCSA believes they will be welcomed by motor carriers and drivers alike and that coercion to violate them will not be an issue.
Before prescribing any such regulations, FMCSA must consider the “costs and benefits” of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). As discussed in greater detail in the “Regulatory Analyses” section, FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. The Agency believes the potential economic impact is negligible because the proposed amendments generally do not involve the adoption of new or more stringent requirements, but rather the clarification of existing requirements. As such, the costs of the rule would not approach the $100 million annual threshold for economic significance.
The fundamental purpose of 49 CFR part 393, “Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation,” is to ensure that no employer operates a CMV or causes or permits it to be operated, unless it is equipped in accordance with the requirements and specifications of that part. However, nothing contained in part 393 may be construed to prohibit the use of additional equipment and accessories, not inconsistent with or prohibited by part 393, provided such equipment and accessories do not decrease the safety of operation of the motor vehicles on which they are used. Compliance with the rules concerning parts and accessories is necessary to ensure vehicles are equipped with the specified safety devices and equipment.
On August 15, 2005, FMCSA published a final rule amending part 393 of the FMCSRs to remove obsolete and redundant regulations; respond to several petitions for rulemaking; provide improved definitions of vehicle types, systems, and components; resolve inconsistencies between part 393 and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR part 571); and codify certain FMCSA regulatory guidance concerning the requirements of part 393 (70 FR 48008).
Since publication of the 2005 final rule, FMCSA has received petitions for rulemaking to amend part 393 from CVSA, requesting that § 393.5 be amended to include a definition of “major tread groove,” and from ATA, requesting that Table 1 to § 393.11 be amended to delete the requirement for operable rear license plate lights on truck tractors registered in States that do not require a rear license plate to be displayed. In addition, FMCSA received a separate petition from CVSA requesting that the Agency amend Appendix G to the FMCSRs, “Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards,” to include provisions for the inspection of ABS. Like the revisions made in the August 2005 final rule, the amendments requested by CVSA and ATA would simply clarify existing requirements.
Proper inspection, repair, and maintenance of CMVs are essential to the safety of motor carrier operations. The purpose of 49 CFR part 396, “Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance,” is to ensure that every motor carrier (1) systematically inspects, repairs, and
FMCSA has also received several petitions from CVSA seeking amendments to part 396. First, while § 396.9(d)(2) requires violations or defects noted on roadside inspection reports to be “corrected,” CVSA requested that the Agency clarify
In addition to the CVSA and ATA petitions for rulemaking, the NTSB issued two safety recommendations to FMCSA relating to Appendix G of the FMCSRs as a result of its investigation of an October 13, 2003, crash in Tallulah, Louisiana, involving a motorcoach and a tractor semitrailer combination. First, investigators discovered that the motorcoach had been equipped with speed-restricted tires. While the tires were designed for speeds not to exceed 55 mph, and to provide high-load capacity and durability for inner city transit-bus-type vehicles (which typically do not exceed speeds of 55 mph), the motorcoach was being operated on the interstate at speeds exceeding 55 mph at the time of the crash. The NTSB noted that if a speed-restricted tire is used in service above its rated speed for extended periods, a catastrophic failure can result. The NTSB concluded that because the CMV inspection criteria used by FMCSA and others do not address the identification and appropriate use of speed-restricted tires, they overlook an important vehicle safety factor and can result in CMVs intended for highway use being operated with tires not suited for highway speeds. The NTSB issued Safety Recommendation H-05-03 to FMCSA, recommending that the Agency revise Appendix G “to include inspection criteria and specific language to address a tire's speed rating to ensure that it is appropriate for a vehicle's intended use.”
Second, investigators found that during the crash sequence, many passenger seats did not remain in their original positions because they had been improperly secured to the floor of the vehicle. The NTSB concluded that improperly secured motorcoach passenger seats are not likely to be identified during CMV inspections because no criteria or procedures are available for the inspection of motorcoach seating anchorage systems. The NTSB issued Safety Recommendation H-05-05 to FMCSA, recommending that the Agency (1) develop a method for inspecting motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages, and (2) revise Appendix G of the FMCSRs to require inspection of these anchorages.
In its petition, CVSA stated:
The absence of a definition for what constitutes a major tread groove leads to confusion for both enforcement and industry. There are several grooves in a tire and not all of them are necessarily major tread grooves. Dependent on where the tire is worn and what the person understands to be a major tread groove is the important and costly decision on whether or not the tire is required to be replaced. A clear definition will reduce unnecessary disposal of tires due to improper tread depth measurements, as well as reduce improper violations/citations related to § 393.75.
CVSA contacted ATA's Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC) S.2 Tire & Wheel Study Group Task Force and asked them to (1) review the regulatory language in § 393.75(b) and (c), and (2) develop a definition for “major tread groove.” The TMC Task Force recommended that a major tread groove be defined as “The space between two adjacent tread ribs or lugs on a tire that contains a tread wear indicator or wear bar. (In most cases, the locations of tread wear indicators are designated on the upper sidewall/shoulder of the tire on original tread tires.)”
CVSA contends that it “is imperative that measurements for tire wear are taken in consistent locations to help promote uniformity and consistency in both enforcement and maintenance.” The proposed definition of “major tread groove” was submitted to, reviewed, and approved by CVSA's Vehicle Committee (consisting of enforcement, government, and industry representatives) prior to the development and submission of the petition for rulemaking to FMCSA. The petition requests that § 393.5 be amended to include the TMC Task Force's suggested definition of “major tread groove.”
FMCSA agrees that uniformity and consistency in enforcement and maintenance are critical. By including a definition of “major tread groove” in § 393.5—a term that is currently included in the regulatory text of § 393.75(b) and (c), but not specifically defined—the Agency expects increased consistency in the application and citation of § 393.75 during roadside inspections.
FMCSA proposes to amend § 393.5 to include a definition for “major tread groove” that is consistent with the definition as proposed by the TMC Task Force. In addition, the following illustration will be added to § 393.75, where the arrows indicate the location of tread wear indicators or a wear bars signifying a major tread groove:
In its petition, ATA states:
The purpose of the rear license plate lamp is “to illuminate the license plate from the top or sides.” ATA believes that if there is no license plate, there is no need and therefore should be no regulatory requirement for a functioning rear license plate lamp. As simple and commonsensical as this seems, roadside inspectors in some [States] have issued citations to motor carriers when the rear license plate holder is empty and the tractor license plate lamp is either missing or not working. In surveying the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, ATA found that 35 states and the District require only one license plate on a tractor, and it is to be placed on the front. Only 14 states require two license plates, one each on the front and back of the tractor. Therefore, the change we are seeking in the application of the regulation would apply to a significant number of commercial trucks with state-issued plates . . . These changes to the existing regulatory requirements to exempt commercial vehicles with no rear license plates will not adversely impact safety and will help eliminate further unnecessary enforcement actions by roadside inspectors.
ATA's petition requests that FMCSA amend the license plate lamp requirement in Table 1 to § 393.11 to read “At rear license plate to illuminate the plate from the top or sides,
As noted in both FMVSS No. 108 and the FMCSRs, the only function of the rear license plate lamp is to illuminate the rear license plate. FMCSA agrees with ATA that if a truck tractor is not required to display a rear license plate, then there is no corresponding safety need for a functioning rear license plate light. Uniformity and consistency in enforcement are critical.
FMCSA proposes to amend Footnote 11 to Table 1 of § 393.11 to indicate that no rear license plate lamp is required on truck tractors registered in States that do not require tractors to display a rear license plate.”
NHTSA did not require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an ABS to improve lateral stability and steering control during braking until 1995, when it published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 105, “Hydraulic Brake Systems,” and FMVSS No. 121, “Air Brake Systems” (60 FR 13216, March 10, 1995). In addition to requiring ABS on medium and heavy vehicles, the 1995 rule also required all powered vehicles to be equipped with an in-cab lamp to indicate ABS malfunctions. Truck tractors and other trucks equipped to tow air-braked trailers are required to have two separate in-cab lamps: One indicating malfunctions in the towing vehicle ABS and the other in the trailer ABS.
Part 393 of the FMCSRs was amended in 1998 to require carriers to maintain ABS installed on truck tractors, single unit trucks, buses, trailers, and converter dollies (63 FR 24454, May 4, 1998). Although the final rule clearly placed on interstate motor carriers the responsibility to maintain the ABS in operable condition at all times, it did not add provisions regarding the periodic inspection of the ABS/ABS malfunction indicator to the minimum periodic inspection standards in Appendix G. This means that a vehicle could pass the periodic inspection with an inoperable ABS/ABS malfunction indicator. However, the operation of the vehicle with the inoperable ABS/ABS malfunction indicator would be a violation of the FMCSRs and would preclude the vehicle from receiving a roadside inspection decal.
In its petition, CVSA requested that the Agency amend Appendix G to include specific language regarding the inspection of the ABS system/malfunction indicator during periodic/annual inspections. CVSA stated:
While we realize that 49 CFR part 393—Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation has requirements relating to ABS in § 393.55, periodic inspections are typically conducted using Appendix G as a guide (and not Part 393) and as such, ABS operational status is frequently neglected since it is not part of Appendix G. Furthermore, many versions of the preprinted forms used by personnel who conduct periodic inspections do not mention or list ABS as an inspection item.
The failure of some motor carriers to check ABS as a part of their preventative maintenance programs is found by roadside inspectors while conducting random roadside inspections. Inspectors are frequently finding commercial motor vehicles with missing or inoperative ABS malfunction indicators or indicators that are constantly illuminated indicating a fault in the ABS. A study was conducted by the Battelle Memorial Institute for FMCSA to assess the status of the ABS warning system on in-service air-braked commercial vehicles. Data from approximately 1,000 CMVs were collected in California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington, by enforcement personnel who had been specifically trained to inspect the ABS warning lamp. With an ABS lamp check problem defined as falling into one of
FMCSA agrees that the failure of a motor carrier to properly maintain an important safety technology such as ABS should result in the vehicle failing the periodic inspection. And although CVSA did not mention automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators in its petition, FMCSA believes these brake components should also be included in Appendix G to ensure that vehicles cannot pass the periodic inspection without this important safety equipment. FMCSA amended 49 CFR part 393 on September 6, 1995 (60 FR 46245) to require that interstate motor carriers maintain these devices, but as with the ABS final rule, the Agency did not include automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators in Appendix G.
ABS and automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicator requirements have been included in part 393 for approximately 20 years. Therefore, FMCSA believes that it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of motor carriers currently include a review of these devices and systems in their annual inspection programs despite the fact that there are no explicit requirements in Appendix G to do so. As such, the Agency believes that amending Appendix G to include a review of ABS and automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators simply maintains consistency between part 393 and Appendix G, and will result in a de minimis added burden to motor carriers.
CVSA asked FMCSA to amend § 396.9(d)(2) to specifically require that violations or defects noted in a roadside inspection report “be corrected prior to redispatching the driver and/or vehicle.” In support of its petition, CVSA stated:
Upon review of the North American Standard Level I Inspection (Part “A”—Driver) training materials, it was noted that the regulatory language “prior to redispatch” does not currently exist in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The language has been used exclusively in the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC) and in the Appendix since the early beginnings of the North American Standard Inspection Program. By adding the regulatory language, it will provide enforcement and industry with a clear understanding of the regulatory intent of when vehicle and driver violations or defects must be corrected.
Every driver is required to prepare a driver vehicle inspection report (DVIR) in writing at the completion of each day's work on each that he or she vehicle operated that lists “any defect or deficiency discovered by
Section 396.11(a)(3) makes it clear that all defects and deficiencies discovered by or reported to a driver—including those identified during a roadside inspection conducted under the authority of § 396.9—must be corrected (or a certification provided stating that repair is unnecessary) before a vehicle is operated each day. However, the Agency agrees that the language of § 396.9(d)(2) is not as explicit as it could be, and could lead to uncertainty and/or inconsistency in both the enforcement community and the motor carrier industry regarding when violations and defects noted on roadside inspection reports need to be corrected.
While CVSA suggested inclusion of language that would require violations or defects to be corrected “prior to redispatching the driver and/or vehicle,” the Agency believes that use of the term “redispatching” could be troublesome in some operations, for example in long-haul, multi-day cross country trips where a vehicle may be “dispatched” only at the trip's point of origin. On such trips, a driver is required under § 396.11 to ensure—at the beginning of each day—that any defects or deficiencies discovered by or reported to the driver on the previous day have been satisfactorily addressed according to § 396.11(a)(3)(i) and (ii). FMCSA is concerned that amending § 396.9(d)(2) using CVSA's recommended “prior to redispatch” language could improperly imply that repairs are not required each day on multi-day trips where the vehicle is not “redispatched” every day.
Instead, to clarify the intent of § 396.9(d)(2) as discussed above, FMCSA proposes to amend that section by including a specific cross reference to § 396.11(a)(3).
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1990 required that violations found during inspections funded under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) be corrected in a timely manner, and that States participating in the MCSAP adopt a verification program to ensure that CMVs and operators thereof found in violation of safety requirements have subsequently been brought into compliance. [Sec. 15(d), Pub. L. 101-500, Nov. 3, 1990, 104 Stat. 1219]. Section 396.9(d)(3) requires motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers, within 15 days, to (1) certify that all violations noted have been corrected by completing the “Signature of Carrier/Intermodal Equipment Provider Official, Title, and Date Signed” portions of the roadside inspection form, (2) return the completed roadside inspection form to the issuing agency, and (3) retain a copy of the completed form for 12 months from the date of the inspection.
In a final rule implementing revisions to the MCSAP published on September 8, 1992, the FHWA noted that the ATA had asked “that carriers be given more time to return inspection reports and file a report at the terminal where the vehicle is maintained.” Specifically, the ATA requested that the carrier be allowed 60 days to file a copy of each roadside inspection report. FHWA declined to adopt ATA's request, stating “Currently, § 396.9 allows 15 days for the motor carrier to certify correction of defects found in inspections. The FHWA believes that this is sufficient time and, moreover, that these reports on safety violations found on trucks and buses operating on the highways require immediate attention and follow-up by the motor carrier” (57 FR 40946, 40951, Sept. 8, 1992). FMCSA requests comments regarding whether the existing 15-day requirement in § 396.9(d)(3) remains appropriate, or whether a different time period should be considered.
In its petition, CVSA recommended that § 396.17(f) be amended by removing the words “roadside or” from the current regulatory language. CVSA stated:
It is our strong belief that the roadside inspection program and the annual/periodic inspection program need to be decoupled from each other. The roadside inspection program and the North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC) are not equivalent to a “government mandated maintenance standard” for annual or periodic inspections. The North American Standard Inspection Program and North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria have been in place for more than two decades and were never intended to serve this purpose . . .
The roadside inspection is the “last line of defense” for highway safety. When a driver or vehicle is placed out of service during a roadside inspection it is indicative that the motor carrier likely has a failing or defective preventative maintenance and/or driver trip inspection program . . .
Far too many drivers, roadside inspectors, mechanics, company safety professionals and owner operators reference the OOSC as the “DOT” standard. In our judgment it is a mistake and a misuse of the intent of the OOSC. The OOSC serves as a uniform set of guidelines for law enforcement officials when determining whether a driver and/or vehicle are an imminent hazard. The Policy Statement under Part II of the OOSC states “These criteria are neither suited nor intended to serve as vehicle maintenance or performance standards.”
FMCSA emphasizes that under the existing regulatory language, only roadside inspections
As noted in the NPRM, the commenters pointed out the differences between random critical element roadside inspections and what they perceived as the intent of § 210 of the [1984] Act. They indicated that a random roadside inspection was basically concerned with ensuring that the vehicle did not pose an imminent danger on the roadway. The focus is on checking the more critical components such as brakes, headlights, brake lights, and steering and suspension systems. In contrast, a periodic inspection should be more concerned with the general overall safety condition of the vehicle, including those parts, which if defective, worn, or missing do not pose an immediate danger but nevertheless should be corrected as soon as possible.
The current inspection standards associated with the CVSA or NUD-VIP focus on random roadside inspections and examine certain key components of a vehicle to detect those defects most often identified as causing or contributing to the severity of commercial motor vehicle accidents. The CVSA or NUD-VIP standards, by their very nature, do not require disassembly of parts to effect a thorough inspection.
Vehicles subjected to random roadside vehicle checks
FMCSA emphasizes that the purpose of the periodic inspection rule was to have motor carriers take full responsibility for having a qualified mechanic do a thorough inspection of the vehicles the carrier controls. FMCSA does not believe it is appropriate to continue to allow carriers relief from this responsibility by using a roadside inspection conducted by enforcement officials. Motor carriers are responsible for having the means of ensuring the completion of a periodic inspection irrespective of whether a roadside inspection is performed and this rulemaking would require them to do so at least once every 12 months, irrespective of whether a roadside inspection is performed during that period.
For the reasons explained above, FMCSA proposes to amend § 396.17(f) to remove the words “roadside or” from the current regulatory text as suggested by CVSA in its petition. This proposed amendment would eliminate any uncertainties and make clear that a roadside inspection is not equivalent to the periodic/annual inspection required under § 396.17, even if it is conducted in accordance with the provisions of Appendix G.
In addition, CVSA requested that FMCSA remove the section at the end of Appendix G titled “
Consistent with the proposed amendments to § 396.17 discussed above, CVSA's petition recommended that FMCSA delete the language regarding “a random roadside inspection program” in § 396.19(b).
FMCSA agrees and proposes to amend § 396.19(b) as suggested by CVSA.
FMVSS No. 119, “
However, a tire's maximum speed rating is not required to be labeled on the sidewall, except for tires that are speed-restricted to 90 km/h (55 mph) or below.
FMCSA agrees that speed-restricted tires should not be used on CMVs operating on highways in excess of 55 mph for extended periods of time. However, the adoption of a requirement regarding a tire's speed rating in Appendix G, as recommended by the NTSB in Safety Recommendation H-05-03, absent a regulatory requirement for tires to be so marked, would result in inconsistent enforcement. As an alternative, FMCSA proposes to add language to section 10 of Appendix G that will prohibit the use of speed-restricted tires on CMVs subject to the FMCSRs unless the use of such tires is specifically designated by the motor carrier.
Section 393.93(a)(3) requires buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, to conform to the requirements of FMVSS No. 207, “
However, FMVSS No. 207 specifically exempts (at S.4.2) all bus passenger seats, including motorcoaches, except for small school bus passenger seats. As such, there are no performance standards in place in the FMVSSs specifically for motorcoach seat anchorages. Following its investigation of the Tallulah crash, NTSB issued Safety Recommendation H-05-01 to NHTSA to “develop performance standards for passenger seat anchorages in motorcoaches.”
On November 25, 2013, NHTSA published a final rule requiring lap/shoulder belts to be installed for each passenger seating position on (1) all over-the-road buses
As noted in the NTSB's report following the Tallulah crash, “Many different seating system designs are used in motorcoaches operating in the United States; each manufacturer uses its own hardware and anchorage designs . . .” The NTSB also noted that it had examined the issue of motorcoach seat anchorage failure in six previous crash investigations. The NTSB stated “Several different seat anchorage system designs were used in the motorcoaches involved in these accidents. Even when properly installed and maintained, some seat anchorage systems failed, while others did not, even in similar accident scenarios.”
Given the wide range of seat anchorage designs, coupled with the lack of testing requirements specifically for seat anchorage strength in the FMVSSs, it is not practicable for FMCSA to develop a detailed methodology for the inspection of motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages. However, FMCSA proposes to add a new section to Appendix G that will require an examination of motorcoach seats during the conduct of a periodic inspection in accordance with § 396.17 to ensure that they are securely attached to the vehicle structure.
If the proposed regulatory amendments are adopted, FMCSA will amend existing regulatory guidance
FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), or within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 2, 1979). The Agency believes the potential economic impact is nominal because the proposed amendments generally do not involve the adoption of new or more stringent requirements, but rather the clarification of existing requirements. As such, the costs of the rule would not approach the $100 million annual threshold for economic significance. Moreover, the Agency does not expect the rule to generate substantial congressional or public interest. This proposed rule therefore has not been formally reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Title II, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996), the proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the proposed amendments generally do not involve the adoption of new or more stringent requirements, but, instead, the clarification of existing requirements. Therefore, there is no disproportionate burden to small entities.
Consequently, I certify that the proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FMCSA invites comment from members of the public who believe there will be a significant impact either on small businesses or on governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the SBREFA, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Mike Huntley, listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
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, taken together, or by the private sector of $155 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2014 levels) or more in any 1 year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would call 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 Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 if it has “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.” FMCSA has determined that this proposal would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation.
This proposed 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.
E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. The Agency determined this proposed rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, this regulatory action could not present an environmental or safety risk that would disproportionately affect children.
FMCSA reviewed this notice of proposed rulemaking in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the
The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, section 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.
The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.
FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (
FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401
Under E.O. 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would have no environmental justice effects, nor would its promulgation have any collective environmental impact.
Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Highways and roads. Motor carriers, Motor vehicle equipment, Motor vehicle safety.
For the reasons stated above, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR chapter III, subchapter B, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.87.
Footnote—11 To be illuminated when tractor headlamps are illuminated. No rear license plate lamp is required on truck tractors registered in States that do not require tractors to display a rear license plate.
49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; and 49 CFR 1.87.
(d) * * *
(2) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers shall examine the report. Violations or defects noted thereon shall be corrected in accordance with § 396.11(a)(3). Repairs of items of intermodal equipment placed out-of-service are also to be documented in the maintenance records for such equipment.
(f) Vehicles passing periodic inspections performed under the auspices of any State government or equivalent jurisdiction or the FMCSA, meeting the minimum standards contained in appendix G of this subchapter, will be considered to have met the requirements of an annual inspection for a period of 12 months commencing from the last day of the month in which the inspection was performed.
(b) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers must retain evidence of that individual's qualifications under this section. They must retain this evidence for the period during which that individual is performing annual motor vehicle inspections for the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider, and for one year thereafter. However, motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers do not have to maintain documentation of inspector qualifications for those inspections performed as part of a State periodic inspection program.
The additions and revision read as follows:
(1) Missing ABS malfunction indicator components (bulb, wiring, etc.).
(2) ABS malfunction indicator that does not illuminate when power is first applied to the ABS controller (ECU).
(3) ABS malfunction indicator that stays illuminated while power is continuously applied to the ABS controller (ECU).
(4) Other missing or inoperative ABS components.
a. Any passenger seat that is not securely fastened to the vehicle structure.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 7 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery off the Atlantic States (Dolphin and Wahoo FMP) and Amendment 33 to the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Snapper-Grouper FMP) (Amendments 7/33), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). If implemented, this rule would revise the landing fish intact provisions for vessels that lawfully harvest dolphin, wahoo, or snapper-grouper in or from Bahamian waters and return to the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The U.S. EEZ as described in this proposed rule refers to the Atlantic EEZ for dolphin and wahoo and the South Atlantic EEZ for snapper-grouper species. The purpose of this proposed rule is to improve the consistency and enforceability of Federal regulations with regards to landing fish intact provisions for vessels transiting from Bahamian waters through the U.S. EEZ and to increase the social and economic benefits related to the recreational harvest of these species, in accordance with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Written comments must be received on or before November 6, 2015.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0047” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendments 7/33, which includes an environmental assessment, regulatory impact review, and Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
The dolphin and wahoo fishery is managed under the Dolphin and Wahoo FMP and the snapper-grouper fishery is managed under the Snapper-Grouper FMP. The FMPs were prepared by the Council and are implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Current Federal regulations require that dolphin or wahoo or snapper-grouper species onboard a vessel traveling through the U.S. EEZ must be maintained with the heads and fins intact and not be in fillet form. However, as implemented through Amendment 8 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, an exception applies to snapper-grouper species that are lawfully harvested in Bahamian waters and are onboard a vessel returning to the U.S. through the U.S. EEZ (63 FR 38298, July 16, 1998). Amendment 8 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP allows that in the South Atlantic EEZ, snapper-grouper lawfully harvested in Bahamian waters are exempt from the requirement that they be maintained with head and fins intact, provided valid Bahamian fishing and cruising permits are on board the vessel and the vessel is in transit through the South Atlantic EEZ. A vessel is in transit through the South Atlantic EEZ when it is on a direct and continuous course through the South Atlantic EEZ and no one aboard the vessel fishes in the South Atlantic EEZ.
The Bahamas does not allow for the commercial harvest of dolphin, wahoo, or snapper-grouper by U.S. vessels in Bahamian waters. Therefore, the measures proposed in this rule only apply to the recreational harvest of these species by vessels returning from The Bahamas to the U.S. EEZ. This proposed rule would not change potential liability under the Lacey Act, which makes it unlawful to import, export, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase fish that are taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of any foreign law.
This proposed rule would revise the landing fish intact provisions for vessels that lawfully harvest dolphin, wahoo, or snapper-grouper in Bahamian waters and return to the U.S. EEZ. The proposed rule would allow for dolphin and wahoo fillets to enter the U.S. EEZ after lawful harvest in The Bahamas; specify the condition of any dolphin, wahoo, and snapper-grouper fillets; describe how the recreational bag limit would be determined for any fillets; explicitly prohibit the sale or purchase of any dolphin, wahoo, or snapper-grouper recreationally harvested in The Bahamas; specify the required documentation to be onboard any vessels that have these fillets, and specify transit and stowage provisions for any vessels with fillets.
Currently, all dolphin or wahoo on vessels within the Atlantic EEZ are required to be maintained with head and fins intact. These fish may be eviscerated, gilled, and scaled, but must otherwise be maintained in a whole condition. This proposed rule would allow for dolphin or wahoo lawfully harvested in Bahamian waters to be exempt from this provision when returning through the Atlantic EEZ. Dolphin or wahoo harvested in or from Bahamian waters would be able to be stored on ice more effectively in fillet form for transit through the U.S. EEZ, given the coolers generally used on recreational vessels. Allowing these vessels to be exempt from the landing fish intact regulations would increase the social and economic benefits for recreational fishers returning to the U.S. EEZ from Bahamian waters. This proposed rule would also allow for increased consistency between the dolphin and wahoo and snapper-grouper regulations for vessels transiting from Bahamian waters. This proposed measure would not be expected to substantially increase recreational fishing pressure or otherwise change recreational fishing behavior, because any fish harvested in Bahamian waters and brought back through the U.S. EEZ would not be exempt from U.S. bag limits, fishing seasons, size limits, or other management measures in place in the U.S. EEZ, including prohibited species (
Snapper-grouper possessed in the South Atlantic EEZ are currently exempt from the landing fish intact requirement under certain conditions if the vessel lawfully harvested the snapper-grouper in The Bahamas. Amendments 7/33 and this proposed rule would retain this exemption and revise it to include additional requirements.
The Council and NMFS note that this exemption only applies to the landing fish intact provisions for fish in the U.S. EEZ, and does not exempt fishers from any other Federal fishing regulations such as fishing seasons, recreational bag limits, and size limits.
Amendment 8 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP allowed a vessel with snapper-grouper fillets to be in transit in the South Atlantic EEZ after lawful harvest in Bahamian waters; however, no fillet requirements were specified (63 FR 38298, July 16, 1998). To better allow for identification of the species of any fillets in the U.S. EEZ, this proposed rule would require that the skin be left intact on the entire fillet of any dolphin, wahoo, or snapper-grouper carcass on a vessel in transit from Bahamian waters through the U.S. EEZ. This requirement is intended to assist law enforcement in identifying fillets to determine whether they are the species lawfully exempted by this proposed rule.
Currently, all dolphin, wahoo, and snapper-grouper species harvested or possessed in or from the U.S. EEZ are required to adhere to the U.S. bag and possession limits. This proposed rule would not revise the bag and possession limits, but would specify how fillets are counted with respect to determining the number of fish onboard a vessel in transit from Bahamian waters through the U.S. EEZ and ensuring compliance with U.S. bag and possession limits. This proposed rule would specify that for any dolphin, wahoo, or snapper-grouper species lawfully harvested in Bahamian waters and onboard a vessel in the U.S. EEZ in fillet form, two fillets of the respective species of fish, regardless of the length of each fillet, is equivalent to one fish. This measure will assist law enforcement in enforcing the relevant U.S. bag and possession limits. This measure would not revise the bag and possession limits in the U.S. EEZ for any of the species in this proposed rule. All recreational fishers in Federal waters would continue to be required to comply with the U.S. bag and possession limits, regardless of where any fish were harvested.
This proposed rule would explicitly prohibit the sale or purchase of any dolphin, wahoo, or snapper-grouper species recreationally harvested in Bahamian waters and returned to the U.S. through the U.S. EEZ. The Council determined that establishing a specific prohibition on the sale or purchase of any of these species from The Bahamas was necessary to ensure consistency with the current Federal regulations that prohibit recreational bag limit sales of these species. The Council wanted to ensure that Amendments 7/33 and the accompanying rulemaking did not create an opportunity for these fish to be sold or purchased.
This proposed rule would revise the documentation requirements for snapper-grouper species and implement documentation requirements for dolphin and wahoo harvested in Bahamian waters and onboard a vessel in transit through the U.S. EEZ. For snapper-grouper lawfully harvested under the existing exemption, the current requirement is that valid Bahamian fishing and cruising permits are on the vessel. This proposed rule would continue to require that valid Bahamian fishing and cruising permits are onboard and additionally require that all vessel passengers have valid government passports with current stamps and dates. These documentation requirements would apply when dolphin, wahoo, or snapper-grouper is onboard a vessel in transit through the U.S. EEZ from Bahamian waters. Requiring valid Bahamian fishing and cruising permits on the vessel and requiring each vessel passenger to have a valid government passport with current stamps and dates from The Bahamas increases the likelihood that the vessel and passengers were lawfully fishing in The Bahamas, and thereby increases the likelihood that any dolphin, wahoo, or snapper-grouper fillets on the vessel were lawfully harvested in Bahamian waters and not in the U.S. EEZ.
Vessels operating under the current snapper-grouper exemption have specific transit requirements when in the South Atlantic EEZ. These vessels are required to be in transit when they enter the South Atlantic EEZ with Bahamian snapper-grouper onboard. As described at § 622.186(b), a vessel is in transit through the South Atlantic EEZ when it is on “a direct and continuous course through the South Atlantic EEZ and no one aboard the vessel fishes in the EEZ.” This proposed rule would revise the snapper-grouper transit provisions, also apply the transit provisions to vessels operating under the proposed exemption for dolphin and wahoo, and require fishing gear to be appropriately stowed on a vessel transiting through the U.S. EEZ with fillets of these species. The proposed definition for “fishing gear appropriately stowed” would mean that “terminal gear (
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendments 7/33, the FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:
The purpose of this proposed rule is to adjust the possession requirements in the U.S. EEZ for dolphin, wahoo, and snapper-grouper species legally harvested in Bahamian waters in order to increase for U.S. fishermen the social and economic benefits related to the harvest of these species. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule.
NMFS expects that this proposed rule, if implemented, would directly apply to any angler traveling by fishing vessel, and to any operator or owner of a fishing vessel capable of traveling, to The Bahamas to engage in saltwater recreational fishing in Bahamian waters and returning with dolphin or wahoo or snapper grouper species to U.S. waters. This proposed rule would revise the possession requirements for certain saltwater species lawfully harvested in Bahamian waters. Some, but not all, of these vessels may be classified as small entities. The recreational anglers who will be affected by the proposed regulations are not small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Similarly, the owner or operator of a for-hire vessel would not be a small entity under the RFA when that vessel is being used for non-commercial purposes. However, the proposed documentation, transit, and gear storage requirements would apply if the vessel is being operated as a for-hire vessel; the owner or operator may then qualify as a small entity.
For-hire vessels, which may be classified as either charter vessels or headboats, are used for the sale of fishing services which include the harvest of dolphin, wahoo, and snapper-grouper species, among other species to recreational anglers. These vessels provide a platform for the opportunity to fish and not a guarantee to catch or harvest any species, though expectations of successful fishing, however defined, likely factor into the decision to purchase these services. Changing the possession requirements of fish lawfully harvested in The Bahamas would only define what may be kept (in identity and condition) and not explicitly limit the offer of, or opportunity to acquire, for-hire fishing services. In response to a change in possession requirements, catch and release fishing for a target species could continue unchanged, as could fishing for other species. Because the proposed changes in the possession requirements for these species would not directly alter the service provided by the for-hire businesses, this proposed rule would not directly apply to or regulate their operations. The for-hire businesses would continue to be able to offer their core product, which is an attempt to “put anglers on fish,” provide the opportunity for anglers to catch those fish their skills enable them to catch, and keep those fish that they desire to keep and are legal to keep. Any change in demand for these fishing services, and associated economic affects, as a result of changing these possession requirements would be a consequence of behavioral change by anglers, secondary to any direct effect on anglers and, therefore, an indirect effect of the proposed rule. Because any effects on the owners or operators of for-hire vessels as a result of changing possession requirements would be
The owners or operators of for-hire vessels would be directly affected by the proposed documentation, transit, and gear storage requirements. The number of vessels that may be used for the offer for-hire services and would be directly affected by the proposed requirements, however, cannot be meaningfully determined with available data. One could assume that the vessels most likely to travel to The Bahamas are vessels that are currently operated as for-hire fishing vessels in the U.S. EEZ. In 2014, at least 1,430 vessels held one or more Federal permits to be operated as for-hire vessels (separate Federal permits are required to harvest different species) in the U.S. EEZ. Additionally, federally permitted commercial vessels, of which over 1,900 had one or more Federal commercial permits in 2014, may also be capable of traveling to The Bahamas and being operated as for-hire vessels. Having a Federal permit would not be a factor in determining eligible vessels, however, and neither of these totals includes vessels that do not have a Federal permit and are operated only in U.S. state waters. In practice, although only a portion of these vessels would be expected to travel to The Bahamas and operate as a for-hire fishing vessel, no data are available on the number of vessels that currently engage in this practice to support estimating, within this universe of permitted and unpermitted vessels, the number of vessels which might be directly affected by this proposed rule.
NMFS has not identified any other small entities that would be expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule.
The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including fish harvesters. A business involved in the for-hire fishing industry is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $7.5 million (NAICS code 487210, for-hire businesses) for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The average charter vessel is estimated to receive approximately $115,000 (2013 dollars) in annual revenue and the average headboat is estimated to receive approximately $204,000 (2013 dollars) in annual revenue. As a result, all for-hire businesses that might be directly affected by this proposed rule are believed to be small business entities.
Three components of this proposed rule, the proposed documentation, transit, and gear storage requirements, would be expected to directly affect some small entities, but none would be expected to result in a significant adverse economic effect on any of the affected entities. The proposed documentation requirements (permits and passport) are already required for travel to, fishing in, and returning from Bahamian waters and, thus, would not impose any additional costs. The proposed transit requirement would not be expected to have any adverse economic effect because the vessel must return to the U.S. anyway and a direct and continuous transit would be the most economically efficient means of returning (indirect and discontinuous sailing would encompass more time and higher fuel expenses). The proposed gear storage requirement would be expected to either encompass normal gear storage behavior when traveling long distances while not actively fishing, or require a minor increase in labor, that should be able to be completed during the vessel's return prior to entering the U.S. EEZ, and not an increase in monetary operating costs. As a result, this proposed requirement would not be expected to reduce vessel profits. Otherwise, the proposed changes may increase demand for for-hire fishing services and result in a beneficial economic effect on the affected small entities. As discussed above, however, these would be indirect effects and, therefore, outside the scope of the RFA.
Based on the discussion above, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant adverse economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
Atlantic, Dolphin, Fisheries, Fishing, Snapper-Grouper, Wahoo.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) In the South Atlantic EEZ, snapper-grouper lawfully harvested in Bahamian waters are exempt from the requirement that they be maintained with head and fins intact, provided that the skin remains intact on the entire fillet of any snapper-grouper carcasses, valid Bahamian fishing and cruising permits are on board the vessel, each person on the vessel has a valid government passport with current stamps and dates from The Bahamas, and the vessel is in transit through the South Atlantic EEZ with fishing gear appropriately stowed. For the purpose of this paragraph, a vessel is in transit through the South Atlantic EEZ when it is on a direct and continuous course through the South Atlantic EEZ and no one aboard the vessel fishes in the EEZ. For the purpose of this paragraph, fishing gear appropriately stowed means that terminal gear (
(a) * * *
(3) In the South Atlantic EEZ, a vessel that lawfully harvests snapper-grouper in Bahamian waters, as per § 622.186 (b), must comply with the bag and possession limits specified in this section. For determining how many snapper-grouper are on board a vessel in fillet form when harvested lawfully in Bahamian waters, two fillets of snapper-grouper, regardless of the length of each fillet, is equivalent to one snapper-grouper. The skin must remain intact on the entire fillet of any snapper-grouper carcass.
(k) Snapper-grouper possessed pursuant to the bag and possession limits specified in § 622.187(a)(3) may not be sold or purchased.
(a) Dolphin or wahoo in or from the Atlantic EEZ must be maintained with head and fins intact, except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. Such fish may be eviscerated, gilled, and scaled, but must otherwise be maintained in a whole condition. The operator of a vessel that fishes in the EEZ is responsible for ensuring that fish on that vessel in the EEZ are maintained intact and, if taken from the EEZ, are maintained intact through offloading ashore, as specified in this section.
(b) In the Atlantic EEZ, dolphin or wahoo lawfully harvested in Bahamian waters are exempt from the requirement that they be maintained with head and fins intact, provided that the skin remains intact on the entire fillet of any dolphin or wahoo carcasses, valid Bahamian fishing and cruising permits are on board the vessel, each person on the vessel has a valid government passport with current stamps and dates from The Bahamas, and the vessel is in transit through the Atlantic EEZ with fishing gear appropriately stowed. For the purpose of this paragraph, a vessel is in transit through the Atlantic EEZ when it is on a direct and continuous course through the Atlantic EEZ and no one aboard the vessel fishes in the EEZ. For the purpose of this paragraph, fishing gear appropriately stowed means that terminal gear (
(a) * * *
(1)
(ii) In the Atlantic EEZ and lawfully harvested in Bahamian waters (as per § 622.276(b))—10, not to exceed 60 per vessel, whichever is less, except on board a headboat, 10 per paying passenger. For the purposes of this paragraph, for determining how many dolphin are on board a vessel in fillet form when harvested lawfully in Bahamian waters, two fillets of dolphin, regardless of the length of each fillet, is equivalent to one dolphin. The skin must remain intact on the entire fillet of any dolphin carcass.
(2)
(ii) In the Atlantic EEZ and lawfully harvested in Bahamian waters (as per § 622.276(b))—2. For the purposes of this paragraph, for determining how many wahoo are on board a vessel in fillet form when harvested lawfully in Bahamian waters, two fillets of wahoo, regardless of the length of each fillet, is equivalent to one wahoo. The skin must remain intact on the entire fillet of any wahoo carcass.
(d) Dolphin or wahoo possessed pursuant to the bag and possession limits specified in § 622.277(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(ii) may not be sold or purchased.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Framework Amendment 3 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (CMP) in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP) (Framework Amendment 3), as prepared and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This proposed rule would modify the trip limit, accountability measures (AMs), dealer reporting requirements, and gillnet permit requirements for commercial king mackerel landed by run-around gillnet fishing gear in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf). The purpose of this proposed rule is to increase the efficiency, stability, and accountability, and to reduce the potential for regulatory discards of king mackerel in the commercial gillnet component of the CMP fishery.
Written comments must be received on or before November 6, 2015.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0101” by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Framework Amendment 3, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates, clarity of the instructions, or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule (see the Classification section of the preamble) may be submitted in writing to Adam Bailey, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; or the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email at
Susan Gerhart, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: s
The CMP fishery in the Gulf and Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Current Federal regulations allow for run-around gillnets to be used to commercially harvest king mackerel only in the Florida west coast southern subzone of the Gulf. This subzone includes waters off Collier County, Florida, year-round, and off Monroe County, Florida, from November 1 to March 30. To use gillnets for king mackerel, vessels must have on board a general Federal commercial king mackerel permit and a Federal king mackerel gillnet permit. A vessel with a gillnet permit is prohibited from fishing for king mackerel with hook-and-line gear. This proposed rule would modify management of the king mackerel gillnet component of the CMP fishery by increasing the commercial trip limit, revising AMs, modifying dealer reporting requirements, and requiring a documented landing history for a king mackerel gillnet permit to be renewed.
This proposed rule would increase the commercial trip limit for vessels harvesting king mackerel by gillnets from 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) to 45,000 lb (20,411 kg). The size of a school of king mackerel can be difficult to estimate precisely and king mackerel landed in gillnets experience very high discard mortality, which makes releasing fish in excess of the trip limit wasteful and impractical. Fishermen can cut the net and leave the section with excess fish in the water and another vessel may be able to retrieve the partial net, but this process damages gear, which takes time and money to repair. Fishermen have indicated that more than 90 percent of successful gillnet gear deployments yield less than 45,000 lb (20,411 kg) of fish. Therefore, increasing the current trip limit should reduce the number of trips that result in king mackerel landings in excess of the commercial trip limit and the associated discard mortality.
Currently, the commercial AM for the king mackerel gillnet component of the fishery is an in-season closure when the annual catch limit for the gillnet component (gillnet ACL) is reached or is projected to be reached. This proposed rule would add a provision by which any gillnet ACL overage in one year would be deducted from the gillnet ACL in the following fishing year. If the gillnet ACL is not exceeded in that following fishing year, then in the subsequent year the gillnet ACL would return to the original gillnet ACL level as specified in § 622.388(a)(1)(ii). However, if the adjusted gillnet ACL is exceeded in the following fishing year, then the gillnet ACL would be reduced again in the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the most recent gillnet ACL overage. Because the proposed trip limit increase could increase the chance of exceeding the gillnet ACL, a payback provision would help ensure that any overage is mitigated in the following year.
This proposed rule would modify the reporting requirements for federally permitted dealers purchasing commercial king mackerel harvested by gillnets. Currently, such dealers are required to submit an electronic form daily to NMFS by 6 a.m. during the gillnet fishing season for purposes of monitoring the gillnet ACL. However, because some vessels land their catch after midnight and may have long offloading times, some gillnet landings are not reported until the following day. Further, the electronic monitoring system involves processing and quality control time before the data can be passed to NMFS fishery managers. This results in some landings information not reaching NMFS until nearly 2 days after the fish are harvested.
This proposed rule would change the daily electronic reporting requirement to daily reporting by some other means determined by NMFS, such as using port agent reports or some more direct method of reporting to NMFS fishery managers (
This proposed rule would change the renewal requirements for a king mackerel gillnet permit. A king mackerel gillnet permit would be renewable only if the vessel associated with the permit landed at least 1 lb (0.45 kg) of king mackerel during any one year between 2006 and 2015. Currently, there are 21 vessels with valid or renewable gillnet permits; 4 of these vessels have had no landings since 2001 and the permits associated with those vessels would no longer be renewable. Some active gillnet fishermen are concerned that permit holders who have not been fishing may begin participating in the gillnet component of the fishery, which would result in increased effort in a sector that already has a limited season. For example, the 2014/2015 season, which closed on February 20, 2015, was 32 days long and included 5 days of active fishing. Requiring a landings history of king mackerel in any one of the last 10 years to renew a gillnet permit would help ensure the continued participation of those permit holders who actively fish or have done so in the more recent past.
NMFS would notify each king mackerel gillnet permittee to advise them whether the gillnet permit is eligible for renewal based upon NMFS' initial determination of eligibility. If NMFS advises a permittee that the permit is not renewable and they do not agree, a permittee may appeal that initial determination.
NMFS would establish an appeals process to provide a procedure for resolving disputes regarding eligibility to renew the king mackerel gillnet permit. The NMFS National Appeals Office would process any appeals, which would be governed by the regulations and policy of the National Appeals Office at 15 CFR part 906. Appeals would need to be submitted to the National Appeals Office no later than 90 days after the date the initial determination by NMFS is issued. Determinations of appeals would be based on NMFS' logbook records, submitted on or before 30 days after the
In addition to the measures described for Framework Amendment 3, this proposed rule would correct an error in the recreational regulations for king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia. The regulatory text in § 622.388(a)(2), (c)(1), and (e)(1)(i) includes the statement that “the bag and possession limit would also apply in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested,
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Framework Amendment 3, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified.
In general, the proposed rule is not expected to change current reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements on vessel owners. However, the proposed rule would replace the dealer daily electronic reporting requirement with daily reporting by some other means as determined by NMFS. This could involve reporting to a port agent, as used in the past or some more direct method of reporting to managers (
This proposed rule, if implemented, is expected to directly affect commercial fishermen with valid or renewable Federal Gulf king mackerel gillnet permits and dealers purchasing king mackerel from vessels with king mackerel gillnet permits. The Small Business Administration established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including commercial finfish harvesters (NAICS code 114111), seafood dealers/wholesalers (NAICS code 424460), and seafood processors (NAICS code 311710). A business primarily involved in finfish harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. A business involved in seafood purchasing and processing is classified as a small business based on either employment standards or revenue thresholds. A business primarily involved in seafood processing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual employment not in excess of 500 employees for all its affiliated operations worldwide. For seafood dealers/wholesalers, the other qualifiers apply and the employment threshold is 100 employees. The revenue threshold for seafood dealers/wholesalers/processors is $7.5 million.
The Federal commercial king mackerel permit is a limited access permit, which can be transferred or sold, subject to certain conditions. From 2008 through 2014, the number of commercial king mackerel permits decreased from 1,619 in 2008 to 1,478 in 2014, with an average of 1,534 during this period. As of April 30, 2015, there were 1,342 valid or renewable commercial king mackerel permits. The king mackerel gillnet permit, which acts as an endorsement to a commercial king mackerel permit, is also a limited access permit. Its transferability is more restrictive than that for the commercial king mackerel permit. Specifically, it may be transferred only to another vessel owned by the same entity or to an immediate family member. From 2008 through 2014, there were an average of 23 king mackerel gillnet permits. At present, there are 21 valid or renewable king mackerel gillnet permits. Beginning in 2014, a Federal dealer permit has been required to purchase king mackerel (among other species) harvested in the Gulf or South Atlantic. This dealer permit is an open access permit, and as of May 4, 2015, there were 325 such dealer permits.
Of the 21 vessels with king mackerel gillnet permits, 11 to 15 vessels landed king mackerel each year from 2006-2014, or an average of 13 vessels landed king mackerel. These vessels generated a combined average of $544,981 in total ex-vessel revenues. These vessels, together with those that did not catch king mackerel, generated average revenues of $427,258 from other species during 2006-2014. Averaging total revenues across all 21 vessels, the average total revenue per vessel was $46,297 annually.
From 2008 through 2015, the number of dealers that purchased king mackerel from gillnet fishermen ranged from 4 to 6, with an average of 5. On average (2008-2015), these dealers purchased approximately $570,105 (2014 dollars) worth of king mackerel from gillnet fishermen, or an average of $114,021 per dealer. These dealers also purchased other species from Gulf and South Atlantic commercial fishermen, but the total amount cannot be estimated due to the absence of adequate information. The estimated average annual revenue from seafood purchases for dealers with a Gulf and South Atlantic Federal dealer permit is approximately $546,000.
Based on the revenue figures above, all federally permitted vessels and dealers expected to be directly affected by this proposed rule are assumed for the purpose of this analysis to be small business entities.
Because all entities expected to be affected by this proposed rule are assumed to be small entities, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, the issue of disproportionate effects on small versus
Increasing the commercial trip limit would be expected to result in greater king mackerel harvests per vessel per trip. This would directly translate into increased ex-vessel revenues from king mackerel per trip and possibly profits, assuming relatively stable operating costs per trip. However, trip limit increases would be expected to decrease the already limited number of fishing days currently needed to harvest the gillnet portion of the king mackerel quota. Relative to status quo, fewer fishing days would concentrate the same amount of king mackerel over a smaller time interval, possibly depressing the ex-vessel price for king mackerel and canceling out some of the revenue increases expected to result from higher trip limits. Whether the reduction in revenues due to price depression would offset revenue increases from a higher trip limit cannot be determined with available information.
In the last nine fishing years (2006/2007-2014/2015), the king mackerel gillnet quota was exceeded four times although this has not occurred in the last three years. Under the proposed trip limit increase, however, there is some possibility that the quota would be exceeded, and thus the overage provision (payback) would apply with the following year's quota being reduced by the full amount of the overage. The amount of overage would partly depend on how effectively the landings could be monitored. Regardless of the amount of overage and reduction in the following year's quota, the net economic effects of the overage provision could be negative, neutral, or positive, at least over a two-year period. Revenues and profits could be relatively higher if an overage occurred but the following year's revenues and profits could be lower with a reduced quota. It cannot be ascertained which of the three net economic effects would occur.
Replacing the requirement for daily electronic reporting by dealers purchasing gillnet-caught king mackerel with an alternative form of daily reporting would not impose an additional reporting burden on dealers. The replacement reporting requirement would be similar to what had been done in previous years or it could be more efficient in monitoring the amount of landings without changing the burden compared with the current daily electronic reporting requirement. NMFS would work with the dealers in developing such a reporting system to ensure timely reporting of landings at no greater burden to the dealers.
Establishing new renewal requirements for commercial king mackerel gillnet permits based on a landings threshold of one pound would not be expected to result in economic effects other than the potential loss of opportunities to excluded permit holders, should they want to re-enter the gillnet component of the fishery to harvest king mackerel in the future. Of the 21 vessels with valid or renewable gillnet permits, 4 vessels would not meet the renewal requirement. These 4 vessels have not landed any king mackerel using gillnets from 2001 through 2015, and thus have not generated any revenues from such activity. Disallowing these 4 vessels to renew their gillnet permits would have no short-term effects on their revenues and profits. It may also be expected that the remaining vessels in the gillnet component of fishery would not experience revenue increases as a result of eliminating 4 vessels. Despite not having used gillnets to harvest king mackerel, those 4 permit owners have continued to renew their gillnet permits. To an extent, their decision not to exercise their option to re-enter the gillnet component of the fishery in the last 15 years may indicate that they have not undertaken substantial investments,
The following discussion describes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Council.
Four alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were considered for modifying the commercial daily trip limit for gillnet-caught king mackerel. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) trip limit. This alternative would maintain the same economic benefits per trip but at levels lower than those afforded by the preferred alternative. The second alternative, which would increase the trip limit to 35,000 lb (15,876 kg), would yield lower economic benefits per trip than the preferred alternative. The third alternative would remove the trip limit, and thus would be expected to yield higher economic benefits per trip than the preferred alternative. However, it cannot be determined whether the benefits per trip would translate into total benefits because prices, and thus revenues, would tend to be affected by the amount of landings over a certain time period. This price effect would tend to offset any revenue effects from trip limit changes. That is, larger landings over a shorter period, as in the preferred or no trip limit alternatives, would tend to be associated with lower prices, just as smaller landings over a longer period, as in the no action alternative, would tend to be associated with higher prices. The net economic effects of all these alternatives for increasing the trip limit cannot be determined.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were considered for modifying the AM for the gillnet component of the king mackerel fishery. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the in-season AM, which would close king mackerel gillnet fishing in the Florida west coast southern subzone when the quota is met or is projected to be met. This alternative would not alter the level of economic benefits from the harvest of king mackerel by commercial gillnet fishermen. The second alternative would establish an annual catch target (ACT), which is the quota, with various options. The first three options would establish an ACT equal to 95 percent, 90 percent, or 80 percent of the gillnet ACL; the fourth option would set the ACT according to the Gulf Council's ACL/ACT control rule (currently equal to 95 percent of the ACL); and the fifth option, which applies only if an ACT is established, would allow the amount of landings under the quota to be added to the following year's quota but the total quota could not exceed the gillnet ACL. The first four options would result in lower short-term revenues and profits than the preferred alternative by restricting the amount of harvest to less than the gillnet ACL. The fifth option has the potential to yield higher revenues than the preferred alternative, because any unused quota would generate additional revenues in the following year. The absence of an overage provision, however, would have adverse consequences on the status of the king mackerel stock and eventually on vessel revenues and profits. The third alternative, with two options, would establish a payback provision. The first option is the preferred alternative, which would establish a payback provision regardless of the stock status, while the second option
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were considered for modifying the electronic reporting requirements for dealers first receiving king mackerel harvested by gillnets. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the daily electronic reporting requirements. This alternative would not provide timely reporting of landings because some landings reports could not be processed until the next day. The second alternative would remove the daily electronic reporting requirement but would require a weekly electronic reporting instead. While this would be less burdensome to dealers, it would not allow timely reporting of landings, which is necessary to monitor a season that generally lasts for only a few days.
Five alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were considered for renewal requirements for king mackerel gillnet permits. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain all current requirements for renewing king mackerel gillnet permits. This alternative would allow all 21 gillnet permit holders to renew their gillnet permits. The second alternative, with three options, would allow renewal of king mackerel gillnet permits if average landings during 2006-2015 exceed 1 lb (0.45 kg), 10,000 lb (4,536 kg), or 25,000 lb (11,340 kg). The third alternative, with three options, would allow renewal of king mackerel gillnet permits if landings for a single year during 2006-2015 exceed 1 lb (0.45 kg), 10,000 lb (4,536 kg), or 25,000 lb (11,340 kg). This alternative with a landings threshold of 1 lb (0.45 kg) is the preferred alternative. The fourth alternative, with three options, would allow renewal of king mackerel gillnet permits if average landings during 2011-2015 exceed 1 lb (0.45 kg), 10,000 lb (4,536 kg), or 25,000 lb (11,340 kg). The fifth alternative, with three options, would allow renewal of king mackerel gillnet permits if landings for a single year during 2011-2015 exceed 1 lb (0.45 kg), 10,000 lb (4,536 kg), or 25,000 lb (11,340 kg). All these other alternatives, except the no action alternative, would eliminate the same or greater number of vessels than the preferred alternative.
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). NMFS is changing the collection-of-information requirement under OMB Control Number 0648-0013. NMFS estimates that no change to the overall reporting burden would result from modifying the required daily reporting method for dealers that purchase king mackerel caught by gillnets during the fishing season. Instead of submitting an electronic form daily, NMFS would require daily reporting by some other means as developed by NMFS. Other means could involve reporting to the NMFS port agents or some other more direct method of reporting to managers, such as by email or phone. Dealers would report any purchase of king mackerel landed by the gillnet component of the fishery with the current and approved requirement for dealers to report fish purchases on a weekly basis, as specified in 50 CFR 622.5(c). NMFS estimates that this requirement would not change the reporting burden of 10 minutes per response for dealers purchasing king mackerel caught by gillnets. This estimate of the public reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information. NMFS will submit this change request to OMB for approval.
NMFS seeks public comment regarding:
• Whether this proposed collection-of-information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
• The instructions for how to fill out the form or record the information; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection-of-information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection-of-information requirement, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS or to OMB (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved collections of information may be viewed at:
Accountability measure, Annual catch limit, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, King mackerel, Permits, Run-around gillnet.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) A person issued a Gulf and South Atlantic dealer permit must submit a detailed electronic report of all fish first received for a commercial purpose within the time period specified in this paragraph via the dealer electronic trip ticket reporting system. These electronic reports must be submitted at weekly intervals via the dealer electronic trip ticket reporting system by 11:59 p.m., local time, the Tuesday following a reporting week. If no fish were received during a reporting week, an electronic report so stating must be submitted for that reporting week. In addition, during the open season, dealers must submit daily reports for Gulf migratory group king mackerel harvested by the run-around gillnet component in the Florida west coast southern subzone via the port agents, telephone, internet, or other similar means determined by NMFS. From the beginning of the open season until the commercial ACL (commercial quota) for the run-around gillnet sector for Gulf migratory group king mackerel is reached, dealers must submit a daily report if no king mackerel were received during the previous day. NMFS will provide written notice to dealers that first receive Gulf king mackerel
(a) No applications for additional commercial vessel permits for king mackerel will be accepted. Existing vessel permits may be renewed, are subject to the restrictions on transfer or change in paragraph (b) of this section, and are subject to the requirement for timely renewal in paragraph (c) of this section.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) If commercial landings for Gulf migratory group king mackerel caught by run-around gillnet in the Florida west coast southern subzone, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the commercial ACL, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to reduce the commercial ACL for king mackerel harvested by run-around gillnet in the Florida west coast southern subzone in the following fishing year by the amount of the commercial ACL overage in the prior fishing year.
(2)
(c) * * *
(1) If the sum of the commercial and recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, reaches or is projected to reach the stock ACL, as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the commercial and recreational sectors for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale and purchase of Gulf migratory group Spanish mackerel is prohibited and the harvest and possession limit of this species in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) If the sum of all cobia landings, as estimated by the SRD, reaches or is projected to reach the stock quota (stock ACT), specified in § 622.384(d)(1), the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to prohibit the harvest of Gulf migratory group cobia in the Gulf zone for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale and purchase of Gulf migratory group cobia in the Gulf zone is prohibited and the possession limit of this species in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero.
Administrative Conference of the United States.
Notice.
The Administrative Conference of the United States adopted one formal statement at its Sixty-Third Plenary Session. The appended statement addresses “Issue Exhaustion in Preenforcement Judicial Review of Administrative Rulemaking.”
Gisselle Bourns, Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2080.
The Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C. 591-596, established the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Conference studies the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the administrative procedures used by Federal agencies and makes recommendations for improvements to agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States (5 U.S.C. 594(1)). For further information about the Conference and its activities, see
The Conference's Sixty-Third Plenary Session was conducted, for the first time, as a virtual meeting, held via the Internet, in accordance with the Conference's earlier Recommendation, 2011-7, The Federal Advisory Committee Act—Issues and Proposed Reforms. The plenary session was open for participation by Conference members and the public for the period of September 18 through September 25, 2015. The Assembly of the Conference adopted one formal statement. Statement #19, “Issue Exhaustion in Preenforcement Judicial Review of Administrative Rulemaking,” examines judicial application of an issue exhaustion requirement in preenforcement review of administrative rulemaking. It invites courts to consider a series of factors when examining the doctrine of issue exhaustion in the context of preenforcement review of agency rules.
The Appendix below sets forth the full text of this statement. The Conference will transmit the statement to federal agencies, relevant committees of Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States, as appropriate, for their consideration. The statement is not binding, but it represents the collective views of the membership of the Administrative Conference of the United States. The research report prepared for the Conference on this subject is posted at:
The doctrine of issue exhaustion generally bars a litigant challenging agency action from raising issues in court that were not raised first with the agency. Although the doctrine originated in the context of agency adjudication, it has been extended to judicial review of challenges to agency rulemakings. Scholars have observed that issue exhaustion cases “conspicuously lack discussion of whether, when, why, or how [the issue] exhaustion doctrine developed in the context of adjudication should be applied to rulemaking.”
The requirement that parties exhaust their administrative remedies (“remedy exhaustion”) is a familiar feature of U.S. administrative law. This doctrine generally bars a party from appealing a final agency action to a court unless the party exhausts prescribed avenues for relief before the agency.
The related but distinct concept of “issue exhaustion” prevents a party from raising issues in litigation that were not first raised before the agency, even if the petitioner participated in the administrative process.
As the Supreme Court has recognized, “administrative issue-exhaustion requirements are largely creatures of statute.”
Courts have also imposed issue exhaustion requirements in the adjudication context in the absence of an underlying statute or regulation requiring it. The Supreme Court early on characterized the “general rule that courts should not topple over administrative decisions unless the administrative body not only has erred but has erred against objection made at the time appropriate under its practice” as one of “simple fairness,” emphasizing that issue exhaustion promotes orderly procedure and good administration by offering the agency an opportunity to act on objections to its proceedings.
Although the issue exhaustion doctrine originated in the adjudication context, it has been extended to preenforcement review of agency rulemakings. Two statutes have been identified by the Conference as explicitly requiring issue exhaustion for review of agency rules—the Clean Air Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The doctrine has also been extended to the rulemaking context through common law. Despite
Relying on their equitable authority, courts have also fashioned exceptions to the issue exhaustion doctrine.
The Administrative Conference believes that stakeholders, agencies, and courts benefit when issues are raised during rulemaking proceedings with sufficient specificity to give the agency notice and a fair opportunity to address them prior to judicial review.
On the other hand, the Conference also recognizes some practical and doctrinal concerns with uncritically applying issue exhaustion principles developed in the context of formal adversarial agency adjudications to the context of preenforcement rulemaking review.
The Conference has compiled a list of factors—some of which may be dispositive in particular cases—that it invites courts to consider when deciding whether to preclude a litigant from raising issues for the first time
• The issue was raised by a participant in the rulemaking other than the litigant.
• The issue was addressed by the agency on its own initiative in the rulemaking.
• The agency failed to address an issue that was so fundamental to the rulemaking proceeding or to the rule's basis and purpose that the agency had an affirmative responsibility to address it.
• The issue involves an objection that the rule violates the U.S. Constitution.
• It would have been futile to raise the issue during the rulemaking proceeding because the agency clearly indicated that it would not entertain comments on or objections regarding that issue.
• The issue could not reasonably be expected to have been raised during the rulemaking proceeding because of the procedures used by the agency.
• The basis for the objection did not exist at a time when rulemaking participants could raise it in a timely comment.
If an issue exhaustion question arises in litigation, litigants should be given an opportunity to demonstrate that some participant adequately raised the issue during the rulemaking or that circumstances exist to justify not requiring issue exhaustion. And if a court declines to apply issue exhaustion principles to preclude review of new issues, the agency should be given an opportunity to respond to new objections on the merits.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability and request for comments.
We are advising the public that an environmental assessment has been prepared by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service relative to the use of one or more veterinary biological products as a treatment for and as an aid in the reduction of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) incidence caused by strains such as Eurasian H5 viruses of clade 2.3.4.4 lineage. Any biological products would become part of the measures to reduce the incidence of HPAI in the nation's commercial poultry flocks. Based on the environmental assessment, we have concluded that the use of vaccines as described in the environmental assessment will not have a significant impact on the human environment. We are making this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact available to the public for review and comment.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before November 6, 2015.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Donna Malloy, Operational Support Section, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-3426, fax (301) 734-4314.
Under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (21 U.S.C. 151
APHIS issues licenses to qualified establishments that produce veterinary biological products and issues permits to importers of such products. APHIS also enforces requirements concerning production, packaging, labeling, and shipping of these products and sets standards for the testing of these products. Regulations concerning veterinary biological products are contained in 9 CFR parts 101 to 124.
Veterinary biological products meeting the requirements of the regulations may be considered for addition to the U.S. National Veterinary Stockpile (NVS). The NVS is the nation's repository of vaccines and other
The arrival in December 2014 of Eurasian H5 strains of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and their subsequent dissemination in North America caused a catastrophic outbreak in both domestic poultry and avian wildlife. It is thought that wild, migratory waterfowl carried an H5 virus into North America, which generated reassortants (genetic variants resulting from crosses among AI strains) that spilled over into the domestic poultry population. The H5 viruses are likely to persist within the endemic wild, migratory waterfowl population, which is the primary reservoir of the virus. This viral reservoir will continue to pose a significant threat to U.S. poultry and avian collections.
Two poultry production sectors, commercial meat turkeys and laying chickens, were heavily impacted by these H5 viruses, resulting in the loss or destruction of over 48 million birds between December 2014 and June 2015. Response by regulatory agencies combined with migration of wild waterfowl and the natural disinfectant action of the summer heat temporarily halted new disease outbreaks. The return of potentially infected migratory waterfowl in autumn, however, may precipitate a new round of outbreaks on an expanded national scale.
Therefore, we are advising the public that we have prepared an environmental assessment (EA) entitled “For Field Use of Avian Influenza Vaccines Against Avian Influenza H5 Virus Strains (August 2015)” to analyze the potential use of one or more veterinary biological products as a treatment for and as an aid in the reduction of HPAI incidence caused by H5 strain viruses. We are publishing this notice to inform the public that we will accept written comments regarding the EA from interested or affected persons for a period of 30 days from the date of this notice. Based on an individual vaccine's risk analysis and the findings in this EA, APHIS would authorize deployment (including shipment, field testing, addition to the NVS, and use in commercial poultry production) of safe, well-characterized biological products upon making a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).
After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. If APHIS receives substantive comments that were not previously considered, the Agency would consider issuing a supplement to the EA and FONSI. Because timeliness is essential, it is imperative that APHIS authorize shipment and field use of safe, well-characterized vaccines as soon as possible, and possibly prior to the close of the comment period of this notice.
The EA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
21 U.S.C. 151-159.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a revision and an extension of a currently approved information collection that supports 7 CFR part 764. The Direct Loan Making regulations specify the application process and requirements for direct loan assistance. FSA is adding additional information collection to the existing collection to reflect the addition of the Direct Farm Ownership Microloan (DFOML). The collected information is used in eligibility and feasibility determinations on farm loan applications.
We will consider comments that we receive by December 7, 2015.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. In your comments, include date, volume, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Russ Clanton at the above address.
Russ Clanton, (202) 690-0214.
Several changes are being made in the estimates for the burden hours and the number of respondents in anticipation of the new DFOML, which will be implemented through rulemaking. FSA anticipates an increase in the use of the forms. Also, the burden hours have changed due to the removal of the existing collection, which was previously included in error. The specific changes are explained below.
There will be no new or revised forms for DFOMLs. With the planned addition of the DFOML and the new applicants expected to apply for these real estate microloans, FSA anticipates the total burden hours for Direct Loan Making increasing by 1,725 hours. The anticipated 3,530 burden hours for DFOML takes into account the number of regular FO applications normally received for loan requests of $50,000 or less, which have a reduced application process and paperwork burden. The hours for the Land Contract Guarantee
The annual number of responses decreased by 12,751, while the number of respondents increases by 172 in the collection. The annual burden hours increase by 1,725 hours in the collection.
The formula used to calculate the total burden hour is estimated average time per response in hours times total annual responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FSA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of FSA's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension of a currently approved information collection associated with the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) of 1978.
We will consider comments that we receive by December 7, 2015.
We invite you to submit comments on the notice. In your comments, include date, volume, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Lesa A. Johnson at the above addresses.
Lesa A. Johnson, (202) 720-9223.
The formula used to calculate the total burden hour is estimated average time per responses hours times total annual responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the FSA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the FSA's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
Signed by
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a new collection for a study of USDA Foods in Schools Cost Dynamics.
Written comments on this notice must be received on or before December 7, 2015.
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, 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 use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to: Dennis Ranalli, Policy Analyst, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Dennis Ranalli at 703-305-2576 or via email to
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, Virginia 22301.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Dennis Ranalli at 703-305-2149.
Abstract: USDA Foods play an important role in school meals and may contribute up to 20% of the foods served in school meals through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). States and School Food Authorities (SFAs) receive a USDA Foods entitlement to acquire products offered through the USDA Foods program. USDA Foods can be directly delivered from USDA's vendor to state warehouses, distributors, buying cooperatives, or SFAs. Fruits and vegetables can be requisitioned through the Department of Defense (DoD) Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. Bulk USDA Foods can be sent directly to a processor to create final products for use in school meals.
An SFA's costs of using USDA Foods begin with how it spends its entitlement, which is managed by State Distribution Agencies (SDAs). SFAs incur additional costs to obtain USDA Foods for procurement, storage, distribution and administration. These functions are performed by a variety of agencies involved in this process (FNS, SDAs, storage/distribution contractors, SFAs and schools). SDAs may absorb some of these costs. Finally, the model of contracting with food processors may affect the full cost of USDA Foods to SFAs—whether the contract is a payment for final product (with a rebate or discount for the SFA) or a payment for service,
While several USDA-funded studies have examined SFA food purchasing practices and have compared foods purchased by SFAs with commercial products, very little research has focused specifically on the full cost of USDA Foods used in school meals. The most recent study on this topic, and the model for the current study, is the State Commodity Distribution System study covering the 1985-86 school year.
The proposed study will examine the variety of factors that determine the cost and value of USDA Foods to local school and school district food programs. The objectives of the study are to (1) identify distribution models (including procurement, transportation, storage and delivery) used by 49 states and the District of Columbia to distribute USDA Foods to schools; (2) identify 4 to 10 procurement and distribution models that represent the state systems used in School Year (SY) 2015-16; and (3) develop cost estimates for a group of USDA Foods, full processed products made from USDA Foods, and comparable commercial products.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to revise the Carson National Forest Land Management Plan and prepare an associated Environmental Impact Statement.
As directed by the National Forest Management Act, the USDA Forest Service is revising the existing Carson National Forest's Land Management Plan (hereafter referred to as forest plan) through development of an associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This Notice describes the documents (Assessment Report of Ecological, Social, and Economic Conditions, Trends, and Sustainability for the Carson NF; Summaries of Public Meetings; and Carson NF's Needs to Change Management Direction of Its Existing 1986 Forest Plan) available for review and how to obtain them; summarizes the needs to change the existing forest plan; provides information concerning public participation and engagement, including the process for submitting comments; provides an estimated schedule for the planning process, including the time available for comments, and includes the names and addresses of agency contacts who can provide additional information.
Comments concerning the Needs to Change and Proposed Action provided in this Notice will be most useful in the development of the draft revised plan and draft EIS if received by November 20, 2015. The agency expects to release a draft revised plan and draft EIS, developed through a collaborative public engagement process, by late Fall/Winter 2016 and a final revised plan and final EIS by Spring 2018.
Send written comments to Carson National Forest, Attn: Plan Revision, 208 Cruz Alta Road, Taos, New Mexico 87571. Comments may also be sent via email to
Kevin Naranjo, Forest Planner, 575-758-6221. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
More information on the planning process can also be found on the Carson National Forest's Web site at
James Duran, Forest Supervisor, Carson National Forest, 208 Cruz Alta, Taos, New Mexico 87571.
The Carson National Forest (NF) is preparing an EIS to revise the existing forest plan. The EIS process is meant to inform the Forest Supervisor so he can
The revised forest plan will describe the strategic intent of managing the Carson NF for the next 15 years and will address the needs to change the existing forest plan. The revised forest plan will provide management direction in the form of desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability of lands. It will identify delineation of new management areas and geographic areas across the Forest; identify the timber sale program quantity; potentially make recommendations to Congress for Wilderness designation; and list rivers and streams eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The revised forest plan will also provide a description of the plan area's distinctive roles and contributions within the broader landscape, identify watersheds that are a priority for maintenance or restoration, include a monitoring program, and contain information reflecting expected possible actions over the life of the plan.
The revised forest plan will provide strategic direction and a framework for decision making during the life of the plan, but it will not make site-specific project decisions and will not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry on the Forest Service's internal operations. The authorization of project level activities will be based on the guidance/direction contained in the revised plan, but will occur through subsequent project specific decision-making, including NEPA.
The revised forest plan will provide broad, strategic guidance that is consistent with other laws and regulations. Though strategic guidance will be provided, no decisions will be made regarding the management of individual roads or trails, such as those might be associated with a Travel Management plan under 36 CFR part 212. Some issues (
According to the National Forest Management Act and 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219), forest plans are to be revised at least every 15 years. The Proposed Action is to revise the forest plan in order to address the needs to change that were identified through public involvement and the assessment process. Alternatives to the Proposed Action will be developed to address the significant issues that are identified through scoping.
The purpose and need for revising the current Carson NF forest plan are: (1) To update the forest plan, which was approved in 1986 and is 29 years old; (2) to reflect changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions, new policies and priorities, and new information based on monitoring and scientific research; and (3) to address the needs to change the existing forest plan, that are summarized below. Extensive public and employee involvement, along with science-based evaluations, have helped to identify these needs to change to the existing forest plan.
What follows is a summary of the identified needs to change. A more fully developed description of the needs to change statements, which has been organized into several resource and management topic sections, is available for review on the plan revision Web site at:
There is a need for the revised plan to better recognize and enhance the Carson NF's role in contributing to local economies, including service-based sectors, such as recreation and tourism, timber and forest products, livestock grazing, and other multiple-use related activities and products.
There is a need to reevaluate management areas in the current plan, to minimize complexity and allow more flexibility for restoration and habitat treatments, as well as update plan content regarding the resources, goods, and services provided by the Carson NF.
There is a need to include plan direction that allows for adaptive management, to address potential climate change effects.
There is a need to develop plan direction related to Forest Service land acquisitions, disposals, and exchanges that are not covered by the existing forest plan.
There is a need to include other plan content or management approaches that: (1) Consider the capacity of local infrastructure, contractors, and markets in moving toward achieving desired conditions; (2) utilize partnership and volunteer opportunities as a management option, to promote movement toward desired conditions; and (3) allow for adapting to fluctuations in forest budgets over the life of the plan, in moving toward achieving desired conditions.
There is a need to develop desired conditions regarding forest and woodland structure, composition, and function, as well as objectives, standards, and guidelines that will promote restoration and achievement of desired conditions; support resiliency and sustainability; and minimize risks to ecosystem integrity.
There is a need to update plan direction to promote the restoration and maintenance of grass productivity, particularly native bunchgrass species, and to limit woody species encroachment and invasive plant establishment, both in grasslands and non-grasslands.
There is a need to update plan direction that supports integrated pest (weed) management.
There is a need to update plan direction which allows for an integrated resource approach to prescribed fire activity, as well as flexibility for restoration and maintenance of ecosystems.
There is a need to update plan direction to promote the use of wildland fire (management of wildfire and prescribed fire) in fire adapted ecosystems, while addressing public safety and health concerns.
There is a need to update plan direction to promote aspen health and resilience through managing regeneration and existing stands.
There is a need to update plan direction to promote the maintenance and restoration of soil condition and function (
There is a need to provide plan direction that promotes the protection, restoration and maintenance of appropriate composition and amount of riparian vegetation.
There is a need to provide plan direction regarding management of riparian areas around all lakes, perennial and intermittent streams, and wetlands.
There is a need to provide plan direction that promotes the protection, restoration, and maintenance of wetland condition and function.
There is a need to provide plan direction for the restoration of watersheds.
There is a need to provide plan direction for the sustainable management of water resources (
There is a need to update plan direction on managing for sustainable watersheds for multiple uses (
There is a need to update plan direction to promote desired watershed conditions that maintain water quality and quantity, as well as enhance retention.
There is a need to update plan direction to promote the recovery and conservation of federally recognized species, the maintenance of viable populations of the species of conservation concern, and the maintenance of common and abundant species within the plan area.
There is a need to provide plan direction to address sustainability of habitat(s) for plant and animal species important to tribes and traditional communities.
There is a need to provide plan direction for managing towards terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic habitat connectivity for species movement across the landscape.
There is a need to provide plan direction that allows for improving aquatic passage in streams where it has been compromised. Plan direction should promote the restoration and expansion of the range of native aquatic species and connectivity of fragmented populations.
There is a need to provide plan direction that allows for an assortment of management approaches, including timber harvest, thinning, prescribed burning, and other vegetation management methods, to provide wildlife habitat for species that need a variety of forest habitats, such as interior, edge, young, and old forest.
There is a need to update plan direction for Native American traditional cultural properties and sacred sites and places, and non-Native American traditional cultural properties.
There is a need to provide plan direction addressing management of historic and contemporary cultural and traditional uses, including both economic and non-economic uses for tribes, and for traditional communities not considered under tribal relations (
There is a need to update plan direction addressing consistency of activities with legally mandated trust responsibilities to tribes.
There is a need to update plan direction orders, to ensure privacy for tribes engaged in cultural and ceremonial activities.
There is a need to update plan direction on design, location, installation, maintenance, and abandonment of towers, facilities, and alternative infrastructure within electronic communication sites, while giving due consideration to the value and importance of areas that may be identified as a sacred site or part of an important cultural landscape by tribes.
There is a need to provide plan direction for the management of commercial and noncommercial use of forest products.
There is a need to provide plan direction for the livestock grazing program that incorporates adaptive management, to move towards ecosystem-based desired conditions.
There is a need to update plan direction to promote the sustainable management of wild horses.
There is a need to provide plan direction that promotes sustainable recreation management and to include management approaches within the revised plan to address user conflicts and demands in moving toward achieving recreation desired conditions.
There is a need to provide guidance for recreation activities that occur in areas sensitive to resource degradation or at risk, due to high visitation.
There is a need to update plan direction for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.
There is a need to update plan direction and guidance for incorporating the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classifications the Scenery Management System integrity objectives across all programs areas.
There is a need to update plan direction for over-snow vehicle use and the recreation special uses program.
There is a need to update plan direction for managing existing designated areas, including designated wilderness, research natural areas, and designated and eligible wild and scenic rivers, that promote the maintenance of desired values and characteristics unique to each area, as well as newly designated or potential designated areas.
There is a need to provide plan direction for maintenance of transportation systems in watersheds identified as impaired or at-risk and for the reclamation of non-system roads.
There is a need to update plan direction to address legal access for public, private landowner, and tribal needs and management, to promote contiguity of the land base and for reducing small unmanageable tracts of National Forest System lands.
There is a need to update plan direction for recreational mining-related activities and the permitted use of common mineral materials.
There is a need to update plan direction for existing or proposed transmission corridors and renewable energy generation, including solar, biomass, and geothermal, while protecting natural resources, heritage and sacred sites, tribal traditional activities, and scenery.
A Notice of initiating the assessment phase of forest plan revision for the Carson NF was published in the
Written comments received in response to this Notice will be analyzed to complete the identification of the needs for change to the existing plan, further develop the proposed action, and identify potential significant issues. Significant issues will, in turn, form the basis for developing alternatives to the proposed action. Comments on the Needs to Change the Forest Plan and Proposed Action will be most valuable if received by November 20, 2015, and should clearly articulate the reviewer's issues and concerns. Comments received in response to this Notice, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered in the NEPA process; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents. See the below Objection Process description, particularly the requirements for filing an objection, on how anonymous comments are handled during the objection process. Refer to the Carson NF's Web site at
Preparation of the revised forest plan for the Carson NF began with the assessment of the conditions and trends of the Forest's ecological, social, and economic resources, initiated under the planning procedures contained in the 2012 Forest Service planning rule (36 CFR 219 (2012)).
No permits or licenses are needed for the development or revision of a forest plan.
The proposed decision to approve the revised forest plan for the Carson NF will be subject to the objection process identified in 36 CFR part 219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). According to 36 CFR 219.53(a), those who may file an objection are individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to plan revision, during the opportunities provided for public comment throughout the planning process.
The (1) Assessment Report of Ecological, Social, and Economic Conditions, Trends, and Sustainability for the Carson National Forest and (2) Carson National Forest's Needs to Change Management Direction of Its Existing 1986 Forest Plan, as well as summaries of the public meetings and public meeting materials, and public comments are posted on the Carson NF's Web site at:
16 U.S.C. 1600-1614; 36 CFR part 219 [77 FR 21260-21273].
The responsible official for revision of the Carson NF's forest plan is Forest Supervisor James Duran, Carson National Forest, 208 Cruz Alta Road, Taos, New Mexico 87571.
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 and other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by November 6, 2015 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commentors 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.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of Intent to Re-establish the Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee call for nominations.
The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) intends to re-establish the charter for the Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee (Committee). The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary and to the Federal Interagency Partnership on how the Partnership can best fulfill its duties pursuant to Executive Order 13057 to protect the extraordinary natural, recreational, and ecological resources in the Lake Tahoe Region. The Secretary has determined that the work of the Committee is in the public interest and relevant to the duties of the Department of Agriculture. Therefore, the Secretary continuously seeks nominations to fill vacancies on the Committee. Additional information concerning the Committee can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at:
Nominations must be received on or before November 23, 2015. Nominations must contain a completed application packet that includes the nominee's name, resume, and completed Form AD-755, Advisory Committee or Research and Promotion Background Information. The Form AD-755 may be obtained from the Forest Service contact person or from the following Web site:
Send nominations and applications to Lynn Wright, Acting Partnership/FACA Coordinator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150.
Lynn Wright, Acting Partnership/FACA Coordinator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150, or by phone at 530-543-2627, or by email at
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Secretary of Agriculture intends to re-establish the Committee. The Committee will be a discretionary advisory committee. The Committee will operate under the provisions of FACA and will report to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Chief of the Forest Service.
The Committee provides a critical role in advising the Secretary of Agriculture and the Lake Tahoe Federal Interagency Partnership on coordinating federal programs to achieve the goals of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program.
The Committee charter and membership is renewed every two years. The members will represent a broad array of interests in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Council will be comprised of not more than 20 members. Two representatives will be selected as members-at-large, and one representative will be selected from each of the following sectors:
Of these members, one will become the Chairperson who is recognized for their ability to lead a group in a fair and focused manner and who has been briefed on the mission of this Committee. The Committee meets twice a year, but may meet as often as necessary to complete its business. The appointment of members to the Committee is made by the Secretary of Agriculture. Any individual or organization may nominate one or more qualified persons to represent the above vacancies on the Committee. Individuals may also nominate themselves. To be considered for membership, nominees must provide:
1. Resume describing qualifications for membership to the Committee;
2. Cover letter with a rationale for serving on the Committee and what they can contribute;
3. Show their past experience in working successfully as part of a coordinating group;
4. Complete Form AD-755, Advisory Committee or Research and Promotion Background Information; and
5. Letters of recommendation are welcome.
All nominations will be vetted by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). A list of qualified applicants from which the Secretary of Agriculture shall appoint to the Committee will be prepared. Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit nominations priority mail via United States Post Office to ensure timely receipt by the USDA. Members of the Committee will serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for travel expenses while performing duties on behalf of the Committee, subject to approval by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO).
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies shall be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendation of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Departments, membership should
10:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. November 6, 2015.
Harrisburg Hilton and Towers, One North Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101.
The meeting will be open to the public.
Rich Janati, Administrator of the Commission, at 717-787-2163.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before December 7, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Cleo Henderson, U.S. Census Bureau, National Processing Center, Jeffersonville, Indiana 47132; phone: (812) 218-3434; or:
Age Search is a service provided by the U.S. Census Bureau for persons who need official transcripts of personal data as proof of age for pensions, retirement plans, medicare, and social security. The transcripts are also used as proof of citizenship to obtain passports or to provide evidence of family relationship for rights of inheritance. The Age Search forms are used by the public in order to provide the Census Bureau with the necessary information to conduct a search of historical population decennial census records in order to provide the requested transcript. The Age Search service is self-supporting and is funded by the fees collected from the individuals requesting the service.
The Form BC-600, Application for Search of Census Records, is a public use form that is submitted by applicants requesting information from the decennial census records. Applicants are requested to enclose the appropriate fee by check or money order with the completed and signed Form BC-600 or BC-600sp and return by mail to the U.S. Census Bureau, Post Office Box 1545, Jeffersonville, Indiana 47131. The Form BC-649 (L), which is called a “Not Found”, advises the applicant that the search for information from the census records was unsuccessful. The BC-658 (L) is sent to the applicant when insufficient information has been received on which to base a search of the census records. These two forms request additional information from the applicant to aid in the search of census records.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology .
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before December 7, 2015.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Mike Benton, U.S. Census Bureau, 5H022D, Washington DC 20233, 301-763-2860 (or via email at
The Census Bureau presently operates a generic clearance covering activities involving respondent burden associated with updating our Master Address File (MAF) and Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) Database (MTdb). The MTdb is the Census Bureau's integrated address geographic database. We now propose to extend the generic clearance to cover update activities we will undertake during the next three fiscal years.
Under the terms of the generic clearance, we plan to submit a request for OMB approval that will describe, in general terms, all planned activities for the entire period. We will provide information to OMB at least two weeks before the planned start of each activity giving more exact details, examples of forms, and final estimates of respondent burden. We also will file a year-end summary with OMB after the close of each fiscal year giving results of each activity conducted. The generic clearance enables OMB to review our overall strategy for MTdb updating in advance, instead of reviewing each activity in isolation shortly before the planned start.
The Census Bureau used the addresses in the MTdb for mailing and delivering questionnaires to households during the 2010 Census and will do so for the 2020 Census. These addresses are also used as a sampling frame for our demographic current surveys. Prior to Census 2000, the Census Bureau built a new address list for each decennial census. The MTdb built for the 2010 Census is designed to be kept up-to-date, thereby eliminating the need to develop a completely new address list for future censuses and surveys. The Census Bureau plans to use the MTdb for post-Census 2010 evaluations and as a sampling frame for the American Community Survey and our other demographic current surveys. The TIGER component of the MTdb is a geographic system that maps the entire country in Census Blocks with applicable address ranges or living quarter location information. The MTdb allows us to assign each address to the appropriate Census Block, produce maps as needed and publish results at the appropriate level of geographic detail. The following are descriptions of activities we plan to conduct under the clearance for the next three fiscal years. The Census Bureau has conducted these activities (or similar ones) previously and the respondent burden remains relatively unchanged from one time to another. The estimated number of respondents is based on historical contact data, and applied to the number of Census Blocks in sample.
The Demographic Area Address Listing (DAAL) program encompasses the geographic area updates for the Community Address Updating System (CAUS) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the area and group quarters frame listings for many ongoing demographic surveys (the Current Population Survey, the Consumer Expenditures Survey, etc.), and any other operations which choose to use the Listing and Mapping Application (LiMA) for evaluations, assessments, or to collect updates for the MTdb. Note that LiMA replaced the Automated Listing and Mapping System (ALMI). The CAUS program was designed to address quality concerns relating to areas with high concentrations of noncity-style addresses, and to provide a rural counterpart to the update of city-style addresses the Census Bureau will receive from the U.S. Postal Services's Delivery Sequence File. The ongoing demographic surveys, as part of the 2000 Sample Redesign Program, use the MTdb as one of several sources of addresses from which they select their samples.
The DAAL program is a cooperative effort among many divisions at the Census Bureau; it includes automated listing software, systems, and procedures that will allow us to conduct listing operations in a dependent manner based on information contained in the MTdb. The DAAL operations will be conducted on an ongoing basis in potentially any county across the country. Field Representatives (FRs) will canvass selected 2010 Census tabulation blocks in an effort to improve the address list in areas where substantial address changes may have occurred that have not been added to the MTdb through regular update operations, and/or in blocks in the area or group quarters frame sample for the demographic surveys. FRs will update existing address information and, when necessary, contact individuals to collect accurate location and mailing address information. In general, contact with a household will occur only when the FR is adding a unit to the address list, there is a missing mailing address flag, and/or the individual's address is not posted or visible to the FR. There is no pre-determined or scripted list of questions asked for households as part of this listing operation. If an address is not posted or visible to the FR, the FR will ask about the address of the structure, the mailing address, and, in some instances, the year the structure was built. If the occupants of these households are not at home, the FR may attempt to contact a neighbor to obtain the correct address information. DAAL will collect Group Quarters (GQ) information from all GQs in the selected blocks, there is not scripted list of questions, the FRs will ask information about the GQ such as the number of beds, the GQ name, and so on.
DAAL is an ongoing operation. Listing assignments are distributed quarterly with the work conducted throughout the time period. We expect the DAAL listing operation will be conducted throughout the entire time period of the extension.
The MAF Coverage Study (MAFCS) is an ongoing Address Canvassing operation designed to produce MAF
The primary method of data collection for most operations/evaluations will be personal observation or personal interview by FRs using the operation/evaluation's listing form or questionnaire. In some cases, the interview could be by telephone callback if no one was home during the initial visit.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) for the administrative review and new shipper reviews is September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014. The Department preliminarily determines that China Kingdom (Beijing) Import & Export Co., Ltd. (China Kingdom), Deyan Aquatic Products and Food Co., Ltd. (Deyan Aquatic), Hubei Yuesheng Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (Hubei Yuesheng), and Weishan Hongda Aquatic Food Co., Ltd (Weishan Hongda) have not made sales of subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value. With respect to Shanghai Ocean Flavor International Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Ocean), see section below entitled “
Effective Date: October 7, 2015.
Hermes Pinilla (China Kingdom), Andre Gziryan (Deyan Aquatic), Bryan Hansen (Hubei Yuesheng) or Catherine Cartsos (Weishan Hongda), AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477, (202) 482-2201, (202) 482-3683, or (202) 482-1757, respectively.
The merchandise subject to the antidumping duty order is freshwater crawfish tail meat, which is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10, 1605.40.10.90, 0306.19.00.10, and 0306.29.00.00. On February 10, 2012, the Department added HTSUS classification number 0306.29.01.00 to the scope description pursuant to a request by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). While the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.
The Department conducted these reviews in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export Price is calculated in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy (NME) within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
Shanghai Ocean is the only exporter of crawfish tail meat from the PRC that demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate which was not selected for individual examination in this administrative review. The calculated rates of the respondents selected for individual examination are all zero. We conclude that, in this case a reasonable method for determining the rate for the non-selected company, Shanghai Ocean, is to apply the average of the zero margins calculated for the two mandatory respondents in the administrative review, China Kingdom and Deyan Aquatic. For a detailed discussion,
The Department determines that the following preliminary dumping margins exist for the administrative review covering the period September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014:
As a result of the new shipper reviews, the Department preliminarily determines that dumping margins of 0.00 percent exist for merchandise produced and exported by Hubei Yuesheng Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. and for merchandise produced and exported by Weishan Hongda Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. covering the period September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014.
The Department will disclose calculations performed in these preliminary results to parties within five days after the date of publication of this notice.
Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS which is available to registered users at
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of these reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised by parties in their comments, within 120 days after the publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Upon issuing the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by these reviews.
Pursuant to the Department's assessment practice in NME cases,
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these reviews for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of these reviews (except if the rate is zero or
With respect to Hubei Yuesheng, a new shipper respondent, the Department established a combination cash deposit rate for this company
With respect to Weishan Hongda, a new shipper respondent, the Department established a combination cash deposit rate for this company consistent with its practice as follows: (1) For subject merchandise produced and exported by Weishan Hongda, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for Weishan Hongda in the final results of the NSR; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Weishan Hongda, but not produced by Weishan Hongda, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for subject merchandise produced by Weishan Hongda but not exported by Weishan Hongda, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during these PORs. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing the preliminary results of these reviews in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B)(iv), 751(a)(3), 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), 351.214 and 351.221(b)(4).
Notice of Issuance of an Amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to DFA of California, Application no. 14-1A004.
The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (“OTEA”) of the International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to DFA of California on September 17, 2015. The original Certificate was issued on March 2, 2015.
Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2015). OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary to publish a summary of the certificate in the
Description of the Amendment to the Certificate: Add the following six companies as Members of DFA's Certificate, with respect to the covered products listed below:
• Walnuts: CR Crain and Sons, Inc. (Los Molinos, CA); RPC Packing, Inc. (Porterville, CA); CAPEX (Corning, CA)
• Prunes: Taylor Brothers Farms, Inc (Yuba City, CA); RPC Packing, Inc. (Porterville, CA); Sun-Maid Growers of California (Kingsburg, CA)
• Figs: Fig Garden Packing, Inc. (Fresno, CA)
DFA's Export Trade Certificate of Review complete amended Membership is listed below:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from Taiwan. The review covers two producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The Department selected one mandatory respondent for individual examination, Roung Shu Industry Corporation (Roung Shu). The POR is September 1, 2013, through August 31, 2014. We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise to the United States have been made at prices below normal value (NV). We invite all interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective date: October 7, 2015.
David Crespo or Alice Maldonado, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3693 and (202) 482-4682, respectively.
The merchandise subject to this order covers narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge.
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address what rate to apply to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for non-selected respondents that are not examined individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for individually-examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero,
For these preliminary results, we calculated a zero margin for Roung Shu. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that, consistent with section 735(c)(5)(B), we will assign A-Madeus Textile Ltd. (A-Madeus), the respondent not selected for individual examination, the most recent above
The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:
The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, no later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), unless this deadline is extended.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above
We intend to issue liquidation instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above will be equal to the dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review, unless the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined
Cindy Robinson or George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.
The merchandise covered by the
The Department is conducting this review in accordance with Section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (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 we disregarded the below-cost sales of Kokuyo Riddhi in the most recent administrative review of these companies completed before the initiation of this review,
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, please see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
SAB reported that it made no sales to the home market.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margins for the POR:
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above
In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification,
We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Kokuyo Riddhi and SAB will be the rates established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 3.91 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.
The Department intends to disclose to interested parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days after the publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of intent to conduct scoping, hold public scoping meetings and to prepare a draft environmental impact statement and management plan.
In accordance with section 304(a) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended, (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431
Comments must be received by January 15, 2016. Public scoping meetings will be held as detailed below:
Comments may be submitted by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Ellen Brody, Great Lakes Regional Coordinator, 734-741-2270,
The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to designate and protect as national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment that are of special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities. Day-to-day management of national marine sanctuaries has been delegated by the Secretary to ONMS. The primary objective of the NMSA is to protect the biological and cultural resources of the sanctuary system, such as coral reefs, marine animals, historic shipwrecks, historic structures, and archaeological sites.
The area being considered for designation as a national marine sanctuary is a region that includes 875 square miles of Lake Michigan waters and bottomlands adjacent to Manitowoc, Sheboygan, and Ozaukee counties and the cities of Port Washington, Sheboygan, Manitowoc, and Two Rivers. It includes 80 miles of
This collection of shipwrecks is nationally significant because of the architectural and archaeological integrity of the shipwrecks, the representative nature of the sample of vessels, their location on one of the nation's most important transportation corridors, and the potential for the discovery of other shipwrecks and submerged pre-contact cultural sites. The historic shipwrecks are representative of the vessels that sailed and steamed this corridor, carrying grain and raw materials east as other vessels came west loaded with coal. Many of the shipwrecks retain an unusual degree of architectural integrity, with 15 vessels that are intact. NOAA encourages the public to review the full nomination at
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, on behalf of the State of Wisconsin; the Cities of Two Rivers, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, and Port Washington; the Counties of Manitowoc, Sheboygan, and Ozaukee submitted a nomination to NOAA on December 2, 2014 through the Sanctuary Nomination Process (SNP) (79 FR 33851) asking NOAA to consider designating this area of Wisconsin's Lake Michigan waters as a national marine sanctuary. The State of Wisconsin's selection of this geographic area for the nomination drew heavily from a 2008 report conducted by the Wisconsin History Society and funded by the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (
NOAA is initiating the process to designate this area as a national marine sanctuary based on the nomination submitted to the agency as part of the SNP. NOAA's review of the nomination against the criteria and considerations of the SNP, including the requirement for broad-based community support indicated strong merit in proposing this area as a national marine sanctuary. NOAA completed its review of the nomination on February 5, 2015, and added the area to the inventory of nominations that are eligible for designation. Designation under the NMSA would allow NOAA to supplement and complement work by the State of Wisconsin and other federal agencies to protect this collection of nationally significant shipwrecks.
The process for designating the Wisconsin-Lake Michigan area as a national marine sanctuary includes the following stages:
1. Public Scoping Process— Information collection and characterization, including the consideration of public comments received during scoping;
2. Preparation and release of draft designation documents including a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) that identifies boundary alternatives, a draft management plan (DMP), as well as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to define proposed sanctuary regulations. Draft documents would be used to initiate consultations with federal, state, or local agencies and other interested parties, as appropriate;
3. Public review and comment on the DEIS, DMP and NPRM;
4. Preparation and release of a final environmental impact statement, final management plan, including a response to public comments, with a final rule and regulations, if appropriate.
With this notice, NOAA is initiating a public scoping process to:
1. Gather information and public comments from individuals, organizations, and government agencies on the designation of the Wisconsin-Lake Michigan area as a national marine sanctuary based on the community-based nomination of December 2014, especially: (a) The spatial extent of the proposed boundary; and (b) the resources that would be protected;
2. Help determine the scope and significance of issues to be addressed in the preparation of an environmental analysis under NEPA including socioeconomic impacts of designation, effects of designation on cultural and biological resources, and threats to resources within the proposed area;
3. Help determine the proposed action and possible alternatives pursuant to NEPA and to conduct any appropriate consultations.
This notice confirms that NOAA will fulfill its responsibility under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) through the ongoing NEPA process, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(a) including the use of NEPA documents and public and stakeholder meetings to meet the section 106 requirements. The NHPA specifically applies to any agency undertaking that may affect historic properties. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.16(1)(1), historic properties includes: “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. The term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria.”
In fulfilling its responsibility under the NHPA and NEPA, NOAA intends to identify consulting parties; identify historic properties and assess the effects of the undertaking on such properties; initiate formal consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation, and other consulting parties; involve the public in accordance with NOAA's NEPA procedures, and develop in consultation with identified consulting parties alternatives and proposed measures that might avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties and describe them in any environmental assessment or draft environmental impact statement.
16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that a major amendment to Permit No. 14450-03 has been issued to the National Marine Fisheries Service's Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149 [Responsible Party: Bonnie Ponwith, Ph.D.].
The permit amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.
Jennifer Skidmore or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
On July 9, 2015, notice was published in the
The permit amendment authorizes takes by harassment of non-ESA listed cetaceans during vessel surveys to support NMFS stock assessments as follows: 40 Bryde's whales (
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of a proposal to conduct exempted fishing; request for comments.
The Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, has made a preliminary determination that the subject exempted fishing permit (EFP) application submitted by Limuli Laboratories of Cape May Court House, NJ, contains all the required information and warrants further consideration. The proposed EFP would allow the harvest of up to 10,000 horseshoe crabs from the Carl N. Shuster Jr. Horseshoe Crab Reserve (Reserve) for biomedical purposes and require, as a condition of the EFP, the collection of data related to the status of horseshoe crabs within the reserve. The Director has also made a preliminary determination that the activities authorized under the EFP would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Horseshoe Crab Interstate Fisheries Management Plan (FMP). However, further review and consultation may be necessary before a final determination is made to issue the EFP. Therefore, NMFS announces that the Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, proposes to recommend that an EFP be issued that would allow up to two commercial fishing vessels to conduct fishing operations that are otherwise restricted by the regulations promulgated under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act). The EFP would allow for an exemption from the Reserve.
Regulations under the Atlantic Coastal Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.
Written comments on this action must be received on or before October 19, 2015.
Written comments should be sent to Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13362, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Horseshoe Crab EFP Proposal.” Comments may also be sent via fax to (301) 713-0596. Comments on this notice may also be submitted by email to:
Derek Orner, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, (301) 427-8567.
Limuli Laboratories submitted an application for an EFP dated January 31, 2014, to collect up to 10,000 horseshoe crabs for biomedical and data collection purposes from the Reserve. The applicant has applied for, and received, a similar EFP every year from 2001-2013. The current EFP application specifies that: (1) The same methods would be used that were used in years 2001-2013, (2) at least 15 percent of the bled horseshoe crabs would be tagged, and (3) there had not been any sighting or capture of marine mammals or endangered species in the trawling nets of fishing vessels engaged in the collection of horseshoe crabs since 1993. The project submitted by Limuli Laboratories would provide morphological data on horseshoe crab catch, would tag a portion of the caught horseshoe crabs, and would use the blood from the caught horseshoe crabs to manufacture Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL), an important health and safety product used for the detection of endotoxins. The LAL assay is used by medical professionals, drug companies, and pharmacies to detect endotoxins in intravenous pharmaceuticals and medical devices that come into contact with human blood or spinal fluid.
During the 2013 season, a total of 3,500 horseshoe crabs were gathered over a period of ten days, from the Reserve for the manufacture of LAL. After transportation to the laboratory, the horseshoe crabs were inspected for size, injuries, and responsiveness. The injured horseshoe crabs numbered 272, or 7.8% of the total, while 36, or 1.0%, were noted as slow moving. In addition, three horseshoe crabs were rejected due to small size. Overall, 3,189 horseshoe crabs were used (bled) in the manufacture of LAL. Two hundred of the bled horseshoe crabs were randomly selected for activity, morphometric and aging studies. The activity level was categorized as “active” for 192 studied animals and “extremely active” for eight. Morphometric studies noted that average inter-ocular distances, the prosoma widths and the weights of these 200 horseshoe crabs trended toward the higher end of the range established over the study period (2001-2011). Of the 200 horseshoe crabs examined in 2013, more than half (57%) were categorized as medium aged followed by young (37%). Older animals numbered 10 or 5% which is much less than the percentages reported in 2010 and 2011 and similar to the 2007 year.
The 200 studied horseshoe crabs and 325 additional bled horseshoe crabs were tagged and released into the Delaware Bay. To date, 116 live re-sightings have occurred from the release of 5,463 horseshoe crabs collected from the Reserve. The observed horseshoe crabs were found 1 to 8 years after release, primarily along the Delaware Bay shores during their spawning season.
Data collected under previous EFPs were supplied to NMFS, the Commission and the State of New Jersey. There was no EFP issued for 2014.
Limuli Laboratories proposes to conduct an exempted fishery operation in 2015 using the same means, methods, and seasons proposed/utilized during the EFPs in 2001-2013. Limuli proposes to annually continue to tag at least 15 percent of the bled horseshoe crabs as they did in 2013. NMFS would require that the following terms and conditions be met for issuance of the EFP for 2015:
1. Limiting the number of horseshoe crabs collected in the Reserve to no more than 500 crabs per day and to a total of no more than 10,000 crabs per year;
2. Requiring collections to take place over a total of approximately 20 days during the months of July, August, September, October, and November. (Horseshoe crabs are readily available in harvestable concentrations nearshore earlier in the year, and offshore in the Reserve from July through November.);
3. Requiring that a 5
4. Limiting trawl tow times to 30 minutes as a conservation measure to protect sea turtles, which are expected to be migrating through the area during the collection period, and are vulnerable to bottom trawling;
5. Requiring that the collected horseshoe crabs be picked up from the fishing vessels at docks in the Cape May Area and transported to local laboratories, bled for LAL, and released alive the following morning into the Lower Delaware Bay; and
6. Requiring that any turtle take be reported to NMFS, Northeast Region, Assistant Regional Administrator of Protected Resources Division, within 24 hours of returning from the trip in which the incidental take occurred.
As part of the terms and conditions of the EFP, for all horseshoe crabs bled for LAL, NMFS would require that the EFP holder provide data annually on sex ratio and daily harvest. Also, the EFP holder would be required to examine at least 200 horseshoe crabs annually for morphometric data. Terms and conditions may be added or amended prior to the issuance of the EFP or on an annual basis.
The proposed EFP would exempt two commercial vessels from regulations at 50 CFR 697.7(e) and 697.23(f), which prohibit the harvest and possession of horseshoe crabs from the Reserve on a vessel with a trawl or dredge gear aboard.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of intent to conduct scoping, hold public scoping meetings and to prepare a draft environmental impact statement and management plan.
In accordance with section 304(a) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended, (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431
Comments must be received by January 15, 2016. Public scoping meetings will be held as detailed below:
Comments may be submitted by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Paul Orlando, Regional Coordinator, Northeast and Great Lakes Region, (240) 460-1978,
The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to designate and protect as national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment that are of special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities. Day-to-day management of national marine sanctuaries has been delegated by the Secretary to ONMS. The primary objective of the NMSA is to protect the biological and cultural resources of the sanctuary system, such as coral reefs, marine animals, historical shipwrecks, historic structures, and archaeological sites.
The Mallows Bay area of the tidal Potomac River being considered for designation as a national marine sanctuary is an area 40 miles south of Washington, DC off the Nanjemoy Peninsula of Charles County, MD. The area includes submerged lands along the Potomac River that begin at the mean high tide water mark off Sandy Point and extend westward to the low water line just east of the Maryland-Virginia border near Clifton Point, VA. From there, the area extends southward following the Maryland-Virginia border to Brent's Point, VA. It then extends northeast to Smith Point, MD and follows the low water mark north along the Maryland shoreline back to Sandy Point. This area includes the waters of Wades Bay, Blue Banks, Mallows Bay, Liverpool Cove and the Mallows Bay “Burning Basin” as far east as the egress for Marlow Creek into the basin itself.
This is an area of national significance featuring unique historical, archaeological, cultural, ecological, and esthetic resources and qualities, which offer opportunities for conservation, education, recreation, and research. Its maritime landscape is home to a diverse collection of historic shipwrecks from the Revolutionary War through the present, totaling nearly 200 known vessels including the remains of the largest “Ghost Fleet” of World War I, wooden steamships built for the U.S. Emergency Fleet.
The area's archaeological and cultural resources cover centuries of history from the earliest American Indian presence in the region circa 12,000 years ago to the roles that this area played in the Revolutionary, Civil and two World Wars, as well as in successive regimes of Potomac fishing industries. Its largely undeveloped landscape and waterscape have been identified as one of the most ecologically valuable areas in Maryland, providing important habitat for fish and wildlife, including rare, threatened and endangered species. NOAA encourages the public to review the full nomination at
On September 16, 2014, pursuant to Section 304 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the Sanctuary Nomination Process (79 FR 33851), a coalition of community groups submitted a nomination asking NOAA to designate Mallows Bay-Potomac River as a national marine sanctuary. The nomination cited conservation goals to protect and conserve the fragile remains of the Nation's cultural heritage as well as the opportunities to expand public access, recreation, tourism, research, and education to the area.
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Maryland Historical Trust, Maryland Department of Tourism, and Charles County, MD, have worked together with community partners to initiate additional conservation and compatible public access strategies in and around Mallows Bay, consistent with numerous planning and implementation documents. In 2010, DNR purchased a portion of land adjacent to Mallows Bay and made it available to Charles County to create and manage Mallows Bay County Park, the main launch point for access to the historic shipwrecks. Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, Maryland Historical Trust has stewardship and oversight responsibility for the shipwrecks, along with hundreds of other historic sites around the state. Maryland DNR manages the waterbody and associated ecosystem resources, including land use, resource conservation and extraction activities. The lands on either side of Mallows Bay County Park are held by the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management and a private citizen.
DNR and the Mallows Bay Steering Committee convened a committee to discuss the concept of a national marine sanctuary and ultimately to develop the nomination that was submitted to NOAA. The committee, which represented a broad base of constituency groups, employed a consensus-based process to discuss a variety of issues, considerations, and priorities leading up to the nomination. The nomination was endorsed by a diverse coalition of organizations and individuals at local, state, regional and national levels including elected officials, businesses, Native Americans, environmental, recreation, conservation, fishing, tourism, museums, historical societies, and education groups. The nomination identified opportunities for NOAA to protect, study, interpret, and manage the area's unique resources, including by building on existing local, county, and State of Maryland efforts to manage the area for the protection of shipwrecks.
NOAA is initiating the process to designate this area as a national marine sanctuary based on the nomination submitted to the agency as part of the Sanctuary Nomination Process (SNP). NOAA's review of the nomination against the criteria and considerations of the SNP, including the requirement for broad-based community support indicated strong merit in proposing this area as a national marine sanctuary.
The process for designating Mallows Bay-Potomac River as a national marine sanctuary includes the following stages:
1. Public Scoping Process—Information collection and characterization, including the consideration of public comments received during scoping;
2. Preparation and release of draft designation documents including a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) that identifies boundary alternatives, a draft management plan (DMP), as well as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to define proposed sanctuary regulations. Draft documents would be used to initiate consultations with federal, state, or local agencies and other interested parties, as appropriate;
3. Public review and comment on the DEIS, DMP, and NPRM;
4. Preparation and release of a final environmental impact statement, final management plan, including a response to public comments, with a final rule and regulations, if appropriate.
With this notice, NOAA is initiating a public scoping process to:
1. Gather information and public comments from individuals, organizations, and government agencies on the designation of Mallows Bay—Potomac River as a national marine sanctuary based on the community-based nomination of September 2014, especially: a) the spatial extent of the proposed boundary; and b) the resources that would be protected;
2. Help determine the scope and significance of issues to be addressed in the preparation of an environmental analysis under NEPA including socioeconomic impacts of designation, effects of designation on cultural and biological resources, and threats to resources within the proposed area;
3. Help determine the proposed action and possible alternatives pursuant to NEPA and to conduct any appropriate consultations.
This notice confirms that NOAA will fulfill its responsibility under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) through the ongoing NEPA process, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(a) including the use of NEPA documents and public and stakeholder meetings to meet the section 106 requirements. The NHPA specifically applies to any agency undertaking that may affect historic properties. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.16(1)(1), historic properties includes: “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. The term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria.” In fulfilling its responsibility under the NHPA and NEPA, NOAA intends to identify consulting parties; identify historic properties and assess the effects of the undertaking on such properties; initiate formal consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation, and other consulting parties; involve the public in accordance with NOAA's NEPA procedures, and develop in consultation with identified consulting parties alternatives and proposed measures that might avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties and describe them in any environmental assessment or draft environmental impact statement.
16 U.S.C. 1431
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to incidentally harass four species of marine mammals during activities related to the reconstruction of the existing ferry terminal at Pier 1 in Kodiak, AK.
This authorization is effective from September 30, 2015, through September 29, 2016.
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
An electronic copy of DOT&PF's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS' review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
On March 27, 2015, NMFS received an application from the DOT&PF for the taking of marine mammals incidental to reconstructing the existing ferry terminal at Pier 1 in Kodiak, Alaska, referred to as the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements project (State Project Number 68938). On June 18, 2015 NMFS received a revised application. NMFS determined that the application was adequate and complete on June 25, 2015. DOT&PF proposed to conduct in-water work that may incidentally harass marine mammals (
Activities included as part of the Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock Improvements project (Pier 1 project) with potential to affect marine mammals include vibratory and impact pile-driving operations and use of a down-the-hole (DTH) drill/hammer to install piles in bedrock. The use of impact and vibratory pile driving as well as DTH drilling is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the potential to result in limited injury and behavioral harassment of marine mammals. Species with the expected potential to be present during the project timeframe include transient killer whale (
DOT&PF requested an IHA for work that includes removal of the old timber dock and piles and installation of the new dock, including mooring and fender systems. The existing decking, piles, and other dock materials will be removed. Temporary steel H-piles will be installed to support temporary false work structures (
Pile installation and extraction associated with the Pier 1 project will begin no sooner than September 30, 2015 and will be completed no later than September 29, 2016 (1 year following IHA issuance). To minimize impacts to pink salmon (
The Kodiak Pier 1 Project is estimated to require 120 total days of in-water pile extraction and installation construction work, which includes vibratory driving, impact driving, and down-hole drilling. The total number of in-water pile extraction and installation days (120 days) includes approximately 80 days of vibratory pile extraction and installation, 22 days of impact hammering, and 60 days of down-hole drilling. The 22 days of impact hammering are subsumed within the same 80 days during which extraction and installation will occur. The construction schedule assumes that approximately 20 days of drilling will overlap with impact and vibratory pile driving activities. The project will require an estimated 60 hours of vibratory hammer time, 440 hours of down-hole drilling time, and 2 hours of impact hammer time. DOT&PF has conservatively added a contingency of 25% to the total hours required resulting in 75 hours of vibratory hammer time, 550 hours of down-hole drilling time, and 3 hours of impact hammer time.
The Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock at Pier 1 is located in the City of Kodiak, Alaska, at 57°47′12.78″ N., 152°24′09.73″ W., on the northeastern corner of Kodiak Island, in the Gulf of Alaska. Pier 1 is an active ferry terminal and multi-use dock located in Near Island Channel, which separates downtown Kodiak from Near Island.
We provided a description of the proposed action in our
DOT&PF plans to construct a new ferry terminal at Pier 1 in Kodiak. The project includes the removal of 196 timber piles and 14 steel piles using a vibratory hammer, crane, and/or clamshell bucket. DOT&PF would install and remove 88 temporary steel pipe or H-piles using a vibratory hammer; install 8 16-in timber and 10 18-in steel piles using a vibratory hammer, and install 88 24-in steel piles using a vibratory hammer, down-hole drill/hammer, and impact hammer. The activities are expected to take place over 120 days, weather permitting. DOT&PF would limit pile driving and removal activities to daylight hours only, however, drilling, would not be limited to daylight hours.
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA was published in the
There are four marine mammal species known to occur in the vicinity of the project area which may be subjected to Level A and Level B harassment. These are the killer whale, Steller sea lion, harbor porpoise, and harbor seal.
We have reviewed DOT&PF's detailed species descriptions, including life history information, for accuracy and completeness and refer the reader to Section 3 of DOT&PF's application as well as the proposed incidental harassment authorization published in the
Table 1 lists marine mammal stocks that could occur in the vicinity of the existing ferry terminal at Pier 1that may be subject to Level A and B harassment and summarizes key information regarding stock status and abundance. Please see NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR), available at
The
We described potential impacts to marine mammal habitat in detail in our
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, “and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking” for certain subsistence uses.
Measurements from similar pile driving events were utilized to estimate zones of influence (ZOI; see “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment”). ZOIs
(a) Conduct briefings between construction supervisors and crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and DOT&PF's staff prior to the start of all pile driving activity, and when new personnel join the work, in order to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
(b) For in-water heavy machinery work other than pile driving (using,
(c) Utilize pile caps when impact driving is underway.
The following measures apply to DOT&PF's mitigation through shutdown and disturbance zones:
During impact driving, the disturbance zone shall extend to 350 meters for Steller sea lions, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales. This 350-meter distance will serve as a shutdown zone for all other marine mammals for which take is not authorized (
During vibratory pile installation and removal, the disturbance zone shall extend to 1,150 meters for Steller sea lions, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, and killer whales. This distance will also serve as a shutdown zone for all other marine mammals for which take is not authorized to avoid Level B take.
During DTH drilling, the disturbance zone shall extend to 300meters for species for which take is authorized. This distance will serve as a shutdown zone for all other marine mammals for which take is not authorized to avoid Level B take. Note that per request from the applicant we considered additional information for purposes of developing an appropriate DTH monitoring zone. Our findings are based on 2015 hydroacoustic monitoring conducted near Pier 3 in Kodiak provided recent sound source level values (PND 2015). We considered this the best available information for DTH proxy source levels and used it to derive the DTH disturbance zone radius for this project. This change has no effect on estimated take levels associated with DTH drilling.
Thresholds for Level A and Level B harassment are shown in Table 2.
In order to document observed incidents of harassment, observers record all marine mammal observations, regardless of location. The observer's location, as well as the location of the pile being driven, is known from a GPS. The location of the animal is estimated as a distance from the observer, which is then compared to the location from the pile and the estimated ZOIs for relevant activities (
If a marine mammal is present within the Level A harassment zone, ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the Level A harassment zone. Activity will begin only after the Wildlife Observer has determined, through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the Level A harassment zone or 15 minutes have passed for small odontocetes and pinnipeds and 30 minutes have passed for large and medium-sized whales, including killer whales, without re-detection of the animal.
If a Steller sea lion, harbor seal, harbor porpoise, or killer whale is present in the Level B harassment zone, ramping up will begin and a Level B take will be documented. Ramping up will occur when these species are in the Level B harassment zone whether they entered the Level B zone from the Level A zone, or from outside the project area.
If any marine mammal other than Steller sea lions, harbor seals, harbor porpoises, or killer whales is present in the Level B harassment zone, ramping up will be delayed until the animal(s) leaves the zone. Ramping up will begin only after the Wildlife Observer has determined, through sighting, that the animal(s) has moved outside the harassment zone or 15 minutes have passed for small odontocetes and pinnipeds and 30 minutes have passed for large and medium-sized whales without re-detection of the animal.
The following additional measures apply to visual monitoring:
(1) Monitoring will be conducted by at least two qualified observers, who will be stationed to provide adequate view of the harassment zone mammals. One observer will be stationed on Pier 1 while a second observer may be located on Near Island or another site offering optimal viewing. Observers must be in a location that allows them to implement shutdown/delay procedures when applicable by calling for the shutdown to the hammer operator. Monitoring will take place from 30 minutes prior to initiation through 30 minutes post-completion of pile driving activities.
Qualified observers are trained biologists, with the following minimum qualifications:
(a) Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible) sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars may be necessary to correctly identify the target;
(b) Education, training, or suitable combination thereof in biological science, wildlife management, mammalogy or related fields. Observers should have field experience in identification and behavior of marine mammals and project-specific training.
(c) Experience and ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols (this may include academic experience);
(d) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors;
(e) Experience or training in protocols to communicate with contractors and operators, including shut down procedures.
(f) Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary
(g) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
(h) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and
(g) Must read and understand the monitoring plan and the IHA; agree to enforce the conditions presented therein, be able to coordinate and communicate with other personnel, and identify and report incidental harassment of marine mammals.
(h) Have no other project-related responsibility other than marine mammal monitoring, documentation, and reporting during observation periods.
(2) Prior to the start of pile driving activity, the shutdown zone will be monitored for 30 minutes to ensure that it is clear of marine mammals. Pile driving will only commence once observers have declared the shutdown zone clear of marine mammals; animals will be allowed to remain in the shutdown zone (
If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers' ability to make observations within the marine mammal shutdown zone (
The waters will be scanned 30 minutes prior to commencing pile driving at the beginning of each day, prior to commencing pile driving after any stoppage of 30 minutes or greater, and 30 minutes after driving operations have ceased for the day. If marine mammals enter or are observed within the designated marine mammal shutdown zone during or 30 minutes prior to pile driving, the monitors will notify the on-site construction manager to not begin until the animal has moved outside the designated radius.
If any marine mammal species are encountered during activities that are not listed in Table 1 for authorized taking and are likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels (SPLs) greater than or equal to 120 dB re 1mPa (rms), then the Holder of this Authorization
If a marine mammal approaches or enters the shutdown zone during the course of vibratory pile driving operations, activity will be halted and delayed until he animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone. If a marine mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the contractor would wait 15 minutes for pinnipeds and 30 minutes for cetaceans. If no marine mammals are seen by the observer in that time it will be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the exclusion zone.
Monitoring will be conducted throughout the time required to drive a pile. Marine mammal presence within the Level B harassment zone will be monitored, but vibratory driving or DTH drilling will not be stopped if marine mammals are found to be present. Any marine mammal documented within the Level B harassment zone during these activities would constitute a Level B take (harassment), and will be recorded and reported as such.
We have carefully evaluated DOT&PF's proposed mitigation measures and considered their effectiveness in past implementation to determine whether they are likely to effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1 above).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1 above).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1 above).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of DOT&PF's proposed measures, including information from monitoring of implementation of mitigation measures very similar to those described here under previous IHAs from other marine construction projects, we have determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for incidental take authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
(1) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
(2) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to levels of pile driving that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;
(3) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);
Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
(4) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
(5) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.
The DOT&PF consulted with NMFS to create a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA application for this project.
• At least two marine mammal observers (MMOs) meeting the minimum qualifications listed below will monitor the shutdown and disturbance zones during impact driving, vibratory pile driving and down-hole drilling. One observer will be stationed on Pier 1 while a second observer will be located on Near Island or another site offering optimal viewing.
• During all in-water driving and drilling activity, the disturbance zone will be monitored by two observers at locations listed above. The monitoring staff will record any presence of marine mammals by species, will document any behavioral responses noted, and record Level B takes when sightings overlap with pile installation activities.
• The individuals will scan the waters within each monitoring zone activity using binoculars (Vector 10×42 or equivalent), spotting scopes (Swarovski 20-60 zoom or equivalent), and visual observation.
• The area within which the disturbance zone thresholds could be exceeded will be monitored for the presence of marine mammals. Marine mammal presence within these zones, if any, will be monitored but pile driving activity will not be stopped if marine mammals were found to be present. Any marine mammal documented within the disturbance zone will constitute a Level B take, and will be recorded and used to document the number of take incidents.
• If waters exceed a sea-state which restricts the observers' ability to make observations within the marine mammal buffer zone (
• The waters will be scanned for 30 minutes before driving operations begin for the day and 30 minutes after any and all pile driving and removal activities cease for the day.
• If marine mammals enter or are observed within the designated marine shutdown zone during or 30 minutes prior to pile driving, the monitors will notify the on-site construction manager to not begin until the animal has moved outside the designated radius.
• If a marine mammal approaches the shutdown zone prior to initiation of pile driving, the DOT&PF cannot commence activities until the marine mammal (a) is observed to have left the Level A harassment zone or (b) or has not been detected for 15 minutes (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or for 30 minutes (large and medium-sized whales, including killer whales) without re-detection of the animal.
• The waters will continue to be scanned for at least 30 minutes after pile driving has completed each day, and after each stoppage of 30 minutes or greater.
Observers are required to use approved data forms. Among other pieces of information, DOT&PF will record detailed information about any implementation of shutdowns, including the distance of animals to the pile and description of specific actions that ensued and resulting behavior of the animal, if any. In addition, the DOT&PF will attempt to distinguish between the number of individual animals taken and the number of incidents of take. At a minimum, the following information will be collected on the sighting forms:
• Date and time that monitored activity begins or ends;
• Construction activities occurring during each observation period;
• Weather parameters (
• Water conditions (
• Species, numbers, and, if possible, sex and age class of marine mammals;
• Description of any observable marine mammal behavior patterns, including bearing and direction of travel and distance from pile driving activity;
• Distance from pile driving activities to marine mammals and distance from the marine mammals to the observation point;
• Locations of all marine mammal observations; and
• Other human activity in the area.
DOT&PF will notify NMFS prior to the initiation of the pile driving activities and will provide NMFS with a draft monitoring report within 90 days of the conclusion of the proposed construction work. This report will detail the monitoring protocol, summarize the data recorded during monitoring, and estimate the number of marine mammals that may have been harassed. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: “. . . any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].”
Anticipated takes would be both Level A, for Steller sea lions only, and Level B harassment resulting from vibratory pile driving/removal and drilling. Note that lethal takes are not expected. Furthermore, mitigation measures are expected to minimize the number of Level A injurious takes.
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound in every given situation on marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many animals are likely to be present within a particular distance of a given activity, or exposed to a particular level of sound, based on the available science.
This practice potentially overestimates the numbers of marine mammals taken for stationary activities, as it is likely that some smaller number of individuals may accrue a number of incidences of harassment per individual than for each incidence to accrue to a new individual, especially if those individuals display some degree of residency or site fidelity and the impetus to use the site (
The method used for calculating potential exposures to impact and vibratory pile driving noise for each threshold was estimated using local marine mammal data sets, the Biological Opinion, best professional judgment from state and federal agencies, and data from IHA estimates on similar projects with similar actions. Our take estimation methodology was described in detail in our
Incidental take was estimated for Steller sea lions by assuming that, within any given day, about 40 unique individual Steller sea lions may be present at some time during that day within the Level B harassment zone during active pile extraction or installation. This estimate was derived from the following information, previously described in the proposed authorization
Pinniped population estimates are typically made when the animals are hauled out and available to be counted. Steller sea lions hauled out on the Dog Bay float are believed to represent the Kodiak Harbor population. Aerial surveys from 2004 through 2006 indicated peak winter (October-April) counts at the Dog Bay float ranging from 27 to 33 animals (Wynn
Steller sea lions found in more “natural” settings do not usually eat
It is assumed that Steller sea lions may be present every day, and also that take will include multiple harassments of the same individual(s) both within and among days, which means that these estimates are likely an overestimate of the number of individuals.
Expected durations of pile extraction and driving were estimated in Section 1.4 of the application. For each pile extraction or installation activity, the calculation for Steller sea lion exposures to underwater noise is therefore estimated as:
An estimated total of 3,200 Steller sea lions (40 sea lions/day * 80 days of pile installation or extraction) could be exposed to noise at the Level B harassment level during vibratory and impact pile driving (Table 3). Potential exposure at the Level B harassment level for down-hole drilling is estimated at 60 Steller sea lions, roughly one every one to two days.
The attraction of sea lions to the seafood processing plant increases the possibility of individual Steller sea lions occasionally entering the shutdown zone before they are observed and before pile driving can be shut down. Even with marine mammal observers present at all times during pile installation, it is possible that sea lions could approach quickly and enter the shutdown zone, even as pile driving activity is being shut down. This likelihood is increased by the high level of sea lion activity in the area, with Steller sea lions following vessels and swimming around vessels at the neighboring dock. It is possible that a single sea lion could be taken each day that impact pile driving occurs. As such, NMFS allowed an additional 22 Level A takes plus a roughly 30 percent contingency of 8 additional takes, for a total of 30 takes for Level A harassment. Potential for Level A harassment of Steller sea lions is estimated to only occur during impact hammering due to the very small Level A harassment zones for all other construction activities.
Harbor seals are expected to be encountered in low numbers, if at all, within the project area. However, based on the known range of the South Kodiak stock, and occasional sightings during monitoring of projects at other locations on Kodiak Island, NMFS has authorized 40 Level B takes (1 take every other day) of harbor seals by exposure to underwater noise over the duration of construction activities.
Harbor porpoises are expected to be encountered in low numbers, if at all, within the project area. However, based on the known range of the Gulf of Alaska stock and occasional sightings during monitoring of projects at other locations on Kodiak Island, NMFS has authorized 40 Level B takes (1 take every other day) of harbor porpoises by exposure to underwater noise over the duration of construction activities.
Resident killer whales are rarely sighted in the project area and, therefore, NMFS is not proposing the take of any resident killer whales. Transient killer whales are expected to be encountered in the project area occasionally, although no data exist to quantify killer whale attendance. Killer whales are expected to be in the Kodiak harbor area sporadically from January through April and to enter the project area in low numbers. Based on the known range and behavior of the Alaska Resident stock and the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient stocks, it is reasonable to estimate that 6 individual whales may enter the project area twice a month from February through May. NMFS, therefore, has authorized 48 Level B takes (6 killer whales/visit * 2 visits/month * 4 months) of killer whales by exposure to
Negligible impact is “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analyses applies to all the species listed in Table 4, with the exception of Steller sea lions, given that the anticipated effects of this pile driving project on marine mammals are expected to be relatively similar in nature. There is no information about the size, status, or structure of any species or stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity, else species-specific factors would be identified and analyzed. A separate analysis is included for Steller sea lions.
Pile extraction, pile driving, and down-hole drilling activities associated with the reconstruction of the Pier 1 Kodiak Ferry Terminal and Dock, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take, in the form of Level A (injury) of Steller sea lions and Level B harassment (behavioral disturbance) for all species authorized for take, from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and drilling. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in the insonified zone when pile driving or drilling is under way.
The takes from Level B harassment will be due to potential behavioral disturbance and TTS. Serious injury or death is unlikely for all authorized species and injury is unlikely for these species, with the exception of Steller sea lions, as DOT&PF will enact several required mitigation measures. Soft start techniques will be employed during pile driving operations to allow marine mammals to vacate the area prior to commencement of full power driving. Pile cushions will be used for all impact driving. DOT&PF will establish and monitor shutdown zones for authorized species with the exception of Steller sea lions. These measures will prevent injury to these species, except for Steller sea lions. DOT&PF will also record all occurrences of marine mammals and any behavior or behavioral reactions observed, any observed incidents of behavioral harassment, and any required shutdowns, and will submit a report upon completion of the project. We have determined that the required mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce the effects of the specified activities to the level of least practicable impact, as required by the MMPA.
The DOT&PF's proposed activities are localized and of short duration. The entire project area is limited to the Pier 1 area and its immediate surroundings. Specifically, the use of impact driving will be limited to an estimated maximum of 3 hours over the course of 80 days of construction, and will likely require less time. Each 24-inch pile will require about five blows of an impact hammer to confirm that piles are set into bedrock for a maximum time expected of 1 minute of impact hammering per pile (88 piles × 1 minute/per pile = 88 minutes). Vibratory driving will be necessary for an estimated maximum of 75 hours and down-hole drilling will require a maximum of 550 hours. Vibratory driving and down-hole drilling do not have significant potential to cause injury to marine mammals due to the relatively low source levels produced and the lack of potentially injurious source characteristics.
The Level A takes for Steller sea lions are likely to be in the form of PTS. The possibility of take by serious injury or death is considered very unlikely as only acoustic injury is anticipated to occur. However, the number of Steller sea lions potentially exposed to Level A harassment is a small portion of entire population. Furthermore, sea lions resident to the project area are likely to have experienced frequent deterrence by fisherman protecting their gear or catch as was described in the
The project also is not expected to have significant adverse effects on affected marine mammals' habitat, including Steller sea lion critical habitat. The project activities would not modify existing marine mammal habitat. The activities may cause some fish to leave the area of disturbance, thus temporarily impacting marine mammals' foraging opportunities in a limited portion of the foraging range; but, because of the short duration of the activities and the relatively small area of the habitat that may be affected, the impacts to marine mammal habitat are not expected to cause significant or long-term negative consequences.
Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, on the basis of reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, will likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
In summary, this negligible impact analysis is founded on the following factors: (1) The possibility of serious injury or mortality to authorized species and additional auditory injury to hearing impaired Steller sea lions may reasonably be considered discountable; (2) the anticipated incidents of Level B harassment consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior and; (3) the presumed efficacy of the planned mitigation measures in reducing the effects of the specified activity to the level of least practicable impact. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activity will have only short-term effects on individuals. The specified activity is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
Table 4 demonstrates the number of animals that could be exposed to received noise levels that could cause Level A and Level B behavioral harassment for the proposed work at the Pier 1 project site. The analyses provided above represents between <0.01%-8.1% of the populations of these stocks that could be affected by harassment. The numbers of animals authorized to be taken for all species would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual—an extremely unlikely scenario. For pinnipeds, especially Steller sea lions, occurring in the vicinity of Pier 1 there will almost certainly be some overlap in individuals present day-to-day, and these takes are likely to occur only within some small portion of the overall regional stock.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures, which are expected to reduce the number of marine mammals potentially affected by the proposed action, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.
Alaska Natives have traditionally harvested subsistence resources in the Kodiak area for many hundreds of years, particularly Steller sea lions and harbor seals. No traditional subsistence hunting areas are within the project vicinity. The nearest haulouts for Steller sea lions and harbor seals are the Long Island and Cape Chiniak haul-outs and the Marmot Island rookery, many miles away. These locations are respectively 4, 12 and 30 nautical miles distant from the project area. Since all project activities will take place within the immediate vicinity of the Pier 1 site, the project will not have an adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence use at locations farther away. No disturbance or displacement of sea lions or harbor seals from traditional hunting areas by activities associated with the Pier 1 project is expected. No changes to availability of subsistence resources will result from Pier 1 project activities. Therefore, we have determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
The Steller sea lion is the only marine mammal species listed as endangered under the ESA with confirmed occurrence in the study area. On July 31, 2015 NMFS issued the
NMFS drafted a document titled
As a result of these determinations, we have issued an IHA to DOT&PF for conducting the described activities related to the reconstruction of the ferry terminal at Pier 1 in Kodiak, AK from September 30, 2015 through September 29, 2016 provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as part of its BroadbandUSA initiative will hold a one-day regional broadband Workshop, “California Broadband Workshop,” to help communities expand their broadband capacity and increase utilization of broadband. The Workshop will put forward best practices and lessons learned from network infrastructure build-outs and digital inclusion programs from California and surrounding states, including projects funded by NTIA's Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and State Broadband Initiative (SBI) grant programs. It also will include access to regional policymakers, federal funders and industry providers. The California Broadband Workshop will also explore the impact of municipal networks on local and regional economic development and discuss effective business and public-private partnership models, as well as lessons
The California Broadband Workshop will be held on November 17, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time.
The meeting will be held in the Hahn Auditorium at the Computer History Museum, 1401 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View, CA, 94043.
Barbara Brown, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4889, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4374; email:
The California Broadband Workshop will include presentations from representatives of NTIA's BroadbandUSA initiative, who will discuss lessons learned through NTIA's implementation of the BTOP and SBI grants and explore key elements required for successful broadband projects using a mix of regional examples. Panel presentations will discuss real-world examples of how broadband and the high-speed applications it makes possible, such as those used in Smart Cities, help spur community economic development, workforce development and education. Topics will include state- and regional-level implementation, including marketing/demand aggregation, outreach, coordination with government agencies, partnership strategies, construction and oversight. One panel will examine municipal networks, economic development, and business model options, including private networks, public/private partnerships, co-ops and municipal systems. Panelists will also provide tips to communities on financing options and how to research grant opportunities, make a compelling case to funders and leverage multiple federal and state funding streams.
The Workshop will be open to the public and press on a first come, first served basis. Since space is limited, however, NTIA requests that interested individuals pre-register for the workshop. Information on how to pre-register for the meeting will be available on NTIA's Web site:
NTIA will ask registrants to provide their first and last names and email addresses for both registration purposes and to receive any updates on the Workshop. If capacity for the meeting is reached prior to the meeting, NTIA will maintain a waiting list and will inform those on the waiting list if space becomes available.
The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify the NTIA contact listed above at least seven (7) business days before the meeting.
Meeting updates and relevant documents will be also available on NTIA's Web site at
10 a.m., Friday, October 9, 2015.
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.
Closed.
Surveillance, enforcement, and examinations matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the announcement of a public meeting of the Consumer Advisory Board (CAB or Board) of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau). The notice also describes the functions of the Board. Notice of the meeting is permitted by section 9 of the CAB Charter and is intended to notify the public of this meeting. Specifically, Section 9(d) of the CAB Charter states:
(1) Each meeting of the Board shall be open to public observation, to the extent that a facility is available to accommodate the public, unless the Bureau, in accordance with paragraph (4) of this section, determines that the meeting shall be closed. The Bureau also will make reasonable efforts to make the meetings available to the public through live Web streaming. (2) Notice of the time, place and purpose of each meeting, as well as a summary of the proposed agenda, shall be published in the
The meeting date is Thursday, October 22, 2015, 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
The meeting location is Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.
Crystal Dully, Consumer Advisory Board and Councils Office, External Affairs, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002; telephone: 202-435-9588;
Section 1014(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (
(a) The purpose of the Board is outlined in Section 1014(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act (
The Consumer Advisory Board will discuss Arbitration, Trends and Themes in the marketplace, and Reaching Limited English Speaking Consumers.
Persons who need a reasonable accommodation to participate should contact
Individuals who wish to attend the Consumer Advisory Board meeting must RSVP to
The Board's agenda will be made available to the public on October 7, 2015, via
A recording and transcript of this meeting will be available after the meeting on the CFPB's Web site
Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of Interim Deauthorization List.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is publishing an Interim Deauthorization List of water resources development projects and separable elements that have been identified for deauthorization in accordance with section 6001(c) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, Public Law 113-121, 128 STAT. 1346-1347 (WRRDA 2014), and is soliciting comments from the public on the list for 90 calendar days. Comments should be provided to the contact named below by January 4, 2016.
Mr. Joseph W. Aldridge, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attention: CECW-IP, Washington, DC 20314-1000. Tel. (202) 761-4130 or
Interim Deauthorization List required by § 6001(c).
Section 6001(c) provides that the Secretary shall develop an Interim Deauthorization List that identifies each water resources development project, or separable element of a project, that meets the following criteria. Projects and separable elements eligible for deauthorization are those uncompleted construction projects and separable elements meeting all of the following criteria: (1) They were authorized for construction before November 8, 2007, or their most recent modification of the construction authorization predates November 8, 2007; (2) their construction has not been initiated, or, if construction has been initiated, there have been no obligations of Federal or non-federal funds for construction in the current fiscal year or any of the past 6 fiscal years; and, (3) there has been no funding for a post-authorization study in the current fiscal year or any of the past 6 fiscal years. As specifically provided in section 6001(f)(1)(B) of WRRDA 2014, water resources development projects include environmental infrastructure assistance projects and programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In accordance with section 103(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, separable elements is defined as “a portion of a project—
(1) which is physically separable from other portions of the project; and
(2) which—
(A) achieves hydrologic effects, or
(B) produces physical or economic benefits, which are separately identifiable from those produced by other portions of the project.”
The following elements of an authorized water resources development project also qualify as separable elements: An element for which there is an executed design agreement or project partnership agreement specific to that element; an element that has received funding specified for that element; an element that was authorized separately from or as an amendment to the authorization for the remainder of the water resources development project, that was separately identified in the authorization for the water resources development project, or for which a statute specifies an authorized cost, estimated cost, or amount authorized to be appropriated; an element that has been placed in service or for which the Government or the non-federal partner has assumed operation and maintenance; an element that has been deauthorized; or the remaining portion of the water resources development project apart from other separable elements. Following a 90-day public review period of the Interim Deauthorization List, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA(CW)) will publish a Final Deauthorization List in the
The projects and elements on the Final Deauthorization List will be deauthorized automatically after 180 days following the date that the ASA(CW) submits the Final Deauthorization List to Congress, unless
The Interim Deauthorization List follows below in Table 1.
This notice is required by § 6001(c) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, Public Law 113-121, 128 STAT 1346-1347.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice of intent.
The purpose of the feasibility study is to improve navigation in San Juan Harbor.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Planning Division, Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019.
Mr. Paul DeMarco at (904) 232-1897 or email at
1.
2.
3.
a. Public and Agency Involvement. A scoping letter is being sent to agencies, commercial interests, and the public.
b. Issues to be Analyzed in Depth in the DEIS. Important issues expected include impacts to protected species, sea grass, hardgrounds, socio-economic factors, and any other factors that might be determined during the scoping and plan formulation process.
c. Possible Assignments for Input into the EIS Among Lead and Potential Cooperating Agencies.
d. Other Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements. The proposed action is subject to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Essential Fish Habitat requirements, National Historic Preservation Act, numerous other laws and executive orders, and any other requirements that might be identified during the scoping and plan formulation process.
4.
5.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice; public challenge.
The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) is announcing the Reach Higher Career App Challenge (RHCAC or Challenge), a prize competition funded by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV or Act). RHCAC calls upon potential entrants, who may include eligible educators, mobile application (app) developers, and other interested individuals to submit information concerning concepts for mobile apps, which may include a prototype, to improve access to information about career and technical education (CTE), help students, including students with disabilities and English Learners, navigate education and career paths, and increase the capacity of career counselors to serve students. The Challenge seeks solutions that: (1) Are focused on middle and high school students, (2) include integrated tools to assess user skills and interests, and (3) offer users accessible information on occupations, education options, credentials, and career-seeking skills through an individualized user experience.
We must receive your Challenge submission on or before December 7, 2015.
The timeframes for judging the submissions and selecting the finalists will be determined by the Department.
The Department will conduct at least one online information session during the open submission phase of the challenge. The date of the session will be determined and announced by the Department, posted on the Luminary Lightbox
The date for the final judging will be determined and announced by the Department following Demonstration Day.
The winner(s) will be announced on a date determined and announced by the Department.
Submit entries for the prize at
Albert Palacios, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW., Room 11086, Washington, DC 20202 or by email:
The RHCAC is being conducted by the U.S. Department of Education. Luminary Labs, L.L.C. (Luminary Labs), has been contracted by the Department to assist and support the Department in organizing and managing this competition. Activities conducted by Luminary Labs may also include providing technical assistance to potential entrants, entrants, and finalists.
With a constantly evolving career landscape, it is increasingly challenging for students to identify, assess, and act upon their options as they plan for careers and postsecondary education. While the current career guidance and counseling infrastructure plays a critical role in assisting students with postsecondary education and career selection decisions, nationwide, one in five high schools lacks a school counselor.
The Challenge invites potential entrants, who may include eligible educators, mobile app developers, and other interested individuals to submit concepts for mobile apps which may include a prototype to improve access to CTE information that would help students, including students with disabilities and English Learners, navigate education and career pathways, and increase the capacity of career counselors to assist students in making decisions about their education and career options. The Challenge intends that mobile app concepts will be developed into prototypes during the Virtual Accelerator phase. The Challenge seeks mobile app solutions that include integrated tools to assess user skills and interests, while also offering users accessible information on occupations, education options, credentials, and career-seeking skills through an individualized user experience.
The Challenge will be conducted in four phases:
(1) Challenge launch and the open submission phase;
(2) Judging of the submissions and selection of finalists;
(3) Virtual Accelerator phase (inclusive of finalist mentorship, Innovator's Boot Camp, and Demonstration Day); and
(4) Final judging and selection of winner(s). Up to five finalists will be selected from the pool of submissions received during the open submission phase. From the total prize pool of $225,000, each of the finalists will be awarded $25,000 for their submission based on a review by the judging panel using the criteria in paragraph (a) in the
The Virtual Accelerator phase begins on the date finalists are announced and concludes on Demonstration Day,
General Elements of the Virtual Accelerator phase include the following—
(1)
(2)
(3)
Following Demonstration Day, a judging panel will provide recommendations to the Department on the selection of one or more winners from the pool of finalists to receive the remainder of the prize money.
(a) Eligible entrants must be:
(1) Individuals at least 18 years of age and a citizen or permanent resident of the United States;
(2) Teams of individuals that:
(i) Are all at least 18 years of age;
(ii) Include at least one citizen or permanent resident of the United States; and
(iii) May also include foreign citizens who affirm at the time of submission of an entry for the Challenge that they are foreign citizens, who are not permanent residents; or
(3) An entity registered or incorporated in accordance with applicable State and local laws, and maintaining a primary place of business in the United States. The entity may include foreign citizens participating as employees of the entity.
(b) Ineligible entrants include—
(1) A foreign citizen unless participating as part of an eligible team or entity;
(2) A Federal entity;
(3) A Federal employee acting within the scope of his or her employment; and
(4) All employees of the Department, Luminary Labs, Challenge sponsors, and/or any other individual or entity associated with the development or administration of the Challenge, as well as members of such persons' immediate families (spouses, children, siblings, parents), and persons living in the same household as such persons, whether or not related.
(c) Entrants must:
(1) Register on the Challenge Web page (see
(2) Enter a submission on the Challenge Web page according to the rules, terms, and conditions in this notice;
(3) Comply with all requirements; and
(4) Provide affirmation upon submission of an entry for the Challenge that an entrant is eligible under subsection (a) of this section. If selected as a finalist, entrants must provide documentation to demonstrate their eligibility at that time.
(5) Agree to—
(i) Assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from their participation in the Challenge, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arises through negligence or otherwise;
(ii) Indemnify the Federal government against third party claims for damages arising from, or related to, competition activities, patents, copyrights, and trademark infringements; and
(iii) Comply with and abide by the
(d) Entrants are not required to obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility in order to participate in the Challenge.
The total prize pool for the Challenge is $225,000. From the $225,000 Challenge prize pool funds, up to five finalist teams will be awarded $25,000 each following the judging of the open submissions. Finalists will improve and revise upon their submissions during the Virtual Accelerator phase in preparation for Demonstration Day. After Demonstration Day, a judging panel will provide recommendations to the Department on the selection of one or more winners from the pool of finalists to receive the remainder of the prize money.
Prizes awarded under this competition will be paid by electronic funds transfer. Winners are responsible for any applicable local, State, and Federal taxes and reporting that may be required under applicable tax laws.
(a) To participate in the Challenge, an entrant must submit an eligible entry according to the
(1)
(i) An interactive tool that assesses user skills and interests;
(ii) Up-to-date occupational data;
(iii) Educational options, including CTE programs,
(iv) Career-seeking skills which may include,
(2)
(i) Support for educational and career path decision-making across a broad cross-section of students including students with disabilities, English Learners, and students in CTE programs; and
(ii) Support for counselor and/or teacher interactions with students, or plans for accessible features that will provide this support as the app is further developed.
(3)
(i) The full development of features, including the integration of comprehensive employment data, effective communication for English Learners and individuals with disabilities, and virtual accessibility in a form that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility; and
(ii) A prototype to be customized to offer local educational and employment information including how local data and application programming interfaces (APIs) will be used.
(4)
(5)
(b) When judging the finalist submissions, judges will recommend to the Department the winner or winners from the pool of the finalists. From the pool of finalists, the winner(s) will be selected based on the five criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and the two additional criteria below. Each of the seven criteria may be assigned up to 20 points during the judging of the finalist submissions (for a total of up to 140 points). These two additional criteria are:
(1) Demonstration of the finalist's ability to effectively revise and improve their concept over the course of the Virtual Accelerator phase; and
(2) Perceived ability of the finalist and their prototype to materially transform career and education decision-making for students.
1. To participate in the Challenge, an entrant—
(a) Must register on the Challenge Web page.
(b) Must enter the required information on the Challenge Web page submission form—
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(i) The entrant attests that if selected as a finalist, their submitted concept could be developed into at least a fully functioning prototype by the conclusion of the Virtual Accelerator phase.
(ii) The entrant agrees to participate in the required Innovator's Boot Camp and present their submission on Demonstration Day if selected as a finalist.
(iii) The entrant acknowledges having read, understood and agreed to the Rules, Terms and Conditions.
(iv) The entrant confirms that the eligibility requirements are met.
(v) The entrant confirms that the submission complies with all applicable privacy laws.
(vi) The entrant confirms that the entrant did not receive assistance from subject matter experts or judges associated with the Challenge when preparing their submission.
(c) May provide the following information on the Challenge Web page submission form—
(1)
(2)
(3)
2.
3.
To submit an entry to the Challenge, an entrant must go to the Challenge Web page and complete all required fields of the Challenge submission form before the close of the open submission phase, which is currently scheduled for December 7, 2015 at 11:59:59 p.m., Washington DC time. Each entrant must complete all of the required fields in the Challenge submission form in accordance with the
All entrants are required to provide consent to the
During the Virtual Accelerator phase, the finalists will be required to give their Demonstration Day presentation and demonstrate a final prototype.
Entrants may enter individually or as part of a team, and teams are strongly encouraged. Each team member must be clearly identified on the team's submission form for the team to be eligible. Teams must designate a primary contact to serve as the team lead (Team Lead) and manage the distribution of any awarded prizes. In the event a dispute regarding the identity of the entrant who actually submitted the entry cannot be resolved by the Department, the affected entry will be deemed ineligible.
The open submissions phase closes at 11:59:59 p.m., Washington DC time December 7, 2015. The Department encourages entrants to submit at least one hour before the deadline to ensure the completed submission is received. If an entrant submits an entry after the deadline date because a technical problem with the Challenge Web page system, the entrant must immediately contact the person listed under
These extensions apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Challenge Web page system. The Department will not grant an entrant an extension if the entrant failed to submit an entry in the system by the application deadline date and time, or if the technical problem experienced is unrelated to the Challenge Web page system.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the submission process should contact the person listed under
Based on their individual expertise, judges will recommend up to five finalists to be selected by the Department from the pool of eligible entries. Once the Department has selected a group of finalists based on the recommendations of the judges consistent with the selection criteria, the finalists will then refine their submissions during the Virtual
Entries will be scored by the judges based on the quality of each entry according to the criteria described in paragraph (a) of the
By participating in the Challenge, each entrant acknowledges and agrees that such recommendations of the judges based on the criteria may differ and agrees to be bound by, and not to challenge, the final decisions of the Department.
The Department reserves the right to suspend, postpone, cease, terminate, or otherwise modify this Challenge or any entrant's participation in the Challenge, at any time at the Department's sole discretion.
All entry information submitted on the Challenge Web page and all materials, including any copy of the submission, becomes property of the Department and will not be acknowledged or returned by Luminary Labs or the Department. However, entrants retain ownership of their concepts, including any software, research, or other intellectual property (IP) that they develop in connection therewith, subject to the license granted to the Department to use submissions as set forth in the
By participating in the Challenge, each entrant represents, warrants, and covenants as follows:
(a) The entrants are the sole authors, creators, and owners of the submission;
(b) The entrant's submission—
(i) Is not the subject of any actual or threatened litigation or claim;
(ii) Does not, and will not, violate or infringe upon the intellectual property rights, privacy rights, publicity rights, or other legal rights of any third party;
(iii) Does not, contain any harmful computer code (sometimes referred to as “malware,” “viruses,” or “worms”); and
(c) The submission, and entrants' use of the submission, does not, and will not, violate any applicable laws or regulations of the United States.
If the submission includes the work of any third party (such as third party content or open source code), the entrant must be able to provide, upon the request of the Department and/or Luminary Labs, documentation of all appropriate licenses and releases for such third party works. If the entrant cannot provide documentation of all required licenses and releases, the Department reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to disqualify the applicable submission, or direct the entrant to secure the licenses and releases for the Department's benefit within three days of notification of the missing documentation and allow the applicable submission to remain in the Challenge. In addition, the Department reserves all rights to pursue an entrant for claims based on damages incurred by entrant's failure to obtain such licenses and releases.
Entrants will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Department and Luminary Labs from and against all third party claims, actions, or proceedings of any kind and from any and all damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses relating to, or arising from, entrant's submission or any breach or alleged breach of any of the representations, warranties, and covenants of entrant hereunder. The Department reserves the right to disqualify any submission that the Department, in its discretion, deems to violate these
Each entrant retains title to, and full ownership of, its submission. The entrant expressly reserves all intellectual property rights not expressly granted under this agreement. By participating in the Challenge, each entrant hereby irrevocably grants a license to the Department and Luminary Labs to store and access submissions in perpetuity that may be reproduced or distributed in the future. Please refer to the
By participating in the Challenge, each entrant hereby irrevocably grants to the Department and Luminary Labs the right to use such entrant's name, likeness, image, and biographical information in any and all media for advertising and promotional purposes relating to the Challenge in perpetuity and otherwise as stated in the
The Department reserves the right in its sole discretion to disqualify any entrant who is found to be tampering with the entry process or the operation of the Challenge, Challenge Web page, or other Challenge-related Web pages; to be acting in violation of these
The Challenge Web page may contain links to third-party Web pages that are not owned or controlled by Luminary Labs or the Department. Luminary Labs and the Department do not endorse or assume any responsibility for any such third party sites. If an entrant accesses a third-party Web page from the Challenge Web page, the entrant does so at the entrant's own risk and expressly relieves Luminary Labs and/or the Department from any and all liability arising from use of any third-party Web page content.
The Challenge Web page contains information and resources from public and private organizations that may be useful to the reader. Inclusion of this information does not constitute an endorsement by the Department or Luminary Labs of any products or services offered or views expressed. Blog articles provide insights on the activities of schools, programs, grantees, and other education stakeholders to promote continuing discussion of educational innovation and reform. Blog articles do not endorse any educational product, service, curriculum, or pedagogy.
The Challenge Web page also contains hyperlinks and URLs created and maintained by outside organizations, which are provided for the reader's convenience. The Department and Luminary Labs are not responsible for the accuracy of the information contained therein.
Attempts to notify finalists and winner(s) will be made using the email address associated with the finalist's Luminary Lightbox
If, despite reasonable efforts, an entrant does not respond within three days of the first notification attempt regarding selection as a finalist (or a shorter time as exigencies may require) or if the notification is returned as undeliverable to such entrant, that entrant may forfeit the entrant's finalist status and associated prizes, and an alternate finalist may be selected.
If any potential prize winner is found to be ineligible, has not complied with these
To maintain eligibility, finalists are required to participate in Challenge activities organized by the Department and Luminary Labs, which include the Virtual Accelerator phase, Webinars, Innovator's Boot Camp, and Demonstration Day. If a finalist is unable to participate in any mandatory activities, the finalist will not be eligible to win the Challenge. Finalists and winner(s) are required to attend these events at their own expense.
Entrants retain ownership of their submission, including any software, research or other IP that they develop in connection therewith, subject to the license granted to the Department to use submissions as set forth herein.
Entrants retain all rights to the submission and any invention or work, including any software, submitted as part of the submission, subject to the following—
If the submission wins, the Department retains a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up world-wide license to any such invention or work of the submission throughout the world, in perpetuity, to reproduce, publish or otherwise use the work for Federal purposes and authorize others to do so. Please refer to
The Department reserves the right to modify any dates or deadlines set forth in these
The Department reserves the right to suspend, postpone, cease, terminate or otherwise modify this Challenge, or any entrant's participation in the Challenge, at any time at the Department's discretion.
By participating in the Challenge, each entrant hereby agrees that—
(a) The Department and Luminary Labs shall not be responsible or liable for any losses, damages, or injuries of any kind (including death) resulting from participation in the Challenge or any Challenge-related activity, or from entrants' acceptance, receipt, possession, use, or misuse of any prize; and
(b) The entrant will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Department and Luminary Labs from and against all third party claims, actions, or proceedings of any kind and from any and all damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses relating to, or arising from, the entrant's participation in the Challenge.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Department and Luminary Labs are not responsible for incomplete, illegible, misdirected, misprinted, late, lost, postage-due, damaged, or stolen entries or prize notifications; or for lost, interrupted, inaccessible, or unavailable networks, servers, satellites, Internet Service Providers, Web pages, or other connections; or for miscommunications, failed, jumbled, scrambled, delayed, or misdirected computer, telephone, cable transmissions or other communications; or for any technical malfunctions, failures, difficulties, or other errors of any kind or nature; or for the incorrect or inaccurate capture of information, or the failure to capture any information.
These
The failure of the Department to exercise or enforce any right or provision of these
All issues and questions concerning the construction, validity, interpretation, and enforceability of these
By participating in the Challenge, each entrant hereby agrees that occasionally, the Department and Luminary Labs may also use the entrant's information to contact the entrant about Federal Challenge and innovation related activities, and acknowledges that the entrant has read and accepted the privacy policy at:
Please review the Luminary Lightbox
Participation in the Challenge constitutes an entrant's full and unconditional agreement to these
Luminary Labs collects personal information from entrants to the Challenge. The information collected is subject to the privacy policy located here:
To obtain a list of finalists and winner(s) (after the conclusion of the Challenge) or a copy of these Official Rules, Terms and Conditions, send a self-addressed envelope with the proper postage affixed to: Luminary Labs, 30 West 22nd St., Floor 6, New York, NY, 10010. Please specify “Winners List” or “Official Rules” and the name of the specific Challenge in this request.
Please contact the person listed under
Albert Palacios, U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW., Room 11-086, Washington, DC 20202 or by email:
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on September 28, 2015, the Southeastern Power Administration submitted a tariff filing: Cumberland 2015 Rate Adjustment to be effective 10/1/2015.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that on September 29, 2015, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation seeks approval of the “Supplemental Stipulation and Agreement” dated September 25, 2015 and the associated pro forma tariff sheets, all as more fully explained 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 5 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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Panda Patriot LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 20, 2015.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public comment period and letter peer review.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 30-day public comment period for the draft document titled, “Stormwater Management in Response to Climate Change Impacts: Lessons from the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes Regions” (EPA/600/R-15/087). EPA is also announcing that Versar, Inc., an EPA contractor for external scientific peer review, will select three independent experts from a pool of six to conduct a letter peer review of the same draft document. The document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment within EPA's Office of Research and Development. This document describes insights gained from a series of EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sponsored workshops with communities in the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes regions to address climate change in stormwater adaptation efforts.
EPA intends to forward the public comments that are submitted in accordance with this document to the external peer reviewers for their consideration during the letter peer review. When finalizing the draft documents, EPA intends to consider any public comments received in response to this notice. EPA is releasing this draft document for the purposes of public comment and peer review. This draft document is not final as described in EPA's information quality guidelines and does not represent and should not be construed to represent Agency policy or views.
The draft document is available via the Internet on EPA's Risk Web page under the Recent Additions at
The 30-day public comment period begins October 7, 2015, and ends
The draft document, “Stormwater Management in Response to Climate Change Impacts: Lessons from the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes Regions,” is available primarily via the Internet on the EPA's Risk Web page under the Recent Additions at
Comments may be submitted electronically via
For information on the public comment period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket; telephone: 202-566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-9744; or email:
For technical information, contact Susan Julius, NCEA; telephone: 703-347-8619; facsimile: 703-347-8694; or email:
Water resources in the United States are affected by a number of climate stressors, including increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and extreme events. These changing conditions have implications for stormwater management as local decision makers look to improve existing infrastructure and build new stormwater systems. EPA and NOAA have conducted a number of workshops and other community efforts in cities and counties within the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes regions to initiate conversations about how projected land use and climate change could impact local water conditions and how adaptation (resiliency) planning can fit into decision-making processes to help meet existing goals. These conversations provided insights into the kinds of information that enable and facilitate communities' incorporation of climate change into local planning and decision making for stormwater management. The report reviews lessons learned from these adaptation planning experiences, including locally identified barriers to addressing climate change, methods to overcome barriers in the short term, and long term information needs to further assist communities in their stormwater adaptation efforts.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD 2015-0287, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces EPA's approval of the Commonwealth of
EPA's approval is effective October 7, 2015.
Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175,
On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the
On January 13, 2010, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) submitted an application titled “Electronic Environmental Data Exchange Reporting System” for revision/modification to its EPA-approved stormwater program under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed VA DEQ's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision/modification set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Virginia's request to revise/modify its Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 122 is being published in the
VA DEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions or denials were issued during the period April 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 to control unforeseen pest outbreaks.
Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of the emergency exemption or denial.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0301 is available at
EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific. EPA has also listed denied emergency exemption requests in this notice.
Under FIFRA section 18 (7 U.S.C. 136p), EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are of four types:
1. A “specific exemption” authorizes use of a pesticide against specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
2. “Quarantine” and “public health” exemptions are emergency exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are rarely requested.
3. A “crisis exemption” is initiated by a State or Federal agency (and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in “a reasonable certainty of no harm” to human health, including exposure of infants and children to residues of the pesticide.
If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-limited tolerance meeting the “reasonable certainty of no harm standard” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency issued the exemption or denial, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, and the duration of the exemption. EPA also gives the
EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; May 4, 2015 to December 31, 2015.
On June 9, 2015 the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development declared a crisis for the use of fluopicolide on hops to control downy mildew.
EPA authorized the use of etofenprox in mushroom cultivation to control phorid and sciarid flies; April 27, 2015 to April 27, 2016.
EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on apple, peach, and nectarine to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; May 7, 2015 to October 15, 2015.
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing its receipt of test data submitted pursuant to a test rule issued by EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As required by TSCA, this document identifies each chemical substance and/or mixture for which test data have been received; the uses or intended uses of such chemical substance and/or mixture; and describes the nature of the test data received. Each chemical substance and/or mixture related to this announcement is identified in Unit I. under
Information about the following chemical substances and/or mixtures is provided in Unit IV.:
Section 4(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603(d)) requires EPA to publish a notice in the
A docket, identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0677, has been established for this
The docket for this
This unit contains the information required by TSCA section 4(d) for the test data received by EPA.
1.
2.
3.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the pesticides listed in the table in Unit II of this notice, and opens a public comment period on the proposed interim decisions. This notice also opens the dockets and announces the availability of EPA's Preliminary Work Plan and proposed interim registration review decisions for 2H-Cyclopent(d)isothiazol-3(4H)-one, 5,6-dihydro-2-methyl- and
Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit II., by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the table in Unit II.
1.
2.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown in the following table, and opens a 60-day public comment period on the proposed interim decisions.
The registration review final decisions for these cases are dependent on the assessments of listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), determinations on the potential for endocrine disruption, and/or assessments of exposure and risk to pollinators.
The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier documents related to the registration review of the case. For example, the review typically opens with the availability of a Summary Document, containing a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final Work Plan typically is placed in the docket following public comment on the initial docket. Following a period for public comment on the proposed interim registration review decisions for products containing the affected active ingredients, the Agency will issue interim registration review decisions for products containing the affected active ingredients.
The registration review program is being conducted under congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) required EPA to establish by regulation procedures for reviewing pesticide registrations, originally with a goal of reviewing each pesticide's registration every 15 years to ensure that a pesticide continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The Agency's final rule to implement this program was issued in the
The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decisions. All comments should be submitted using the methods in
The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the closing date and will provide a “Response to Comments Memorandum” in the docket for each of the pesticides included in the table in Unit II. The interim registration review decision will explain the effect that any comments had on the decision and provide the Agency's response to significant comments, as needed.
Background on the registration review program is provided at:
7 U.S.C. 136
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of request for amendments by registrants to terminate uses in certain pesticide registrations. FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any request in the
Unless a request is withdrawn by November 6, 2015 for registrations for which the registrant requested a waiver of the 180-day comment period, EPA expects to issue orders terminating these uses. The Agency will consider withdrawal requests postmarked no later than November 6, 2015. Comments must be received on or before November 6, 2015, for those registrations where the 180-day comment period has been waived.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0601, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
Mark Hartman, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-5440; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from registrants to terminate uses in certain pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These registrations are listed in Table 1 of this unit by registration number, product name, active ingredient, and specific uses terminated.
Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of publication of this notice, EPA expects to issue orders terminating all of these uses. Users of these pesticides or anyone else desiring the retention of a use should contact the applicable registrant directly during this 30-day period.
Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the Products In Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number.
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for use termination must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under
7 U.S.C. 136
Farm Credit Administration.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).
The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on October 8, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Submit attendance requests via email to
This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). Please send an email to
• September 10, 2015.
• Board Resolution on National Cooperative Month.
• U.S. Agricultural Exports to China: Risks and Rewards.
• Update on Recruitment.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 7, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
On September 17, 2015, by Report and Order, FCC 15-118, the Commission amended the Contest Rule to permit broadcasters to meet their obligation to disclose contest material terms on an Internet Web site in lieu of making broadcast announcements. Under the amended Contest Rule, broadcasters are required to (i) announce the relevant Internet Web site address on air the first time the audience is told about the contest and periodically thereafter; (ii) disclose the material contest terms fully and accurately on a publicly accessible Internet Web site, establishing a link or tab to such terms through a link or tab on the announced Web site's home page, and ensure that any material terms disclosed on such a Web site conform in all substantive respects to those mentioned over the air; (iii) maintain contest material terms online for at least thirty days after the contest has ended; and (v) announce on air that the material terms of a contest have changed (where that is the case) within 24 hours of the change in terms on a Web site, and periodically thereafter, and to direct consumers to the Web site to review the changes.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Communications Commission has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a revision of a currently approved public information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the
Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing Director, FCC, at (202) 418-2991, or email:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10323 United Americas Bank, N.A., Atlanta, GA (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of United Americas Bank, N.A. (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases,
Effective October 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10309 Pierce Commercial Bank, Tacoma, WA (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Pierce Commercial Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective October 01, 2015, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for The First National Bank of Barnesville, Barnesville, GA (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of The First National Bank of Barnesville (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective October 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10309 Pierce Commercial Bank, Tacoma, WA (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Pierce Commercial Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective October 01, 2015, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a proposed new collection of information, a Small Business Lending Survey of banks that is proposed to be fielded in May 2016.
Comments must be submitted on or before December 7, 2015.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. All comments should reference “FDIC Small Business Lending Survey”:
•
•
•
•
Interested members of the public may obtain a copy of the survey and related instructions by clicking on the link for the
The FDIC proposes to establish the following collection of information:
Small businesses are an important component of the U.S. economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small firms accounted for almost half of private-sector employment and 63 percent of net new jobs between mid-1993 and 2013.
Due to the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy and the importance of bank lending to small businesses, the proposed FDIC Small Business Lending Survey, which surveys banks, will provide important data to complement existing sources of data on small business lending. The proposed survey data will not duplicate existing sources of data and will provide additional insight into many aspects of small business lending.
The FDIC Small Business Lending Survey, proposed to begin data collection in May 2016, is designed to yield heretofore unavailable nationally-representative estimates on the volume and details of small business loans extended by FDIC-insured banks. In addition, the survey will provide new information on banks' perceived competition and market area for small business lending. The survey will yield nationally representative estimates of small business lending by banks of several different asset size categories and with different levels of urban or rural presence.
In addition to the questions on small business lending, the new survey will include some questions related to consumer transaction accounts that are directly responsive to the mandate in Section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Conforming Amendments Act of 2005 (“Reform Act”) (Pub. L. 109-173), which calls for the FDIC to conduct ongoing surveys “on efforts by insured depository institutions to bring those individuals and families who have rarely, if ever, held a checking account, a savings account or other type of transaction or check cashing account at an insured depository institution (hereafter in this section referred to as the `unbanked') into the conventional finance system.” Section 7 of the Reform Act further instructs the FDIC to consider several factors in its conduct of the surveys, including: “what cultural, language and identification issues as well as transaction costs appear to most prevent `unbanked' individuals from establishing conventional accounts”.
The consumer account-focused questions are designed to provide a factual basis for examining identification issues and transaction costs related to establishing mainstream transaction accounts at banks. These consumer account-focused questions have been added to the Small Business Lending Survey in lieu of fielding a separate second survey to respond to the Congressional mandate. The consolidation of these efforts is expected to reduce the burden on banks relative to fielding two separate surveys.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The FDIC will consider all comments to determine the extent to which the information collection should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. After the comment period closes, comments will be summarized and/or included in the FDIC's request to OMB for approval of the collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10157 First Security National Bank, Norcross, Georgia (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of First Security National Bank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective October 01, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10090 Security Bank of North Metro, Woodstock, Georgia (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Security Bank of North Metro (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective October 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10087 Security Bank of Houston County, Perry, Georgia (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Security Bank of Houston County (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective October 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10113, InBank, Oak Forest, IL (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of InBank (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective October, 01, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FDIC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, “Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Banks with Total Consolidated Assets of $10 Billion or More under Dodd-Frank” (OMB Control No. 3064-0189).
Comments must be received by December 7, 2015.
You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, you may send a copy of your comments: By mail to the U.S. OMB, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503 or by facsimile to 202.395.6974, Attention: Federal Banking Agency Desk Officer.
You can request additional information from Gary Kuiper, 202.898.3877, Legal Division, FDIC, 550 17th Street NW., MB-3074, Washington, DC 20429. In addition, copies of the templates referenced in this notice can be found on the FDIC's Web site (
The FDIC is requesting comment on the following revision of an information collection:
Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Consistent with past practice, the FDIC intends to use the data collected through these revised templates to assess the reasonableness of the stress test results of covered banks and to provide forward-looking information to the FDIC regarding a covered bank's capital adequacy. The FDIC also may use the results of the stress tests to determine whether additional analytical techniques and exercises could be appropriate to identify, measure, and monitor risks at the covered bank. The stress test results are expected to support ongoing improvement in a covered bank's stress testing practices with respect to its internal assessments of capital adequacy and overall capital planning.
The FDIC recognizes that many covered banks with total consolidated assets of $10 billion to $50 billion are part of a holding company that is also required to submit relevant Dodd Frank Annual Stress Test (DFAST) reports to the Board. The FDIC, Office of Comptroller of the Currency, and Board have coordinated the preparation of stress testing templates in order to make the templates as similar as possible and thereby minimize the burden on affected institutions. These agencies have coordinated in a similar manner regarding these proposed modifications to the stress testing templates. Therefore, the revisions by the FDIC to its reporting requirements will remain consistent with the modifications that the Board proposes to make to the FR Y-16.
The FDIC DFAST 10-50 reporting form collects data through two primary schedules: (1) The Results Schedule (which includes the quantitative results of the stress tests under the baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenarios for each quarter of the planning horizon) and (2) the Scenario Variables Schedule. In addition, respondents are required to submit a summary of the qualitative information supporting their quantitative projections. The qualitative supporting information must include:
• A description of the types of risks included in the stress test;
• a summary description of the methodologies used in the stress test;
• an explanation of the most significant causes for the changes in regulatory capital ratios, and
• the use of the stress test results.
For each of the three supervisory scenarios (baseline, adverse, and severely adverse), data are reported on two supporting schedules: (1) The Income Statement Schedule and (2) the Balance Sheet Schedule. Therefore, two supporting schedules for each scenario (baseline, adverse, and severely adverse) are completed. In addition, the Results Schedule includes a Summary Schedule, which summarizes key results from the Income Statement and Balance Sheet Schedules.
Income statement data are collected on a projected quarterly basis showing projections of revenues and losses. For example, respondents project net charge-offs by loan type (stratified by twelve specific loan types), gains and losses on securities, pre-provision net revenue, and other key components of net income (
Balance sheet data are collected on a quarterly basis for projections of certain assets, liabilities, and capital. Capital data are also collected on a projected quarterly basis and include components of regulatory capital, including the projections of risk weighted assets and capital actions such as common dividends and share repurchases.
To conduct the stress tests, an institution may choose to project additional economic and financial variables beyond the mandatory supervisory scenarios provided to estimate losses or revenues for some or all of its portfolios. In such cases, the institution would be required to complete the Scenario Variables Schedule for each scenario where the institution chooses to use additional variables. The Scenario Variables Schedule collects information on the additional scenario variables used over the planning horizon for each supervisory scenario.
The proposed revisions to the FDIC DFAST reporting templates for covered banks with assets of $10 billion to $50 billion are described below.
On November 21, 2014, the FDIC approved a final rule
Specifically, beginning January 1, 2016, the stress testing cycle that, under the previous rule, would have begun on October 1 of a given calendar year, will begin January 1 of a given calendar year. Beginning with the 2016 stress-testing cycle, the final rule requires covered banks to conduct company-run stress tests using financial data as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year, which represents a three-month shift from September 30 in the previous rule. The FDIC will provide the economic scenarios to be used by covered banks in their company-run stress tests no later than February 15, rather than November 15, as is provided under the previous rule.
All $10 billion to $50 billion covered banks will be required to conduct and submit the results of their company-run stress tests to the FDIC by July 31 and publish those results during a period beginning on October 15 and ending October 31.
Due to the timing shift of the Dodd-Frank Act stress test, the FDIC is proposing several changes to conform the data collection to the final rule.
The FDIC proposes to revise the FDIC DFAST 10-50 Summary Schedule by
In addition, the FDIC proposes to clarify the FDIC DFAST 10-50 reporting form instructions to change the submission date from March 31st to July 31st, to change references to the financial “as of” date from September 30th to December 31st, and to update the line items references to the new Call Report Instructions.
The FDIC estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The FDIC does not expect that the changes to the DFAST 10-50 Summary Schedule and reporting form instructions will result in an increase in burden. The burden for each $10 billion to $50 billion covered bank that completes the FDIC DFAST 10-50 Results Template and FDIC DFAST 10-50 Scenario Variables Template is estimated to be 469 hours. The burden to complete the FDIC DFAST 10-50 Results Template is estimated to be 440 hours, including 20 hours to input these data and 420 hours for work related to modeling efforts. The burden to complete the FDIC DFAST 10-50 Scenario Variables Template is estimated to be 29 hours. The total burden for all 22 respondents to complete both templates is estimated to be 10,318 hours.
Comments are invited on all aspects of the proposed changes to the information collection, particularly:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the FDIC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the FDIC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information; and
(f) The ability of FDIC-supervised banks and savings associations with assets between $10 billion and $50 billion to provide the requested information to the FDIC by July 31, 2016.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10088 Security Bank of Jones County, Gray, Georgia (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Security Bank of Jones County (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.
Effective October 1, 2015 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
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 October 30, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 22, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1.
2.
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 November 2, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
In connection with this application, Essay Bank Holdings, LLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma, has applied to become a bank holding company by acquiring 20 percent of the voting shares of Capital Bank Holdings, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension of a previously existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Value Engineering Requirements.
Submit comments on or before December 7, 2015.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0027, Value Engineering Requirements, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Contract Policy Division, GSA, 202-501-1448 or email at
Per Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 48, value engineering is the technique by which contractors (1) voluntarily suggest methods for performing more economically and share in any resulting savings or (2) are required to establish a program to identify and submit to the Government methods for performing more economically. These recommendations are submitted to the Government as value engineering change proposals (VECP's) and they must include specific information. This information is needed to enable the Government to evaluate the VECP and, if accepted, to arrange for an equitable sharing plan.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of a bulletin.
The General Services Administration has issued Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Bulletin G-06, which provides guidance to large Executive Branch Federal agencies of the annual mail management reporting
Ms. Cynthia Patterson, Office of Government-wide Policy (MAF), Office of Asset and Transportation Management, General Services Administration at 703-589-2641 or via email at
FMR Bulletin G-06 provides large Federal agencies with reporting instructions and training information in SMART and is consistent with the Federal Management Regulation.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning Transportation Requirements. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before November 6, 2015.
Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:
•
•
Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA 202-501-1448 or via email at
FAR Part 47 contains policies and procedures for applying transportation and traffic management considerations in the acquisition of supplies. The FAR part also contains policies and procedures when acquiring transportation or transportation-related services. Generally, contracts involving transportation require information regarding the nature of the supplies, method of shipment, place and time of shipment, applicable charges, marking of shipments, shipping documents and other related items.
Contractors are required to provide the information in accordance with the following FAR Part 47 clauses: 52.247-29 through 52.247-44, 52.247-48, 52.247-52, and 52.247-64. The information is used to ensure that: (1) Acquisitions are made on the basis most advantageous to the Government and; (2) supplies arrive in good order and condition, and on time at the required place.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary; whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0061, Transportation Requirements, in all correspondence.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD), Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing an opportunity to comment on the
Submit written comments on the collection of information by November 6, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by fax 202.395.5806 or by email to
Clare Barnett, Administration for Community Living, Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Office of Program Support, One Massachusetts Avenue NW., Room 4204, Washington, DC 20201, 202-357-3426.
Federal statute and regulation require each State Protection and Advocacy (P&A) System annually prepare for public comment a Statement of Goals and Priorities (SGP) for the P&A for Developmental Disabilities (PADD) program for each coming fiscal year. Following the required public input for the coming fiscal year, the P&A is required by Federal statute and regulation to submit the final version of the SGP to the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD). AIDD reviews the SGP for compliance and will aggregate the information in the SGPs into a national profile of programmatic emphasis for P&A Systems in the coming year to provide an overview of program direction, and permit AIDD to track accomplishments against goals and formulate areas of technical assistance and compliance with Federal requirements. ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.
The TransMedics® Organ Care System
On November 19, 2015, the committee will discuss and make recommendations regarding the classification of the product code “LKX”, and the associated device classification name, “Device, Thermal, Hemorrhoids”. The product code LKX represents a category of devices intended to apply controlled cooling and conductive heating to hemorrhoids. These devices are considered preamendments devices since they were in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976, when the Medical Devices Amendments became effective. Some examples of the means by which these devices perform these functions and their respective Indications for Use (IFU)/Intended Use (IU) statements are as follows:
• Uses an aluminum probe that contains a temperature sensitive element to regulate temperature within 2 degrees (between 37 and 46 degrees centigrade).
○ IFU/IU: The apparatus is intended to apply controlled, conductive heating to hemorrhoids.
• Uses a heat applicator inserted into the rectum, applicator contains a battery
○ IFU/IU: Intended to provide temporary relief of the symptoms of hemorrhoids through the application of mild heating.
• Uses speculum like plastic container containing liquid to cool hemorrhoidal veins
○ IFU/IU: Treatment of external hemorrhoids by applying cold therapy (cryotherapy) directly to swollen hemorrhoidal veins.
The committee will also discuss and make recommendations regarding the classification of the product code “LRL”, and the associated device classification name, “Cushion, Hemorrhoid”. The product code LRL represents a category of devices intended to temporarily relieve pain and pressure caused by hemorrhoids. These devices are considered preamendments devices since they were in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976, when the Medical Devices Amendments became effective. Some examples of the means by which these devices perform these functions and their respective IFU/IU statements are as follows:
• Uses an injection molded polypropylene copolymer plastic seat attached to a toilet seat (the product is adjustable and is available in round and elongated versions).
○ IFU/IU: For the temporary relief from the pain and pressure of hemorrhoids. The device is for external use only.
• Uses a cushion with an inflatable vinyl exterior and a foam center. An air chamber, when filled, prevents the cushion from compressing the foam. A urethane foam center adds comfort.
○ IFU/IU: Intended for the home convalescent patient with perineal discomfort.
• Uses a cushion that contains two internal molded structures that conform to the patient's shape. Exerts “slight” pressure on hemorrhoid. IFU/IU not provided.
The committee will also discuss and make recommendations regarding the classification of the product code “LKN”, and the associated device classification name, “Separator, automated, blood cell and plasma, therapeutic”. The product code LKN represents a category of centrifuge-type devices intended to separate blood components and perform therapeutic plasma exchange for the management of serious medical conditions in adults and children. These devices are considered preamendments devices since they were in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976, when the Medical Devices Amendments became effective. Some examples of the means by which these devices perform these functions and their respective IFU/IU statements are as follows:
• Utilizes a continuous flow centrifuge (max speed 3000 rpm) to separate source blood from a subject into blood components.
○ IFU/IU: May be used to perform therapeutic plasma exchange.
○ IFU/IU: May be used to perform Red Blood Cell Exchange procedures for the transfusion management of Sickle Cell Disease in adults and children.
• Uses continuous flow access to a rotating centrifuge to separate blood components.
○ IFU/IU: May be used to harvest cellular components from the blood of certain patients where the attending physician feels the removal of such component may benefit the patient.
○ IFU/IU: May be used to remove plasma components and/or fluid selected by the attending physicians.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Artair Mallett at
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice entitled “Fee for Using a Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher in Fiscal Year 2016” that appeared in the
Lisa Granger, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-9115,
In FR Doc. 2015-24508, appearing on page 58262 in the
On page 58262, in the third column, in the headings section of the document, “FDA-2014-N-0007” is corrected to read “FDA-2015-N-0007”.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces updated dates for meetings of a public advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). These meetings will be open to the public.
For meeting locations, web conference information, and the most up-to-date information, please visit the calendar on the ONC Web site,
Persons attending ONC's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing wireless access or access to electrical outlets.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. Seating is limited at the location, and ONC will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Michelle Consolazio at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
ONC is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces updated dates for meetings of a public advisory committee of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). These meetings will be open to the public.
For meeting locations, Web conference information, and the most up-to-date information, please visit the calendar on the ONC Web site,
Persons attending ONC's advisory committee meetings are advised that the agency is not responsible for providing wireless access or access to electrical outlets.
ONC welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings. Seating is limited at the location, and ONC will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Michelle Consolazio at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
ONC is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App. 2).
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office for Human Research Protections.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), is announcing a public Town Hall Meeting to respond to questions related to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that HHS and fifteen other federal departments and agencies published in the
The purpose of the public Town Hall meeting is for OHRP, HHS agencies, and other Common Rule departments and agencies to provide responses to questions from the public about the NPRM during the open public comment period in order to clarify the NPRM proposals and better inform public comment on the NPRM. The public will be able to ask questions during the Town Hall Meeting, and to submit questions before the meeting. Details about how to submit questions before the Town Hall Meeting are provided below.
The public Town Hall Meeting will be held on October 20, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Meeting Location: The Town Hall Meeting will be held at the Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Great Hall, Washington, DC 20201; Metro: Federal Center SW station. In addition, we are providing an alternative to attending the meeting in person—the public may view the meeting via webcast. Information on that option is provided in section D of this notice. An archived version of the webcast will be posted on OHRP's Web site after the meeting.
Registration to attend the Town Hall Meeting will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. If seating capacity has been reached, you will be notified that the meeting has reached capacity.
Individuals who need special accommodations should contact staff listed in the
Submit electronic questions about the NPRM, identified with docket number HHS-OPHS-2015-0009 to:
Dr. Irene Stith-Coleman, Director, Division of Policy and Assurances, Office for Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200; Rockville, MD 20852, phone 240-453-6900; email
The public Town Hall Meeting is intended to provide an opportunity for the public to obtain responses from federal government representatives on a range of questions related to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects NPRM that HHS and fifteen other federal departments and agencies published in the
The meeting will be conducted by a panel of HHS officials. In addition, other federal government officials will be available to respond to relevant
Because the public Town Hall Meeting will be located on federal property, for security reasons, any persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by the date specified in the
Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Guard Service personnel.
• Passing through a metal detector and inspection of items brought into the building. We note that all items brought to HHS are subject to inspection.
Note: Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting in person. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting. All visitors must be escorted while in the building.
Information on the option to view the meeting by webcast will be posted at a later time on the OHRP Web site at
As soon as a transcript of the public meeting is available, it will be accessible on the OHRP Web site,
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 Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.
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 Council 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. Information is also available on the OAR's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, September 25, 2015, 09:00 a.m. to September 25, 2015, 12:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to reflect a date and time change. The meeting will be held on December 15, 2015, from 04:00 p.m. until 06:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
National Toxicology Program (NTP) Office of the Report on Carcinogens (ORoC) and Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) request information on nine substances, mixtures, and exposure circumstances (collectively referred to as “substances”). Six substances are nominated for possible review for future editions of the Report on Carcinogens (RoC). Three substances are being considered by OHAT for evaluation of non-cancer health outcomes.
Deadline for receipt of information is November 6, 2015.
Information on substances for possible review for the RoC should be submitted electronically on the ORoC nominated substances page (
Request for Information: The NTP requests information on nine substances: Six substances have been nominated for possible review for future editions of the RoC (see
* Evaluations for the RoC may seek to list a new substance in the report, reclassify the listing status of a substance already listed, or remove a listed substance.
Three substances are being considered for OHAT evaluation of non-cancer health outcomes.
Information on RoC nominations should be submitted electronically on the ORoC nomination page (
Responses to this request for information are voluntary. This request for information is for planning purposes only and is not a solicitation for applications or an obligation on the part of the U.S. Government to provide support for any ideas identified in response to it. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for the preparation of any information submitted or for its use. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in your response.
Background Information on ORoC: On behalf of NTP, ORoC manages preparation of the RoC following an established, four-part process (
Background Information on OHAT: On behalf of NTP, OHAT conducts literature-based evaluations to assess the evidence that environmental chemicals, physical substances, or mixtures (collectively referred to as “substances”) cause adverse non-cancer health outcomes. As part of these evaluations, NTP may also provide opinions on whether these substances might be of concern for causing adverse effects on human health given what is known about toxicity and current human exposure levels.
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.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are 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.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) is requesting clearance for the revision of data collection associated with the previously-approved cross-site evaluation of the Garrett Lee Smith (GLS) Youth Suicide Prevention and Early Intervention Program (GLS Suicide Prevention Program), now entitled National Outcomes Evaluation (NOE). The NOE is a proposed redesign of the currently-approved cross-site evaluation (OMB No. 0930-0286; Expiration, January 2017) that builds on prior published GLS evaluation proximal and distal training and aggregate findings from program activities (
The NOE aims to address the field's need for additional evidence on the impacts of the GLS Suicide Prevention Program in three areas: (1) Suicide prevention training effectiveness, (2) early identification and referral on subsequent care follow-up and adherence, and (3) suicide safer care practices within health care settings. The evaluation comprises three distinct, but interconnected core studies—Training, Continuity of Care (COC), and Suicide Safer Environment (SSE). The Training and SSE studies also have “enhanced” study components. Core study data align with required program activities across the State/Tribal and Campus programs and provide continuity with and utility of data previously collected (implementation and proximal outcomes). Enhanced components use experimental and quasi-experimental methods (randomized controlled trial [RCT] and retrospective cohort study designs) to truly assess program impacts on distal outcomes (
The NOE builds on information collected through the four-stage cross-site evaluation approach (context, product, process, and impact) to further the field of suicide prevention and mental health promotion. Of notable importance, the design now accounts for differences in State/Tribal and Campus program grant funding cycles (
Eleven data collection activities compose the NOE—two new instruments, three previously-approved instruments, and six previously-approved and improved instruments. As GLS program foci differ by grantee type, some instruments will apply to either State/Tribal or Campus programs only. Of the 11 instruments, 2 will be administered with State/Tribal and Campus grantees (tailored to grantee type), 6 are specific to State/Tribal grantees, and 3 pertain only to Campus grantees.
Due to the fulfillment of data collection goals, six currently-approved instruments and their associated burden will be removed. The combined estimated annual burden for these instruments is 4,300 hours. These include the
Three instruments will be administered only in OMB Year 1 to finalize data collection for the current cross-site evaluation protocol. Each instrument was previously approved as part of the four-stage approach (OMB No. 0930-0286; Expiration, January 2017) and no changes are being made. These include the State/Tribal Referral Network Survey (RNS), TUP-S Campus Version, and Campus Short Message Service Survey (SMSS). Each instrument will be discontinued once the associated data collection requirement has been fulfilled.
Six currently-approved instruments will be revised for the NOE. Each of the instruments, or an iteration thereof, has received approval through multiple cross-site evaluation packages cleared by OMB. As such, the information gathered has been, and will continue to be, crucial to this effort and to the field of suicide prevention and mental health promotion.
Prevention Strategies Inventory (PSI): The PSI has been updated to enhance the utility and accuracy of the data collected. Changes capture different strategies implemented and products distributed by grantee programs, the population of focus for each strategy, total GLS budget expenditures, and the percent of funds allocated by the activity type.
Training Activity Summary Page (TASP): New items on the TASP gather information about the use of behavioral rehearsal and/or role-play and resources
Training Utilization and Preservation Survey (TUP-S) 3 and 6-month follow up: The TUP-S has been improved to examine posttraining behaviors and utilization of skills by training participants—factors known to improve understanding of the comprehensive training process and the impact of training on identifications, referrals, and service use. The survey now requests information about training resources received, practice components, trainee participation in role play, and previous suicide prevention trainings attended; experience intervening with a suicidal individual (from QPR evaluation tool), intended use of the training, and referral behaviors; and previous contact and quality of relationships with youth. Broad items about training others, the use/intended use of skills, and barriers/facilitators have been removed. The consent-to-contact form has been modified to add brief items about the trainee and previous identifications/referrals. The TUP-S will be administered at 3 and 6 months post-training to a random sample of training participants via CATI (2000 ST TUP-S 3-mo/600 ST TUP-S 6-mo per year).
Early Intervention, Referral, and Follow-up Individual Form (EIRF-I): The EIRF-I has been improved to gather initial follow-up information about youth identified as being at risk as a result of the State/Tribal GLS program (whether or not a service was received after referral). In addition, EIRF-I (1) data elements have been expanded to include screening practices, screening tools, and screening results of youth identified as at-risk for suicide; (2) response options have been expanded/refined (
EIRF Screening Form (EIRF-S): Data elements have been added to indicate whether State/Tribal screenings were performed at the individual- or group-level. New response options have been added under “screening tool” and “false positive” has been removed.
Student Behavioral Health Form (SBHF): The SBHF (formerly entitled the MIS) has been expanded and renamed. The Campus form has been enhanced to include referral and follow-up procedure questions (rather than simply counts); numbers screened, identified at risk, receiving suicide-specific services, referred, and receiving follow-up; and age and gender breakdowns of suicide attempts and deaths. Student enrollment/retention items have been removed; these will be obtained through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. The SBHF will require closer involvement with campus behavioral health/health providers to gather data on procedural questions and screenings, risk assessment, services, referrals, and follow-ups.
Four instruments will augment the evaluation—two are newly developed instruments and two represent new versions of existing instruments.
TUP-S RCT (Baseline and 12-Month versions): The TUP-S RCT refers to versions administered as part of the Training Study RCT. The RCT collects TUP-S data at baseline (pre-training) and 3, 6, and 12 months after training. Because the surveys are conducted at different times, each version refers the participant to a specific time period. All trainees from States/Tribes participating in the RCT and who consent to be contacted will be surveyed until the desired sample size of 1332 respondents is achieved. The consent-to-contact form will describe the RCT and the 4 assessment periods. The consent-to-contact form will describe the RCT and the 4 assessment periods.
Behavior Health Provider Survey (BHPS): The BHPS is a new State/Tribal data collection activity and the first to specifically target behavioral health providers partnering with GLS grantees. Data will include information about referrals for at-risk youth, SSE care practices implemented, and client outcomes (number of suicide attempts and deaths). A total of 1-10 respondents from each State/Tribal grantee's partnering behavioral health provider will participate annually.
The estimated response burden to collect this information associated with the redesigned National Outcomes Evaluation is as follows annualized over the requested 3-year clearance period is presented below:
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 2-1057, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857
Science and Technology Directorate, DHS.
60-day notice and request for comment.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) invites the general public to comment on the renewal of existing data collection forms for the DHS Science and Technology Directorate's Project 25 (P25) Compliance Assessment Program (CAP): Supplier's Declaration of Compliance (SDoC) (DHS Form 10044 (6/08)) and Summary Test Report (DHS Form 10056 (9/08)). The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the destruction of Hurricane Katrina made apparent the need for emergency response radio systems that can interoperate, regardless of which organization manufactured the equipment. In response, and per congressional direction, DHS and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed the P25 CAP to improve the emergency response community's confidence in purchasing land mobile radio (LMR) equipment built to P25 LMR standards. The P25 CAP establishes a process for ensuring that equipment complies with P25 standards and is capable of interoperating across manufacturers. The Department of Homeland Security needs to be able to collect essential information from manufacturers on their products that have met P25 standards as demonstrated through the P25 CAP. Equipment suppliers will provide information to publicly attest to their products' compliance with a specific set of P25 standards. Accompanied by a Summary Test Report that substantiates this declaration, the SDoC constitutes a company's formal, public attestation of compliance with the standards for the equipment. In providing this information, companies will consent to making this information public. In turn, the emergency response community will use this information to identify P25-compliant communications systems. The P25 CAP Program Manager will perform a simple administrative review to ensure the documentation is complete and accurate in accordance with the current P25 CAP processes. This notice and request for comments is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 7, 2015.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments, identified by docket number, by
• Email:
John Merrill (202) 254-5604 (Not a toll free number).
The SDoC and Summary Test Report forms will be posted on the FirstResponder.gov Web site at
The Department is committed to improving its information collection and urges all interested parties to suggest how these materials can further reduce burden while seeking necessary information under the Act.
DHS is particularly interested in comments that:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Suggest ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Suggest 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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
a.
b.
c.
d.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 6, 2015. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Laura Dawkins, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of funding awards.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Delta Community Capital Initiative. This announcement contains the names of the awardees and the amounts of the awards made available by HUD.
Jackie L. Williams, Ph.D., Director, Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7240, Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone (202) 708-2290 (this is not a toll free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339.
Funds used for the Delta Community Capital Initiative were appropriated to the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development in annual appropriations between 1999 and 2009 (Pub. L. 105-276; 106-74; 106-377; 107-73; 108-7; 108-199; 108-447; 109-115; 110-5; 110-161; and/or 111-8) and subsequently recaptured from or surrendered by underperforming or nonperforming grantees.
The competition was announced in the
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this Delta Community Capital Initiative program is 14.271. The Delta Community Capital Community Initiative is designed to increase access to capital for business lending and economic development in the chronically underserved and undercapitalized Lower Mississippi Delta Region. Specifically, it will provide direct investment and technical assistance to community development lending and investing institutions that focus on business lending and economic development to benefit the residents of the Lower Mississippi Region. Eligible applicants for the Delta Community Capital Initiative are Federally recognized Indian tribes and local rural nonprofit organizations having a 501(c)(3) status with the IRS. The funds made available under this program were awarded competitively through a selection process conducted by HUD.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987. 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the grantees and amounts of the awards in Appendix A to this document.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of Funding Awards.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Appalachia Economic Development Capital Initiative. This announcement contains the names of the awardees and the amounts of the awards made available by HUD.
Jackie L. Williams, Ph.D., Director, Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7240, Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone (202) 708-2290 (this is not a toll free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339.
Funds used for the Appalachia Economic Development Initiative were appropriated to the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development in annual appropriations between 1999 and 2009 (Public Laws 105-276; 106-74; 106-377; 107-73; 108-7; 108-199; 108-447; 109-115; 110-5; 110-161; and/or 111-8) and subsequently recaptured from or surrendered by underperforming or nonperforming grantees.
The competition was announced in the
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this Appalachia Economic Development Initiative program is 14.270. The Appalachia Economic Development Community Initiative is designed to increase access to capital for business lending and economic development in the chronically underserved and undercapitalized Appalachian region. Eligible applicants for the Appalachia Economic Development Initiative are State community and/or economic development agencies. The funds made available under this program were awarded competitively through a selection process conducted by HUD.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987. 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the grantees and amounts of the awards in Appendix A to this document.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for a 10-year incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (applicant). The application includes the draft habitat conservation plan (draft HCP) for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's operations, maintenance, and management activities on its land in Mono and Inyo Counties, California, pursuant to the Act. We invite public comment on the permit application, draft HCP, and draft Environmental Action Statement/Low Effect Screening Form. The Service is considering the issuance of a 10-year ITP for seven covered species in a 314,000-acre permit area. The permit is needed because take of species could occur as a result of the proposed covered activities.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by November 6, 2015.
You may obtain copies of the draft HCP and Environmental Action Statement/Low Effect Screening Form online at
Kennon A. Corey, Assistant Field Supervisor, Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office; telephone 760-322-2070. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
The applicant, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, requests an ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. If approved, the applicant anticipates the taking of five federally listed species and two unlisted species as a result of activities undertaken or authorized on lands held by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in Inyo and Mono Counties. These activities are associated with water conveyance, agriculture, recreation, road maintenance, habitat restoration, and other land management activities. Take of listed species would be incidental to the applicant's performance or authorization of these activities on lands they manage.
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
To comply with the requirements of the Act, the draft HCP defines biological goals and objectives, evaluates the effects of covered activities on covered species, describes a conservation strategy, describes a monitoring and adaptive management program, identifies changed circumstances and responsive actions, identifies funding sources, and identifies alternative actions to the proposed impacts. The draft HCP is intended to be a document that will facilitate regional species conservation and assist the applicant to better meet its legal obligations to provide water and power to the citizens of Los Angeles while managing its non-urban lands. The draft HCP will also provide a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the incidental take of covered species as an alternative to activity-by-activity review.
The draft HCP addresses seven covered species, including three fish species and four bird species. The permit would provide take authorization for all covered species
The proposed permit would include the following five federally listed animal species: Owens tui chub (
The applicant is requesting coverage for incidental take resulting from ongoing water and power operations and maintenance activities and land management activities (collectively referred to as covered activities) in the following categories:
1. Water gathering and distribution,
2. Power production and transmission,
3. Livestock grazing,
4. Irrigated agriculture,
5. Outdoor recreation,
6. Road maintenance and use,
7. Weed management,
8. Fire management, and
9. Habitat enhancement, habitat creation, and monitoring.
The proposed 314,000-acre permit area is the area where incidental take of covered species resulting from covered activities could occur. The permit area is non-urban land held by the City of Los Angeles in Mono and Inyo Counties; it includes part of the watershed for Mono Lake in Mono County and the Owens River, including several of its tributaries and much of its watershed in Mono and Inyo Counties.
The applicant has developed a conservation strategy that includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of covered species associated with the covered activities as well as enhance and/or create habitat for covered species. The conservation strategy includes biological goals and objectives at the landscape, habitat, and species levels. The conservation actions to implement the biological goals and objectives are habitat based. The rationale for this habitat-based approach is that by enhancing/creating habitat, the HCP implementation would benefit a broader range of species in addition to the covered species.
In the draft HCP, the applicant considers four alternatives to the proposed action: “Status Quo,” “No Action or Avoid Take,” “Activity by Activity Permitting,” and “Reduced Species.” Under the “Status Quo” alternative, the Service would not issue an ITP, but the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power would continue its operations and maintenance activities to provide water and power to the citizens of Los Angeles and manage City-owned land in Inyo and Mono Counties. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power would potentially be in violation of the Act should incidental take of a listed species occur as a result of their operations and maintenance and land management activities. Therefore, the applicant rejected this alternative.
Under the “No Action” or “Avoid Take” alternative, no permit would be issued and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power would cease all activities that may result in the incidental take of a federally listed species. Ceasing these activities would thereby adversely affect its ability to provide water and power to its customers and properly manage its lands. This alternative was rejected because it does not allow the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to complete its mission.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power evaluated obtaining incidental take permits for individual covered activities or an “Activity by Activity” alternative. This alternative would require the applicant to prepare multiple habitat conservation plans. It would require the Service to prepare multiple environmental documents to analyze the issuance of multiple incidental take permits, complete multiple public review processes, and then prepare multiple incidental take permits. This alternative was rejected because it is inefficient, less effective in conserving covered species (
Under the “Reduced Species” alternative, the applicant considered covered species as only the five animal species listed under the Act whose ranges substantially overlapped City of Los Angeles land at the beginning of the HCP development process, as the applicant would need a permit to incidentally take these species. With this alternative, if additional species were listed during the term of the permit, the applicant would need to develop additional habitat conservation planning documents for these newly listed species to obtain incidental take coverage and request new incidental take permits or major permit amendments. Based upon input from the public and its desire to have incidental take coverage for species that might become listed during the permit term, the applicant rejected the “Reduced Species” alternative.
The Service's proposed permit issuance triggers the need for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. In our analysis of the impacts of the proposed permit issuance, we completed a draft Environmental Action Statement/Low Effect Screening Form and made a preliminary determination that the applicant's proposal will have a minor or negligible effect on the covered species, and that the plan qualifies as a low-effect HCP as defined by our Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996). We invite comments on our preliminary determination. Three criteria form the basis for this determination: (1) Implementation of the proposed project as described in the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and/or candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) HCP impacts, considered together with those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in cumulatively significant effects. Our preliminary determination is that HCP approval and ITP issuance qualify for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Service invites the public to comment on the permit application, draft HCP, and draft Environmental Action Statement/Low Effect Screening Form during the public comment period (see
All comments and materials we receive, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public. 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 may 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.
We provide this notice under section 10(a) of the Act and Service regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR 1506.6). We will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and comments we receive to make a final determination regarding whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will also evaluate whether issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP would comply with section 7 of the Act by conducting an intra-service consultation. We will use the results of our intra-Service consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether to issue the ITP. If the requirements and issuance criteria are met under section 10(a), we will issue the ITP to the applicant to authorize incidental take of the covered species. We will make a permit decision no sooner than 30 days after the date of this notice.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of request for comments and public meetings.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), will hold a 30-day comment period, including two public meetings, to obtain comments on providing public access to the Rattlesnake Mountain Unit, including the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain, within the Hanford Reach National Monument (Monument). In Section 3081 of the Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the Service is directed to ensure public access to the summit of Rattlesnake Mountain (a.k.a., Laliik) for educational, recreational, historical, scientific, cultural, and other purposes, including motor vehicle access, and pedestrian and other nonmotorized access.
The public may submit comments from October 15 through November 13, 2015. Two public meetings will be held on October 14, 2015, at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m., see the location under
More information on public access can be found on our Web site:
Dan Haas, at (509) 546-8333 (phone), or
The purpose of the public comment period is to obtain comments and ideas from the public and other interested parties on providing public access to the Monument's Rattlesnake Mountain Unit in a manner that protects unique and sensitive natural, scenic, and cultural resources.
We are furnishing this notice in compliance with the Service's National Wildlife Refuge System planning policy, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
We will consider the comments we receive and issue a scoping report that discusses the issues and opportunities identified during the public comment period, the issues we may or may not further analyze, and the next steps in our process to examine what public access opportunities may be compatible with the purposes of the Monument.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is committed to providing access to this meeting for all participants. Please direct all requests for sign language interpreting services, closed captioning, or other accommodation needs to Dan Haas, (509) 546-8333 (phone); or
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing recovery permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species.
Comments on these permit applications must be received on or before November 6, 2015.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Endangered Species Program Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 (telephone: 916-414-6464; fax: 916-414-6486). Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments.
Daniel Marquez, Fish and Wildlife Biologist; see
The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and Sonoma County DPS) (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (survey by pursuit) the El Segundo blue butterfly (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara County DPS and Sonoma County DPS) (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, collect genetic samples, and release) the giant kangaroo rat (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the Santa Ana sucker (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, and erect fence and nest exclosures) the western snowy
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the mountain yellow-legged frog (northern California DPS) (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the giant kangaroo rat (
The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, mark, collect hair, and release) the salt marsh harvest mouse (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, mark, and release) the Fresno kangaroo rat (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey and locate and monitor nests) the California least tern (
The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Riverside fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (survey by pursuit, capture, handle, and release) the Behren's silverspot butterfly (
The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, capture, handle, band, release, conduct predator control activities, collect carcasses, conduct camera monitoring, and float eggs) the California least tern (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture, handle, measure, hold, release) the Devils Hole
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) the San Francisco garter snake (
The applicant requests a permit amendment to remove/reduce to possession the
The applicant requests a permit renewal to remove/reduce to possession the
The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara County DPS and Sonoma County DPS) (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect adult vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue the collection of information that is necessary to implement two provisions of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act—one which requires Federal agencies to consult with interested parties to develop a listing of significant caves, and another under which Federal and State governmental agencies and bona fide educational and research institutions may request confidential information regarding significant caves. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved this information collection activity, and assigned it control number 1004-0165.
The OMB is required to respond to this information collection request within 60 days but may respond after 30 days. For maximum consideration, written comments should be received on or before November 6, 2015.
Please submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB #1004-0165), Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, fax 202-395-5806, or by electronic mail at
Please indicate “Attn: 1004-0165” regardless of the form of your comments.
James Goodbar, at 575-234-5929. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, to leave a message for Mr. Goodbar. You may also review the information collection request online at
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 provide that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. In order to obtain and renew an OMB control number, Federal agencies are required to seek public comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d) and 1320.12(a)).
As required at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the BLM published a 60-day notice in the
1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the BLM and other collecting agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. The accuracy of the BLM's estimate of the burden of collecting the information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. The quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. How to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
Please send comments as directed under
The following information is provided for the information collection.
The following table details the individual components and respective hour burdens of this information collection request:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public Land Order.
This order withdraws 1,140.82 acres of public lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral or geothermal leasing laws, for a period of 20 years to protect the geological, cultural, botanical, recreational, and biological resources within the New River Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The withdrawal will protect a $2.8 million investment for facilities and roads.
Michael L. Barnes, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-808-6155, or Paul J. Rodriguez, BLM Coos Bay District Office, 541-751-4462. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to reach either of the contacts stated above. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with either of the above individuals. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
This order replaces expired Public Land Order Nos. 6967 (58 FR 25948 (1993)) and 7170 (60 FR 57192 (1995)).
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public lands are hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not from leasing under the mineral or geothermal leasing laws, for a period of 20 years to protect the geological, cultural, botanical, recreational, and biological resources within the New River Area of Critical Environmental Concern, including a Federal investment of $2.8 million for facilities and roads on the lands:
The areas described aggregate 1,140.82 acres in Coos and Curry Counties.
2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of the public land laws other than the mining laws.
3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order, unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The administrative boundaries between the Anchorage District Office and Fairbanks District Office have been changed. The administrative boundary adjustments affect two ongoing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning efforts by shifting 2.8 million acres of the Central Yukon Planning Area, managed by the Fairbanks District Office, into the Bering Sea-Western Interior Planning Area, managed by the Anchorage District Office; and by removing three islands from the Bering Sea-Western Interior Planning Area.
These boundary changes were effective on January 9, 2015.
Bridget Psarianos or Serena Sweet, BLM Alaska State Office, 907-271-4208 and 907-271-4543, respectively. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
On January 9, 2015, the BLM Director approved administrative boundary adjustments between the Fairbanks District Office and the Anchorage District Office. The primary purposes for these administrative boundary changes are to improve service to the public, and to improve coordination efforts with local, Federal, and State agencies, tribal governments, and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations. The changes create a contiguous management block of land in Western Alaska, facilitate better tribal consultation and coordination, and provide for improved landscape management planning for key habitats. The district offices conducted public outreach meetings with affected communities, ANCSA corporations, and other organizations and entities, and have received support for the proposed changes.
The BLM issued notices of intent on June 14, 2013, and July 18, 2013, respectively, to prepare resource management plans (RMPs) for the Central Yukon and Bering Sea-Western Interior planning areas. The administrative boundary adjustments will shift 2.8 million acres of the Central Yukon Planning Area into the Bering Sea-Western Interior Planning Area. The 2.8 million-acre area of land is referred to as the “Nulato Hills.” The boundary adjustment transferred the eastern portion of the Nulato Hills, including all of those lands within the boundary of the NANA Corporation, an ANCSA corporation, from the Fairbanks District Office to the Anchorage Field Office.
Three islands located off the coast of Alaska will also be removed from the Bering Sea-Western Interior Planning Area. Saint Lawrence Island is removed from the planning area as the few remaining acres of BLM-managed land have been selected by two ANCSA village corporations, effectively leaving no public lands for the BLM to manage. Saint Mathew Island is removed from the planning area because all of the lands on the island are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and designated as “Wilderness.” Oil and gas development is prohibited on lands designated as Wilderness. Nunivak Island is also removed from the planning area. There are portions of the island that are not designated Wilderness and would be subject to BLM-administration of oil and gas leasing. However, these lands have a very low likelihood of oil and gas potential. Should future BLM oil and gas potential studies (or industry) indicate otherwise, oil and gas leasing would need to be found to be in the national interest and compatible with the purpose of the Nunivak Island National Wildlife Refuge. If this occurs, in compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act process, an amendment would be necessary for both the Bering Sea-Western Interior Resource Management Plan, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Yukon
43 CFR 1601.2.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Malta Field Office, Malta, Montana, intends to collect fees at the Zortman Ranger Station, a historic U.S. Forest Service Ranger Station now administered by the BLM in Zortman, Montana, and expand the amenity reservation fee at the Buffington Day Use Area at the Camp Creek Recreation Area.
To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the proposed rental fees by November 6, 2015. Effective April 7, 2015, the BLM Malta Field Office will begin charging expanded amenity fees for the recreational rental of the Zortman Ranger Station and reservation of Buffington Day Use Area, unless the BLM publishes a
Comments may be mailed or hand delivered to the BLM Malta Field Office, Attn: Field Manager, 501 South 2nd Street East, Malta, MT 59538. You may also submit comments via email to
Kathy Tribby, BLM Outdoor Recreation Planner, at the above address, or by calling 406-654-5124. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
By this Notice, the BLM Malta Field Office is proposing to collect an expanded amenity fee for the rental of the Zortman Ranger Station and historic site and the Buffington Day Use Area. Proposed rental fees and day use fees would be identified and posted on the Malta Field Office Web site, at the Malta Field Office, and distributed in the local media. Fees would be collected as outlined in the field office's existing Camp Creek Campground, Montana Gulch Campground, Buffington Day Use Area, Zortman Ranger Station and Special Recreation Permits Business Plan.
The Zortman Ranger Station, built in 1905, was part of the Lewis and Clark National Forest until 1965 when management of public lands in the area was transferred to the BLM. The site includes the four-room main building, a storage shed and amphitheater which was built for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration. The main building is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In 2013, the BLM partnered with the Forest Service's historic preservation team to repair the outside of the main building and landscape the yard to divert runoff which was undermining the foundation. The interior of the building has been inventoried and abated for asbestos and lead paint. The site also features an amphitheater which is used for interpretive presentations.
Buffington Day Use Area is located within the Camp Creek Recreation Area just northeast of Zortman, Montana. Buffington Day Use Area is utilized by individuals and groups as a parking site for day hikes, family and group gatherings such as picnics, reunions, church group outings and birthday parties. The BLM receives several inquiries each year about reserving the site for weddings and other large gatherings. Since this site has never been designated as a fee area, use is on a first come first serve basis and the facilities cannot be reserved for exclusive use. Establishing the site as a fee area will provide the opportunity for groups to reserve Buffington Day Use Area facilities for day use and allow the BLM to collect fees to cover the additional administrative and maintenance costs.
The Zortman Community and surrounding rural areas are trying to increase economic and recreational opportunities for local and regional populations by promoting the Little Rocky Mountains area and surrounding public lands south to the Missouri River as a destination for eco-tourism groups and families. The BLM is committed to providing and receiving fair value for the use of developed recreation facilities and services in a manner that meets public use demands, provides quality experiences, and protects important resources. In an effort to meet increasing demands for services and maintenance of the existing historic structure, the BLM would collect fees to offset those ongoing costs. In September 1994, the BLM completed the Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved Phillips Resource Area Resource Management Plan (RMP) which provides for the maintenance and/or enhancement of the recreational quality of BLM land and resources to ensure enjoyable recreation experiences. Collecting expanded amenity fees for the Zortman Ranger Station and Buffington Day Use Area would provide a reliable source of funding to ensure the long-term maintenance of these facilities for future recreational use. The collection of user fees was also addressed in the Business Plan, prepared pursuant to the REA and BLM recreation fee program policy. This Business Plan establishes the rationale for charging recreation fees. In accordance with BLM recreation fee program policy, the Business Plan explains the fee collection process and outlines how the fees with be used within the Malta Field Office. The BLM has notified and involved the public at each stage of the public participation process addressed by REA, including the proposal to collect fees, through the Central Montana Resource Advisory Council and other public scoping avenues.
Fee amounts will be posted on the BLM Malta Field Office Web site and at the Malta Field Office. Copies of the Business Plan are available at the Malta Field Office and the BLM Montana State Office.
Pursuant to the REA (16 U.S.C. 6801
Comments may be mailed or hand delivered to the BLM Malta Field Office, Attn: Field Manager, 501 South 2nd Street East, Malta, MT 59538. You may also submit comments via email to
Before including your address, phone number, email address or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised 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.
16 U.S.C. 6803(b); 43 CFR 2932.31.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
30-Day Notice and request for comments.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue the collection of information from applicants for Resource Advisory Councils. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has assigned control number 1004-0204 to this information collection.
The OMB is required to respond to this information collection request within 60 days but may respond after 30 days. For maximum consideration, written comments should be received on or before November 6, 2015.
Please submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB #1004-0204), Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, fax 202-395-5806, or by electronic mail at
Please indicate “Attn: 1004-0204” regardless of the form of your comments.
Mark Purdy at 202-912-7635. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, to leave a message for Mr. Purdy. You may also review the information collection request online at
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 provide that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. In order to obtain and renew an OMB control number, Federal agencies are required to seek public comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d) and 1320.12(a)).
As required at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the BLM published a 60-day notice in the
1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the BLM, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. The accuracy of the BLM's estimate of the burden of collecting the information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. The quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. How to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
Please send comments as directed under
The following information pertains to this request:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central California Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.
A business meeting will be held Thursday, Oct. 29, 2015, at the Mendocino Hotel, 45080 Main St., Mendocino, CA, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Time for public comment is reserved from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Following the business meeting, the RAC will tour the Campbell-Hawthorne Timber Company property to begin preliminary discussion of possible transfer of portions of the property to BLM for off-highway vehicle use.
On Friday, Oct. 30, the RAC is scheduled to leave the Mendocino Hotel at 8 a.m. to tour the Point Arena-Stornetta Unit of the California Coastal National Monument. Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting and tours.
BLM Central California District Manager Este Stifel, (916) 978-4626; or BLM Public Affairs Officer David Christy, (916) 941-3146.
The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the Central California District, which includes the Bishop, Bakersfield, Central Coast, Ukiah and Mother Lode Field Offices. At this meeting, agenda topics will include a field manager updates on resource management issues including the Berryessa-Snow Mountain National Monument and wildfires. Additional ongoing business will be discussed by the council. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
60-day notice and request for comments.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) invites public comments on its plans to seek renewal of its authorization under the Paperwork Reduction Act regarding applications for fee title to Federal lands embraced in hardrock mineral claims. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has assigned control number 1004-0025 to this information collection.
Please submit comments on the proposed information collection by December 7, 2015.
Comments may be submitted by mail, fax, or electronic mail.
Please indicate “Attn: 1004-0025” regardless of the form of your comments.
Sonia Santillan, at 202-912-7123. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, to leave a message for Ms. Santillan.
OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, require that interested members of the public and affected agencies be given an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d) and 1320.12(a)). This notice identifies an information collection that the BLM plans to submit to OMB for approval. The Paperwork Reduction Act provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.
The BLM will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany our submission of the information collection requests to OMB.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The following information pertains to this request:
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Reclamation, in collaboration with other federal agencies (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) is announcing a prize competition for seeking a way to economically detect, count, and identify zooplankton and drift invertebrates in river and estuary systems. Problems identified that prevent the simple transfer of oceanographic techniques to rivers and streams are higher water velocities, turbidity, higher surface/depth ratio, and costs (time and money).
Listed below are the specific dates pertaining to this prize competition:
1. Submission period begins on October 7, 2015.
2. Submission period ends on November 16, 2015.
3. Judging period ends on January 15, 2016.
4. Winners announced by January 29, 2016.
The
1. The Water Pavilion located at the InnoCentive Challenge Center:
2. U.S. Federal Government Challenge Platform:
3. The Nature Open Innovation Pavilion at
4. The Scientific American Citizen Science Center at
InnoCentive, Inc. is administering this challenge under a challenge support services contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. These Web sites will re-direct the Solver community to the InnoCentive Challenge Center as the administrator for this prize competition. Additional details for this prize competition, including the Challenge Agreement specific for this prize competition, can be accessed through any of these prize competition web addresses. The Challenge Agreement contains more details of the prize competition rules and terms that Solvers must agree with to be eligible to compete.
Challenge Manager: Dr. David Raff Science Advisor, Bureau of Reclamation, (202) 513-0516,
The Bureau of Reclamation is announcing this prize competition in compliance with 15 U.S. Code 3719, Prize Competitions. Habitat restoration, improvement, and creation in rivers, streams, and estuaries are key elements for the recovery of salmon, trout, and other critical fish species in the United States. Millions of dollars are spent annually on activities such as manipulating flow regimes, adding structural elements such as wood or rock, reconnecting rivers with their floodplains, and restoring wetlands. A critical aspect in evaluating the effectiveness of these habitat manipulations is understanding how they influence the food resources available to critical fish species targeted for recovery and protection. Yet despite its importance, quantification of food resources has proven difficult.
A solution is being pursued through a prize competition because the Bureau of Reclamation and the collaborating Federal agencies want to seek innovative solutions from those beyond the usual sources of potential solvers and experts that commonly work in the fish recovery management domain. We find ourselves often wondering if somebody, somewhere may know a better way to quantify the availability of food sources for threatened and endangered fish. The prize competition approach enables us to reach new sources of potential solvers to discover other technologies that could be adopted for this purpose; or generate new solutions that would not likely be accomplished by standard contractual methods.
Challenge Summary: Accurate food counts, such as zooplankton and drift invertebrates, are instrumental in fish habitat evaluation and restoration in our rivers and streams. Although technology has been developed for automated detection and identification of zooplankton and drift invertebrates in oceanographic settings, they have not been developed for the unique environmental conditions in rivers and estuaries. High flow rates and turbidity cause problems with automated visual systems used today. The main obstacle in estuaries is turbidity while the main obstacle in river systems is flow velocity. In addition, the horizontal nature of rivers invokes problems not encountered in deep ocean waters (
This is a Theoretical Challenge that requires only a written proposal to be submitted. The Challenge award will be contingent upon theoretical evaluation of the proposal by the Bureau of Reclamation (Seeker). The Seeker has a total prize pool budget of $30,000 to pay the top three submission(s) that meet or exceed the criteria below, an award of $10,000 each. No awards are guaranteed unless they meet or exceed the criteria, and more than one award is not guaranteed. If only a single submission meets or exceeds the criteria, the prize award may be as high as $15,000.
To receive an award, the Solvers will not have to transfer their exclusive intellectual property rights to the Seeker. Instead, they will grant to the Seeker a non-exclusive license to practice their solutions.
The Seeker believes there might be a potential for future collaboration with awarded Solver(s), although such collaboration is not guaranteed. The Seeker may also encourage Solver(s) to
Background: Habitat restoration is considered a key element of fish recovery, and the quality of habitat and food resources available to fish often needs to be evaluated before and after restoration actions. Habitats are often designed to provide increased foraging and rearing habitats at appropriate spatial and temporal scales. Abundance of key food resources for fish such as zooplankton and drift invertebrate (1 mm to 20 mm in size) is time-intensive and expensive to measure, especially for juvenile salmon in a highly dynamic and complex system such as the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (California).
Traditional sampling methods involve the use of towed nets (for slow-moving water) or stationary nets (for fast-moving water) that collect organisms from the water column. Both the field collection of samples and the subsequent sorting and identification of collected invertebrates are time-intensive and expensive, and agencies lacking technical expertise must often rely on outside experts to process samples. Because of the high costs associated with these traditional methods, the spatial and temporal extent of sampling is often inadequate to characterize food availability at scales that are biologically relevant.
In the marine science community, significant advances have been made in plankton monitoring through the use of devices that capture high-resolution images of particles (>100 µm) and invertebrates. These devices produce a catalog of time-stamped images that can be processed to various taxonomic levels with image analysis software, allowing the abundance of organisms in a known volume of water to be quantified. Examples can be found in the following links:
Analogous technologies for freshwater environments do not exist, but could be developed to continuously monitor the prey abundances and dynamics in key locations for migrating and rearing fishes. Pilot systems have been tested in the freshwater environment, but there have been problems with image capture, leading to poor image quality (blurred) and poor identification (low probability of differentiating target organisms from drift algae, detritus and other materials). The difficulties during the pilot were likely caused by
Another big difference between the marine ocean environment and the freshwater and estuarine environment is that ocean monitoring tends to be vertical (in the water column) and items on the surface are not a large percentage of the whole so they can be ignored. In a stream, items on the surface are a high percentage of the overall water column, and sunlight at the surface affects the imaging equipment considerably. It is difficult to get accurate measurements if targeted items on the surface are ignored.
The Challenge: A device/method is sought that could be deployed to collect data continuously (over hours, preferably days) to capture tidal and day/night variation in prey abundance in rivers and streams. By simultaneously deploying multiple units, scientists could measure important spatial and temporal variation such as depth stratification and source/sink food web dynamics.
The device/method must detect, count, and identify drift invertebrates automatically in a size range of 1 to 20 mm in a cost-effective method.
Our goal is to identify ideas and help promote their testing and manufacture for use in the industry. There is potential for awarded Solvers who are interested to continue in the development of these ideas for a commercial product.
Multiple government agencies would likely be interested in this solution (Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State Fish and Wildlife agencies, and others).
1. Equipment made today for oceanographic study—although a good place to start, we are familiar with what exists and our Challenge is to go beyond what exists for our particular problems in freshwater systems.
2. A simple list of equipment without explanation of how they work in concert will not suffice as a description of the system.
1. The device/method should be able to:
a. Detect representative samples of drift invertebrates (1-20 mm). This should include those targeted items floating on the surface to a high degree as well as those in the water column. Representative samples of drift invertebrates in California and other localities are available at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory digital reference collections (
b. Count the targeted items in samples (sort out debris from targeted zooplankton and invertebrates to minimize false positives).
c. Identify the number and taxonomic family (or groups of morphologically similar families) of specimens detected (
2. Requirement no. 1 must be done under the following conditions:
a. Velocities between 0 and 1.5 meters per second.
b. Turbidity between 0 and 100 Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
c. Function in shallow water (less than 1 m) and deep water (up to 20m).
d. Function over a long period of continuous deployment (greater than 24 hours but preferably many days).
e. Operate without natural light (at night or dark spaces, provides own light source as needed).
f. Operate under bright light conditions near the surface in the daytime.
3. If the device is submersible in water, it should be durable enough to be deployable when towed off a boat.
4. If optical, it should be able to capture images without a blur.
5. The device/method must be able to accurately sample and image available drift invertebrates (food) with 95 percent accuracy.
6. The device/method must measure the size of each target item within 0.5 mm or 10 percent of item size.
7. The total cost of the equipment should be targeted to not exceed $100K when produced in larger quantities.
8. The proposed system should offer the Seeker client “freedom to practice.” There should be no third-party patent art preventing the use of specific equipment and materials for their commercial application.
Include ability to measure flow entering device, such that number of food particles per volume of water is estimable.
Project Deliverables: This is a Theoretical Challenge that requires only
1. Detailed description of a method/device that can detect, count, and identify drift invertebrates in fresh water rivers and streams. The Solver must describe with a high level of technical detail as to how the system would meet or not meet each of the “must have” and “nice to have” attributes in Technical Requirements described above. The Solver should expect that their submittal will be reviewed by experts in the field of biology and multiple fields of engineering.
2. Rationale as to why the Solver believes that the proposed method/device will work. This rationale should address each of the Technical Requirements described in the Detailed Description and should be supported with relevant examples.
3. The active principle applied for detection and quantification shall be described in detail. The detecting technology shall be described in detail. Potential technology suppliers shall be identified.
4. Sufficient data to support claims, if available.
5. List of equipment required with cost estimates.
6. The Solver needs to describe how deployable and workable the system would be under a wide variety of environmental conditions including water depths, light, turbidity, salinity, velocities, and turbulence such as those found in small to large streams in the western United States.
The proposal should not include any personal identifying information (name, username, company, address, phone, email, personal Web site, resume, etc.).
The Challenge award will be contingent upon theoretical evaluation of the proposal by the Seeker against the Technical Requirements.
Solutions that meet the requirements will also be judged on the following items in order of priority:
• Practical feasibility;
• Detection precision;
• Manufacturing cost;
• Required power source; and
• Extra weight/space;
• Time to market.
Judging: After the Challenge deadline, the Seeker will evaluate the submissions and make a decision with regards to the winning solution(s). All Solvers that submitted a proposal will be notified on the status of their submissions. However, no detailed evaluation of individual submissions will be provided. Decisions by the Seeker cannot be contested.
Submitted solutions will be evaluated by a Judging Panel composed of scientists, engineers, and other related technical experts. The Judging Panel will also have consultation access to technical experts outside of their expertise, as determined necessary, to evaluate specific submissions.
Eligibility Rules: To be able to win a prize under this competition, an individual or entity must:
1. Agree to the rules of the competition (15 U.S. Code 3719(g)(1));
2. Be an entity that is incorporated in and maintains a primary place of business in the United States, or (b) in the case of an individual, a citizen or permanent resident of the United States (15 U.S. Code 3719(g)(3));
3. Not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment; (15 U.S. Code 3719(g)(4));
4. Assume risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities (15 U.S. Code 3719(i)(1)(B)); and,
5. Not use Federal facilities, or consult with Federal employees
The following individuals or entities are not eligible regardless of whether they meet the criteria set forth above:
1. Any individual who employs an evaluator on the Judging Panel or otherwise has a material business relationship or affiliation with any Judge.
2. Any individual who is a member of any Judge's immediate family or household.
3. The Seeker, participating organizations, and any advertising agency, contractor or other individual or organization involved with the design, production, promotion, execution, or distribution of the prize competition; all employees, representatives and agents thereof; and all members of the immediate family or household of any such individual, employee, representative, or agent.
4. Any individual or entity that uses Federal funds to develop the proposed solution now or any time in the past, unless such use is consistent with the grant award, or other applicable Federal funds awarding document. NOTE: Submissions that propose to improve or adapt existing federally funded technologies for the solution sought in this prize competition are eligible.
Consultation: Fish recovery program managers and technical specialists from across the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were consulted in identifying and selecting the topic of this prize competition. Direct and indirect input from various stakeholders and partners associated with the fish recovery program efforts by these agencies were also considered. In addition, the Bureau of Reclamation maintains an open invitation to the public to suggest prize competition topics at
Public Disclosure: InnoCentive, Inc. is administering this challenge under a challenge support services contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. Participation is conditioned on providing the data required on InnoCentive's online registration form. Personal data will be processed in accordance with InnoCentive's Privacy Policy which can be located at
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of institution of investigation.
Following adoption by the World Customs Organization (WCO) of certain recommended modifications to the Harmonized System on June 11, 2015, the Commission has instituted investigation No. 1205-12,
The WCO recommendation calls upon the Contracting Parties to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Convention) to amend their tariff nomenclature to make certain corrections to Chapters 3 and 63, and to make further amendments to their nomenclature relating to Chapter 44 that were inadvertently omitted from the Council Recommendation of June 27, 2014. The amendments to Chapters 3 and 63 are expected to enter into force on January 1, 2017, and the amendments to Chapter 44, on January 1, 2018. The amendments to Chapters 3 and 63 relate to the text of certain subheadings of headings 03.01 and 03.03 (certain fish), and Subheading Note 1 to Chapter 63 and subheading 6304.20 (certain textiles). The amendments to Chapter 44 relate to several subheadings for certain wood and wood products.
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 this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Daniel P. Shepherdson, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements (202-205-2598, or
The Harmonized System nomenclature provides uniform product architecture for the customs tariffs and statistical nomenclatures of all major trading countries of the world, including the United States. The Harmonized System establishes the general arrangement or structure of product categories, set forth in chapters, 4-digit headings and 6-digit subheadings. It also includes the general rules of interpretation, and section and chapter legal notes that define the scope of sections, chapters, 4-digit headings and 6-digit subheadings. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule is based on the Harmonized System nomenclature. In addition, however, the HTS includes national subdivisions (8-digit subheadings and 10-digit statistical annotations), as well as additional U.S. chapter notes, and other national provisions that facilitate the administration of U.S. customs, tariff and statistical programs.
The Commission will recommend such modifications in the HTS as it considers necessary or appropriate to conform the HTS with amendments recommended in the WCO Council Recommendation of June 11, 2015. In that recommendation the WCO Council recommended that the Contracting Parties to the Convention amend their tariff nomenclature to make certain corrections that were inadvertently omitted from the Council Recommendation of June 27, 2014. The amendments to Chapters 3 and 63 relate to the text of certain subheadings of headings 03.02 and 03.03 (certain fish), and Subheading Note 1 to Chapter 63 and subheading 6304.20 (certain textiles); and the amendments to Chapter 44 relate to several subheadings for certain wood and wood products. The amendments to Chapters 3 and 63 are expected to enter into force on January 1, 2017, and the amendments to Chapter 44, on January 1, 2018.
The Commission expects to transmit its report to the President containing its recommendations in July 2016. The Commission's report will include, in addition to its recommendations, a summary of the information on which the recommendations were based, a statement of the probable economic effect of each recommended change on any industry in the United States, a copy of all written views submitted by interested Federal agencies, and a copy or summary of the views of all other interested parties.
Any submissions that contain confidential business information (CBI) must also conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules requires that the cover of the document and the individual pages be clearly marked as to whether they are the “confidential” or “non-confidential” version, and that the confidential business information be clearly identified by means of brackets. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be made available for inspection by interested parties. The Commission may include some or all of the confidential business information submitted in the course of this investigation in the report it sends to the USTR. The Commission will not otherwise publish any confidential business information in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at EDIS,
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at USITC.
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to section 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of AAVN, Inc. on October 1, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain woven textile fabrics and products containing same. The complaint names as respondents AQ Textiles, LLC of Greensboro, NC and Creative Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. of India. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order, a permanent cease and desist order, and a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or section 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of sections 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-548 and 731-TA-1298 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of welded stainless steel pressure pipe from India, provided for in subheadings 7306.40.50 and 7306.40.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be subsidized by the Government of India and are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by November 16, 2015. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by November 23, 2015.
Joanna Lo (202-205-1888), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On September 30, 2015 the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of the District of Columbia in the lawsuit entitled
The United States' complaint, filed simultaneously with the proposed Consent Decree, seeks civil penalties and injunctive relief for violations of the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations that govern the importation, sale, offering for sale, or otherwise introducing into commerce, of recreational vehicles and small non-road spark-ignition engines. The complaint alleges that the defendants imported and then offered for sale, sold, or otherwise introduced into commerce, 28,265 recreational vehicles and small non-road spark ignition engines between 2006 and 2009 that were not properly certified as compliant with the Clean Air Act's applicable regulations, and failed to provide complete and accurate information in response to an EPA request for information. The proposed Consent Decree requires the defendants to pay a civil penalty of $775,000, to implement a project to mitigate the effects of air pollution emissions arising from the sale of the allegedly noncompliant vehicles and engines, and to implement a corporate compliance plan including inspections, emissions and catalyst testing, and training and reporting requirements for both imported and domestically-produced products.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed 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 $21.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the appendices and signature pages, the cost is $8.25.
On September 29, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the lawsuit entitled
The United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), filed this lawsuit under CERCLA for performance of response action to address Operable Unit 1 of the Del Amo Superfund Site, and for cost recovery. The Site, the location of a former synthetic rubber plant, is in Los Angeles County, California.
On September 29, 2015, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) also filed a complaint against the United States of America and Shell Oil Company under CERCLA for cost recovery with regard to Del Amo Superfund Site Operable Unit 1.
The proposed consent decree would resolve the claims alleged in the complaint of the United States and in the complaint of the DTSC, and provides for the implementation of a remedy that EPA and DTSC will oversee. The Consent Decree requires Shell Oil Company to implement the remedy selected by EPA for Operable Unit 1. EPA's selected remedy for Operable Unit 1, which addresses soil and non-aqueous phase liquid, includes capping and implementation of soil vapor extraction, building engineering controls, in-situ chemical oxidation, and institutional controls. The settlement further provides for Shell Oil Company to pay EPA $1,200,000 for past response costs, and to pay DTSC $63,993.81 for past response costs, and also to pay EPA and DTSC future response costs of overseeing the implementation of the remedial action. The proposed settlement includes the U.S. General Services Administration as a settling federal agency as the successor to the former federal government owners of the plant, and provides that the United States will reimburse Shell Oil Company for a portion of the costs.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney
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 $103.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits, the cost is $32.50.
On September 30, 2015, the Department of Justice lodged two proposed Consent Decrees with two United States District Courts, the Middle District of Florida and the Eastern District of Louisiana, in lawsuits both entitled
The United States filed these two lawsuits under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The United States' complaints name Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, as defendant. Mosaic produces phosphorus-based fertilizer that is commonly applied to corn, wheat and other crops across the country. Sulfuric acid is used to extract phosphorus from mined rock, which produces large quantities of a solid material called phosphogypsum and wastewater that contains high levels of acid. Phosphogypsum is stored in large piles, tanks, ditches and ponds; the piles can reach 500 feet high and cover more than 600 acres, making them some of the largest manmade waste piles in the United States. The piles can also contain several billion gallons of highly acidic wastewater, which can threaten human health and cause severe environmental damage if it reaches groundwater or waterways.
The alleged violations in this case stem from storage and disposal of waste from the production of phosphoric and sulfuric acids, key components of fertilizers, at Mosaic's facilities in Bartow, Lithia, Mulberry and Riverview, Florida and St. James and Uncle Sam, Louisiana. Mosaic allegedly failed to properly treat, store and dispose of hazardous waste, and also allegedly failed to provide adequate financial assurance for closure of its facilities.
The complaints seek injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of the RCRA statute and its implementing regulations that govern the identification, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste, at six Florida facilities and two facilities in Louisiana.
The two consent decrees require the defendant to perform substantial injunctive relief and to pay a $5 million civil penalty to the United States and $1.55 million to Louisiana and $1.45 million to Florida, who are state co-plaintiffs in these cases. EPA estimates that Mosaic will spend approximately $170 million on projects to ensure the proper treatment, storage, and disposal of more than 60 billion pounds of hazardous waste and reduce the environmental impact of its manufacturing and waste management programs. Mosaic also will establish a $630 million trust fund—which will be invested to grow until it reaches full funding of $1.8 billion—the cost to cover phosphygypsum stack closure, including the treatment of hazardous process wastewater, at four of its operating facilities, and long-term care of all of its Florida and Louisiana facilities. The Mosaic Company, Mosaic Fertilizer's parent company, will provide financial guarantees for this work, and the settlement also requires Mosaic Fertilizer to submit a $50 million letter of credit.
In addition, Mosaic will spend $2.2 million on two local environmental projects: A $1.2 million environmental project in Florida to mitigate and prevent certain potential environmental impacts associated with an orphaned industrial property located in Mulberry, Florida; and a $1 million project in Louisiana to fund studies regarding statewide water quality issues and the development of watershed nutrient management plans to be utilized by beef cattle, dairy and poultry producers.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decrees. 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 Decrees
We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decrees upon written request and payment of reproduction costs (25 cents per page). Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
If you would like a copy of the Consent Decree lodged with the Middle District of Florida, please enclose a check or money order, payable to the United States Treasury, for $162.50 (or $20.50 for a paper copy without the exhibits). If you would like a copy of the Consent Decree lodged with the Eastern District of Louisiana, the cost is $124.50 (or $21.25 for a paper copy without the exhibits). If you would like a copy of both Consent Decrees, the cost is $287.00 (or $41.75 for paper copies without the exhibits).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., and Thursday, October 29, 2015, 9 a.m.-3 p.m., Local Time.
NASA Headquarters, Room 9H40, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546.
Ms. Ann Delo, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0750, fax (202) 358-2779, or
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. This meeting will also be available telephonically. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 888-989-6420 to participate in this meeting by telephone, passcode 2857137. The telephone number and passcode will be used both days.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA security requirements including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with drivers licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states/territories are: American Samoa, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 working days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa information (number, type, expiration date); passport information (number, country, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee; and home address to Ann Delo via email at
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of renewal and amendment of the charter of the International Space Station Advisory Committee.
Pursuant to sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and after consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, the NASA Administrator has determined that renewal and amendment of the charter of the International Space Station Advisory Committee is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on NASA by law. The renewed charter is for a one-year period ending September 30, 2016. It is identical to the previous charter, except for an update to the description of Designated Federal Official (DFO) responsibilities which includes ethics language consistent with other NASA Federal advisory committee charters.
Mr. Patrick Finley, (202) 358-5684, Office of International and Interagency Relations, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546.
National Capital Planning Commission.
Notice of 60 day public comment period.
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) has released a draft of the Federal Elements of the
The public comment period closes on December 7, 2015.
Mail written comments or hand deliver comments on the released
Angela Dupont at (202) 482-7232 or
You may submit comments electronically at the public comment portal at
40 U.S.C. 8721(e)(2).
As announced in the April 23, 2015, Notice of Hearing, the Board will receive oral testimony on the pre-filed evidentiary submissions for three contentions between November 16 and 20, 2015.
The venue for this evidentiary hearing will be the DoubleTree Hotel located at 455 South Broadway, Tarrytown, NY 10591. The hearing will commence at 12 p.m. on Monday, November 16, 2015. The start time for each subsequent day will be announced at the hearing itself. The contentions will be heard in numerical order.
Parties are reminded that any motion for cross-examination shall be filed via the Electronic Information Exchange and served on all other parties no later than October 9, 2015, and that proposed question and cross-examination plans shall be filed
The Board will hold a pre-hearing conference via telephone during either the week of October 25 or the week of November 1, 2015. Counsel shall notify the Board of any date and time during that period when they would not be available for a conference. Such notice shall include the reason why counsel would not be available.
All parties, and interested governmental entities, shall notify the Board of who will be representing them at the hearing and also provide notice of the number of seats they will need at or near counsel table for attorneys, paralegals, and other support personnel. This notice should be made promptly, but in no event later than October 22, 2015.
In addition, if any witness for whom written testimony was submitted will not be available at the hearing, notice shall be provided to the Board immediately upon learning of witness's unavailability.
All notifications to the Board, including pre-hearing conference availability, representation at the hearing, and witness unavailability, shall be sent by email to the Board's law clerks, Alana Wase and Julie Reynolds-Engel, at
Parties wishing to reserve conference-room space in the hotel for the duration of the hearing must contact the hotel directly at 914-631-5700.
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of completion of remediation; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is noticing the completion of remediation activities at the Brooks and Perkins Site at 12633 Inkster Road, in Livonia, Michigan.
This notice is effective as of September 23, 2015.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0216 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Theodore Smith, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6721, email:
The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued License STB-0362 to Brooks and Perkins on January 17, 1957, and the license was terminated by the AEC on May 17, 1971. This license authorized Brooks and Perkins to conduct licensed activities at the site using thorium master alloy and thorium magnesium alloy.
In 1981, the AAR Corporation (AAR) purchased Brooks and Perkins and obtained ownership of the land. On February 23, 1994, an NRC inspector conducted an inspection of the AAR site, and subsequently notified AAR by letter dated March 29, 1994, that the NRC had “concluded that thorium was improperly disposed of at the site and certain areas of the building and grounds were in excess of the NRC
The AAR site was subsequently legally divided into the Eastern and Western Parcels. The NRC staff had previously evaluated the Eastern Parcel of the AAR site, and in December 2009, determined that the potential dose from the Eastern Parcel was in conformance with the dose criteria for unrestricted use (ADAMS Accession No. ML093490979).
In 2013, the NRC approved a plan to remediate the Western Parcel of the site in accordance with an AAR proposed Site Remedial Action Work Plan (Work Plan) as amended (letters dated August 7, 2013, and October 30, 2013; ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13220A447 and ML13308A323, respectively). The Work Plan proposed that soil within 32 specified grids containing thorium be excavated to a depth of 1 meter (m) and transported offsite for disposal at a facility in Belleville, Michigan, known as the Wayne Disposal Facility. The excavated areas were to be backfilled with clean fill.
As part of the review of the Work Plan, the NRC staff independently evaluated the dose using a dose assessment that staff performed in 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093490979), as a basis for determining dose for the expected concentrations that would remain at the AAR site. The maximum dose determined by the NRC staff for these expected concentrations is 14 mrem/yr, projected to occur at time around 600 years.
From April to July 2014, AAR conducted remediation of the 32 grids at the site. On May 21, 2015 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML15148A656), AAR submitted a “Project Completion Report and Request for Approval of Unrestricted Use Designation, AAR Corporation, 12633 Inkster Road, Livonia, Michigan, 48150, Western Parcel, Strategic Waste Excavation and Site Restoration Project” (Completion Report). The Completion Report states that the grids specified in the Work Plan were excavated.
The NRC staff and its contractor observed and inspected work at the AAR site several times during the remediation. During the final NRC staff's visit in July 2014, the NRC staff walked the site with a survey instrument and confirmed that the 32 specified grids were excavated per the Work Plan commitment.
The NRC Region III Inspectors performed an inspection at the AAR facility during part of the remediation activities. Results of the inspection are documented in NRC Inspection Report 040-00235/2013-001 (DNMS), dated February 24, 2015, (ADAMS Accession No. ML15056A162). The report concluded that AAR conducted the remediation in accordance with the Work Plan. The report also concluded that the licensee (Solutient, AAR's contractor) had complied with NRC and Department of Transportation regulations for shipments of radioactive waste.
The NRC staff concludes that AAR met the commitments to excavate the 32 specified grids and to dispose the excavated material offsite at an appropriate facility.
Based on the considerations discussed above, the NRC staff concluded that: (1) Radioactive material above release limits has been properly disposed for both Eastern and Western Parcels of the site; (2) reasonable effort has been made to eliminate residual radioactive contamination; and (3) final site surveys and associated documentation demonstrate that the entire site is suitable for unrestricted release in accordance with the criteria in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E.
Therefore, the AAR site at 12633 Inkster Road, Livonia, Michigan, is suitable for unrestricted use.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) hereby gives notice that it will convene a supplemental evidentiary hearing to receive testimony regarding Crow Butte Resources' (Crow Butte) contested application to renew its U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license to operate an in-situ uranium leach recovery facility near Crawford, Nebraska.
On May 27, 2008, notice of the Crow Butte License Renewal Application was published in the
From August 24 through August 28, 2015, the Board held an evidentiary hearing under 10 CFR part 2, subpart L procedures. During this evidentiary hearing the parties submitted new exhibits in response to witness testimony and questions from the Board. These exhibits have been admitted,
At the supplemental evidentiary hearing the Board will receive testimony on the following topics:
• Whether the water levels in the Brule aquifer have lowered due to mining activities;
• What is the available head in the Basal Chadron/Chamberlain Pass formation and the maximum anticipated drawdown during Crow Butte's operation and restoration of its mining facility;
• Whether the results from the four pump tests
• Whether the Basal Chadron/Chamberlain Pass formation exists beneath the Pine Ridge reservation and its connection (if any) to the Basal Chadron/Chamberlain Pass formation beneath the license renewal area;
• To what degree (if any) do the additional exhibits that were admitted after the hearing commenced affect the conclusions regarding the structure of the White River feature and the NRC Staff's maximum likelihood modeling; and
• To what degree (if any) do the additional exhibits that were admitted after the hearing commenced illustrate the groundwater flow directions in the Arikaree and Brule aquifers underlying the Pine Ridge reservation and the license renewal area.
The supplemental hearing will commence on Friday, October 23, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, 8:00 a.m., Mountain Time, and will continue until complete.
Members of the public and media are welcome to attend and observe the evidentiary hearing either in the Rockville Hearing Room or in Chadron State College's Scottsbluff Room. The Scottsbluff Room will open at 7:30 a.m. Mountain Time on the day of the hearing. A telephone bridge line will also be provided for members of the public who are unable to travel to either location, but nevertheless wish to listen to the proceeding. The dial in number for this bridge line is (888) 603-7019, and the passcode for listen-only access to the hearing is 7856326. Participation in the hearing, however, will be limited to the parties' lawyers and witnesses. Please be aware that security measures will be employed at the entrance to both facilities, including searches of hand-carried items such as briefcases or backpacks. No signs, banners, posters, or other displays will be permitted.
Documents relating to Crow Butte's License Renewal Application are available on the NRC Web site at
It is so
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend several rules to address certain order handling obligations on the part of its Floor Brokers. 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 several rules to address certain order handling obligations on the part of its Floor Brokers. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 6.62, 6.46, and 6.48 to clarify whether orders sent to Floor Brokers are considered “Held” or “Not Held”. This proposal would enable the Exchange to compete with options exchanges that have already implemented the types of changes being proposed here.
Current Rule 6.62(f) defines whether orders sent to Floor Brokers are presumed to be “Held” or “Not Held.”
The Exchange now proposes to establish in Rules 6.62(f), 6.46, and 6.48 a different default status for orders sent to Floor Brokers because the Exchange believes that these provisions are intended to protect against a broker failing to properly represent and ultimately execute orders.
The Exchange notes that Rules 6.46 and 6.48 were based upon rules that were adopted prior to electronic trading and, therefore, did not contemplate the interaction between an electronic environment and a trading floor and have not been amended to specifically address that interaction. While it is clear that Floor Brokers have more discretion with regards to the manner in which they represent and execute orders on a trading floor than does a computer routing an order to the Exchange for execution, the bounds of the discretion have not been entirely clear. Rules 6.46 and 6.48, among others, set certain boundaries to a Floor Broker's discretion, but the Exchange believes the current marketplace, with electronic and floor trading, favors an amendment to those boundaries.
Electronic and floor trading gives clients the choice between an Options Trading Permit (“OTP”) Holder or OTP Firm that routes orders to the Exchange electronically or an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that executes orders via a Floor Broker. The Exchange believes that clients are keenly aware that the differences between electronic and floor trading include at least the following factors: A computer cannot deviate from its programed instructions, whereas a Floor Broker can take into account the nuance of the marketplace, such as the makeup of a particular trading floor, the individuals on that trading floor, and how the electronic books interact with that environment. The Exchange believes that clients use Floor Brokers precisely because Floor Brokers can take into account the nuance of the marketplace (
Given that Floor Brokers have more discretion with regards to the manner in which they represent and execute orders than do computers executing electronic orders, the Exchange is proposing to
In addition, the Exchange will announce the implementation of this rule change by Trader Update.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that it has articulated a reasonable basis for changing the current default presumption of whether a customer intends to provide a Floor Broker with the ability to exercise time and price discretion on its behalf as long as the order is not otherwise marked in a manner to suggest that the customer did not intend for its order to be treated as Not Held. Other than changing the default presumption to “Not Held” for most orders sent to Floor Brokers, the Exchange is not proposing to change any other order handling obligations applicable to Floor Brokers. The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because it responds to an understanding of the changing role of Floor Brokers on the Exchange's Floor since it adopted Rule 6.48, and its understanding of how customers today use, and intend to continue to use, the services of Floor Brokers on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes designating certain orders as “not held” is in the interest of facilitating transactions in securities and reflective of today's marketplace, which generally helps to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition because the rule change adds clarity regarding the default orders handling obligations for orders sent to Floor Brokers, reflects the modern market structure, is consistent with the reasons customers utilize Floor Brokers, and will be applied equally to all OTP Holders and OTP Firms. To the extent that the proposed rule change will cause clients or brokers to choose the Exchange over other trading venues, market participants on other exchanges are welcome to become OTP Holders or OTP Firms and trade at the Exchange if they determine that this proposed rule change has made the Exchange more attractive or favorable. In addition, as noted above, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is pro-competitive and would allow the Exchange to compete more effectively with other options exchanges that have already adopted similar rule changes.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend several rules to address certain order handling obligations on the part of its Floor Brokers. 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 several rules to address certain order handling obligations on the part of its Floor Brokers. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rules 900.3NY, 933NY, and 936NY to clarify whether orders sent to Floor Brokers are considered “Held” or “Not Held”. This proposal would enable the Exchange to compete with options exchanges that have already implemented the types of changes being proposed here.
Current Rule 900.3NY(f) defines whether orders sent to Floor Brokers are presumed to be “Held” or “Not Held.”
The Exchange now proposes to establish in Rules 900.3NY(f), 933NY, and 936NY a different default status for orders sent to Floor Brokers because the Exchange believes that these provisions are intended to protect against a broker failing to properly represent and ultimately execute orders.
The Exchange notes that Rules 933NYand 936NY were based upon rules that were adopted prior to electronic trading and, therefore, did not contemplate the interaction between an electronic environment and a trading floor and have not been amended to specifically address that interaction. While it is clear that Floor Brokers have more discretion with regards to the manner in which they represent and execute orders on a trading floor than does a computer routing an order to the Exchange for execution, the bounds of the discretion have not been entirely clear. Rules 933NYand 936NY, among others, set certain boundaries to a Floor Broker's discretion, but the Exchange believes the current marketplace, with electronic and floor trading, favors an amendment to those boundaries.
Electronic and floor trading gives clients the choice between an Amex Trading Permit Holder (“ATP”) that routes orders to the Exchange electronically or an ATP that executes orders via a Floor Broker. The Exchange believes that clients are keenly aware that the differences between electronic and floor trading include at least the following factors: A computer cannot deviate from its programed instructions, whereas a Floor Broker can take into account the nuance of the marketplace, such as the makeup of a particular trading floor, the individuals on that trading floor, and how the electronic books interact with that environment. The Exchange believes that clients use Floor Brokers precisely because Floor Brokers can take into account the nuance of the marketplace (
Given that Floor Brokers have more discretion with regards to the manner in which they represent and execute orders than do computers executing electronic orders, the Exchange is proposing to change certain boundaries related to that discretion. In particular, in recognition of the discretion implicit with the use of a Floor Broker, the Exchange seeks to provide notice to the marketplace that, unless otherwise specified by a Floor Broker's client, an order is deemed to be “not held.” The Exchange believes clients that choose to use Floor Brokers do so in order to utilize a Floor Broker's expertise in the execution of orders. This rule change would update Exchange rules by setting forth the presumptive discretion available to Floor Brokers in a manner consistent with modern market structure and the Floor Broker's role in the current trading environment. This filing also serves as notice to the investing community that orders sent to Floor Brokers will be deemed “not held” unless otherwise specified by the Floor Broker's client.
In addition, the Exchange will announce the implementation of this rule change by Trader Update.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that it has articulated a reasonable basis for changing the current default presumption of whether a customer intends to provide a Floor Broker with the ability to exercise time and price discretion on its behalf as long as the order is not otherwise marked in a manner to suggest that the customer did not intend for its order to be treated as Not Held. Other than changing the default presumption to “Not Held” for most orders sent to Floor Brokers, the Exchange is not proposing to change any other order handling obligations applicable to Floor Brokers. The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because it responds to an understanding of the changing role of Floor Brokers on the Exchange's Floor since it adopted Rule 936NY, and its understanding of how customers today use, and intend to continue to use, the services of Floor Brokers on the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes designating certain orders as “not held” is in the interest of facilitating transactions in securities and reflective of today's marketplace, which generally helps to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that this proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition because the rule change adds clarity regarding the default orders handling obligations for orders sent to Floor Brokers, reflects the modern market structure, is consistent with the reasons customers utilize Floor Brokers, and will be applied equally to all ATPs. To the extent that the proposed rule change will cause clients or brokers to choose the Exchange over other trading venues, market participants on other exchanges are welcome to become ATPs and trade at the Exchange if they determine that this proposed rule change has made the Exchange more attractive or favorable. In addition, as noted above, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is pro-competitive and would allow the Exchange to compete more effectively with other options exchanges that have already adopted similar rule changes.
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
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with affiliated investment funds.
Triton Pacific Investment Corporation, Inc. (the “Company”), Triton Pacific Income & Growth Fund IV, LP (“Fund IV”), Triton Pacific Platinum Fund IV, LP (“Platinum IV” and, together with Fund IV, the “Existing Affiliated Private Funds”), TPCP Fund Manager IV, LLC (the “Fund Manager”), Triton Pacific Adviser, LLC (the “BDC Adviser”), Triton Pacific Capital Partners, LLC (“TPCP”), and Triton Pacific Group, Inc. (“TPG”).
The application was filed on February 8, 2013, and amended on May 17, 2013, July 15, 2013, December 18, 2013, June 12, 2014, November 25, 2014, May 28, 2015, and September 29, 2015.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 26, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St. NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: 10877 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024.
Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6873 or Mary Kay Frech, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Company, a Maryland corporation, is organized as a closed-end management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC under section 54(a) of the Act.
2. The Existing Affiliated Private Funds are parallel funds. Fund IV is a Delaware limited partnership and Platinum IV is a Delaware limited liability company. Each Existing Affiliated Private Fund would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act. The investment strategy of each Existing Affiliated Private Fund is to generate current income and capital appreciation by investing in small and mid-sized private U.S. companies. The Existing Affiliated Private Funds and the Company have similar investment strategies.
3. The BDC Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). The BDC Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Company and the Existing Affiliated Private Funds.
4. The Fund Manager, a Delaware limited liability company, is the general partner of the Existing Affiliated Private Funds. TPCP, a California limited liability company, is the managing member of the Fund Manager. TPG, a California corporation, is the managing member of TPCP.
5. Applicants seek an order (“Order”) to permit one or more Regulated Funds
6. Applicants state that a Regulated Fund may, from time to time, form one or more Wholly-Owned Investment Subs.
7. When considering Potential Co-Investment Transactions for any Regulated Fund, the Adviser will consider only the Objectives and Strategies, investment policies, investment positions, capital available for investment (“Available Capital”), and other pertinent factors applicable to that Regulated Fund.
8. Other than pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as provided in conditions 7 and 8, and after making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the Adviser will present each Potential Co-Investment Transaction and the proposed allocation to the directors of the Board eligible to vote under section 57(o) of the Act (“Eligible Directors”), and the “required majority,” as defined in section 57(o) of the Act (“Required Majority”)
9. With respect to the pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, a Regulated Fund may participate in a pro rata disposition or Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if, among other things: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and Affiliated Private Fund in such disposition or Follow-On Investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition or Follow-On Investment, as the case may be; and (ii) the Board of the Regulated Fund has approved that Regulated Fund's participation in pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund. If the Board does not so approve, any such disposition or Follow-On Investment will be submitted to the Regulated Fund's Eligible Directors. The Board of any Regulated Fund may at any time rescind, suspend or qualify its approval of pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments with the result that all dispositions and/or Follow-On Investments must be submitted to the Eligible Directors.
10. No Independent Director of a Regulated Fund will have a direct or indirect financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction, other than through share ownership in one of the Regulated Funds, including any interest in securities of a company whose securities are acquired in the Co-Investment Transaction.
11. Under condition 14, if an Adviser, the Principal, any person controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser or the Principal, and the Affiliated Private Funds (collectively, the “Holders”) own in the aggregate more than 25% of the outstanding voting securities of the Company or another a Regulated Fund (“Shares”), then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party when voting on matters specified in the condition. Applicants believe that this condition will ensure that the Independent Directors will act independently in evaluating the Co-Investment Program, because the ability of an Adviser or the Principal to influence the Independent Directors by a suggestion, explicit or implied, that the Independent Directors can be removed will be limited significantly. Applicants represent that the Independent Directors will evaluate and approve any such voting trust or proxy adviser, taking into accounts its qualifications, reputation for independence, cost to the shareholders, and other factors that they deem relevant.
1. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act prohibits certain affiliated persons of a BDC from participating in joint transactions with the BDC or a company controlled by a BDC in contravention of rules as prescribed by the Commission. Under section 57(b)(2) of the Act, any person who is directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a BDC is subject to section 57(a)(4). Applicants submit that each of the Regulated Funds and Affiliated Private Funds could be deemed to be a person related to each Regulated Fund in a manner described by section 57(b) by virtue of being under common control. Section 57(i) of the Act provides that, until the Commission prescribes rules under section 57(a)(4), the Commission's rules under section 17(d) of the Act applicable to registered closed-end investment companies will be deemed to apply to transactions subject to section 57(a)(4). Because the Commission has not adopted any rules under section 57(a)(4), rule 17d-1 also applies to joint transactions with Regulated Funds that are BDCs. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act are applicable to Regulated Funds that are registered closed-end investment companies.
2. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit affiliated persons of a registered investment company from participating in joint transactions with the company unless the Commission has granted an order permitting such transactions. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the company's participation in the joint transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
3. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief, the Regulated Funds would be, in some circumstances, limited in their ability to participate in attractive and appropriate investment opportunities. Applicants believe that the proposed terms and conditions will ensure that the Co-Investment Transactions are consistent with the protection of each Regulated Fund's shareholders and with the purposes intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the Regulated Funds' participation in the Co-Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
Applicants agree that any Order granting the requested relief shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each time an Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment Transaction for the Affiliated Private Funds or another Regulated Fund that falls within a Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies, the Adviser will make an independent determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Regulated Fund in light of the Regulated Fund's then-current circumstances.
2. (a) If the Adviser deems a Regulated Fund's participation in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Regulated Fund, the Adviser will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the Regulated Fund.
(b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser to be invested by the applicable Regulated Fund in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, together with the amount proposed to be invested by
(c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the applicable Adviser will distribute written information concerning the Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to be invested by each participating Regulated Fund and the Affiliated Private Funds) to the Eligible Directors of each participating Regulated Fund for their consideration. A Regulated Fund will co-invest with one or more Regulated Funds and/or one or more Affiliated Private Funds only if, prior to the Regulated Fund's participation in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, a Required Majority concludes that:
(i) the terms of the Potential Co-Investment Transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to the Regulated Fund and its shareholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of the Regulated Fund or its shareholders on the part of any person concerned;
(ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
(A) the interests of the shareholders of the Regulated Fund; and
(B) the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
(iii) the investment by other Regulated Funds or the Affiliated Private Funds would not disadvantage the Regulated Fund, and participation by the Regulated Fund would not be on a basis different from or less advantageous than that of other Regulated Funds or the Affiliated Private Funds;
(A) the Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the selection of such director or board observer, if any;
(B) the Adviser agrees to, and does, provide, periodic reports to the Regulated Fund's Board with respect to the actions of the director or the information received by the board observer or obtained through the exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company; and
(C) any fees or other compensation that the Affiliated Private Funds or any Regulated Fund or any affiliated person of the Affiliated Private Funds or any Regulated Fund receives in connection with the right of the Affiliated Private Funds or the Regulated Fund to nominate a director or appoint a board observer or otherwise to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will be shared proportionately among the participating Affiliated Private Funds (who each may, in turn, share its portion with its affiliated persons) and the participating Regulated Funds in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and
(iv) the proposed investment by the Regulated Fund will not benefit the Advisers, the Affiliated Private Funds or the other Regulated Funds or any affiliated person of any of them (other than the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction), except (A) to the extent permitted by condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by section 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a result of an interest in the securities issued by one of the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
3. Each Regulated Fund has the right to decline to participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the amount proposed.
4. The applicable Adviser will present to each Regulated Fund's Board, on a quarterly basis, a record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made by any of the other Regulated Funds or the Affiliated Private Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within the Regulated Fund's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made available to the Regulated Fund, and an explanation of why the investment opportunities were not offered to the Regulated Fund. All information presented to the Regulated Fund's Board pursuant to this condition will be kept for the life of the Regulated Fund and at least two years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with condition 8,
6. A Regulated Fund will not participate in any Potential Co-Investment Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of securities to be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights will be the same for each participating Regulated Fund and Affiliated Private Fund. The grant to any Affiliated Private Fund or another Regulated Fund, but not the Regulated Fund, of the right to nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions 2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
7. (a) If any Affiliated Private Fund or any Regulated Fund elects to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of an interest in a security that was acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
(i) notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed disposition at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by each Regulated Fund in the disposition.
(b) Each Regulated Fund will have the right to participate in such disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those applicable to the participating Affiliated Private Funds and Regulated Funds.
(c) A Regulated Fund may participate in such disposition without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Private Fund in such disposition is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition; (ii) the Regulated Fund's Board has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in such dispositions on a pro rata basis
(d) Each Affiliated Private Fund and each Regulated Fund will bear their own expenses in connection with any such disposition.
8. (a) If any Affiliated Private Fund or any Regulated Fund desires to make a Follow-On Investment in a portfolio company whose securities were acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction, the applicable Advisers will:
(i) notify each Regulated Fund that participated in the Co-Investment Transaction of the proposed transaction at the earliest practical time; and
(ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation, including the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by each Regulated Fund.
(b) A Regulated Fund may participate in such Follow-On Investment without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed participation of each Regulated Fund and each Affiliated Private Fund in such investment is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and (ii) the Regulated Fund's Board has approved as being in the best interests of the Regulated Fund the ability to participate in Follow-On Investments on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the application). In all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written recommendation as to the Regulated Fund's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Regulated Fund will participate in such Follow-On Investment solely to the extent that a Required Majority determines that it is in the Regulated Fund's best interests.
(c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
(i) the amount of the opportunity is not based on the Regulated Funds' and the Affiliated Private Funds' outstanding investments immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and
(ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the applicable Adviser to be invested by each Regulated Fund in the Follow-On Investment, together with the amount proposed to be invested by the participating Affiliated Private Funds in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the opportunity, then the amount invested by each such party will be allocated among them pro rata based on each party's Available Capital, up to the amount proposed to be invested by each.
(d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in the application.
9. The Independent Directors of each Regulated Fund will be provided quarterly for review all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-Investment Transactions, including investments made by other Regulated Funds or the Affiliated Private Funds that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, so that the Independent Directors may determine whether all investments made during the preceding quarter, including investments that the Regulated Fund considered but declined to participate in, comply with the conditions of the Order. In addition, the Independent Directors will consider at least annually the continued appropriateness for the Regulated Fund of participating in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions.
10. Each Regulated Fund will maintain the records required by section 57(f)(3) of the Act as if each of the Regulated Funds were a BDC and each of the investments permitted under these conditions were approved by the Required Majority under section 57(f).
11. No Independent Director of a Regulated Fund will also be a director, general partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise an “affiliated person” (as defined in the Act), of any of the Affiliated Private Funds.
12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction (including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any such securities registered for sale under the Securities Act) will, to the extent not payable by the Advisers under their investment advisory agreements with the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Private Funds, be shared by the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Private Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of the securities held or be acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
13. Any transaction fee (including break-up or commitment fees but excluding broker's fees contemplated by section 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable) received in connection with a Co-Investment Transaction will be distributed to the participating Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Private Funds on a pro rata basis based on the amounts they invested or committed, as the case may be, in such Co-Investment Transaction. If any transaction fee is to be held by an Adviser pending consummation of the transaction, the fee will be deposited into an account maintained by the Adviser at a bank or banks having the qualifications prescribed in section 26(a)(1) of the Act, and the account will earn a competitive rate of interest that will also be divided pro rata among the participating Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Private Funds based on the amounts they invest in such Co-Investment Transaction. None of the Affiliated Private Funds, the Advisers, the other Regulated Funds, or any affiliated person of the Regulated Funds or the Affiliated Private Funds will receive additional compensation or remuneration of any kind as a result of or in connection with a Co-Investment Transaction (other than (a) in the case of the Regulated Funds and the Affiliated Private Funds, the pro rata transaction fees described above and fees or other compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C) and (b) in the case of an Adviser, investment advisory fees paid in accordance with the respective agreements between the Adviser and the Regulated Funds or the Affiliated Private Funds).
14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25% of the outstanding Shares of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party (such as the trustee of a voting trust or a proxy adviser) when voting on (1) the election of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any matters requiring approval by the vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities, as defined in section 2(a)(42) of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of FLORIDA dated 09/29/2015.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14484 6 and for economic injury is 14485 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Florida
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
This notice announces the results of the GSP Limited Product Review launched in July 2015, including: (1) The designation of certain cotton products as eligible for GSP benefits when imported from least-developed beneficiary developing countries (LDBDCs), and (2) the results of the review of CNL-related issues arising from 2014 import data, including CNL waivers, CNL waiver revocations, requests for redesignation of certain products, and
Aimee Larsen, Director for GSP, Office of the United States Trade Representative. The telephone number is (202) 395-2974, the fax number is (202) 395-9674, and the email address is
The GSP program provides for the duty-free treatment of designated articles when imported from beneficiary developing countries. The GSP program is authorized by Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461
The GSP program expired on July 31, 2013. GSP was reauthorized on June 29, 2015, by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. The GSP program is now effective through December 31, 2017, with retroactive effect through July 31, 2013. Pursuant to the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, exclusions from GSP duty-free treatment where CNLs have been exceeded for calendar year 2014 will be effective October 1, 2015, unless granted a waiver by the President.
Pursuant to Section 203 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) conducted a limited GSP review encompassing products that, based on full-year 2014 import data, are subject to CNL-related actions, including exclusions, waivers, and revocation of waivers, as well as redesignations. As part of this review, the TPSC considered: (1) Petitions to waive CNLs for two products from Thailand; (2) revocation of CNL waivers for three products from beneficiary countries where 2014 imports exceeded certain statutory limits; (3) requests for redesignation of products previously excluded from GSP eligibility for certain beneficiary countries; and (4) products eligible for
In a Presidential Proclamation dated September 30, 2015, the President implemented his decisions regarding GSP product eligibility issues arising out of this GSP product review, including CNL waivers and CNL revocations. This notice provides further information on the results of the GSP Limited Product Review. These results, comprising five lists, are available for the public to view at
The President designated five upland cotton fiber products as eligible for duty-free treatment under GSP when imported from LDBDCs. See List I (Products Added to the List of Eligible Products for GSP for Least Developed Beneficiary Developing Countries). This designation is pursuant to the authority granted to the President in Section 202 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 and consistent with USTR's December 2011 announcement of trade initiatives intended to enable least-developed countries to benefit more fully from global trade.
The President granted petitions for waivers of CNLs for two products from Thailand: (1) Coconuts otherwise prepared or preserved (HTS 2008.19.15) and (2) copper alloys (other than brass, cupro-nickel or nickel-silver), wire,
The President also redesignated certain articles from GSP-eligible countries that had previously exceeded the CNLs, but had fallen below the CNL for total annual trade in 2014. The President redesignated as GSP-eligible: (1) Oilcake and other solid residues, resulting from the extraction of vegetable fats or oils, of sunflower seeds (HTS 2306.30.00) from Ukraine; (2) rare gases, other than argon (HTS 2804.29.00) from Ukraine; (3) insulated ignition wiring sets and other wiring sets of a kind used in vehicles, aircraft or ships (HTS 8544.30.00) from Indonesia; and (4) parts of railway/tramway locomotives/rolling stock, axles (HTS 8607.19.03) from Ukraine. See List IV (Products Receiving GSP Redesignation).
The President granted
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice; request for comment.
The geometric design standards for projects on the National Highway System (NHS) are incorporated by reference in FHWA regulations. These design standards are comprehensive in nature, covering a multitude of design characteristics, while allowing flexibility in application. Exceptions may be approved on a project basis for designs that do not conform to the minimum or limiting criteria set forth in the standards, policies, and standard specifications.
The FHWA is updating its policy regarding controlling criteria for design. The current policy identifies 13 controlling criteria for design and requires formal design exceptions when any of the 13 controlling criteria are not met. The FHWA intends to further streamline the controlling criteria, and the application of these criteria, based on the results of recent research that evaluated the safety and operational effects of the 13 controlling criteria. The FHWA also intends to clarify when design exceptions are required and the documentation that is expected to support such requests. This notice solicits comments on the proposed revisions to the 13 controlling criteria for the design of projects on the NHS that require a design exception when adopted design criteria are not met, in accordance with FHWA regulations.
Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2015. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. Alternatively, comments may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking portal at
For questions about the program discussed herein, contact Elizabeth Hilton, Geometric Design Engineer, FHWA Office of Program Administration, (512) 536-5970 or via email at
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at:
The FHWA is requesting comment on proposed revisions to the 13 controlling criteria for the design of projects on the NHS that require a design exception when not met, in accordance with 23 CFR 625.3(f). Design exceptions are an administrative tool used to document an engineer's evaluation of possible solutions to a specific design issue, including the operational and safety performance of each option, impacts to the human and natural environment, and other factors, and demonstrating the reasons a particular solution that does not meet applicable design standards was selected. Many States have their own process for reviewing design deviations when State or Federal design criteria are not met. When used in this Notice, the term `design exception' refers to documentation prepared for projects on the NHS when a controlling criterion is not met, and that must be approved by the FHWA or on behalf of FHWA if a State Transportation Agency (STA) has assumed this responsibility through a Stewardship and Oversight agreement. Stewardship and Oversight agreements set forth the agreement between FHWA and each STA on the roles and responsibilities of FHWA and the STA with respect to Title 23 project
Comments received through this Notice will be considered by FHWA when revising the controlling criteria for the design of projects on the NHS, as well as design exception documentation and application.
As codified in 23 CFR 625.3 and 625.4, the geometric design standards for projects on the NHS are A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2001) and A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System (2005), published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Rulemaking is underway to adopt the current (2011) edition of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. These design standards are comprehensive in nature, covering a multitude of design characteristics, while allowing flexibility in application. As codified in 23 CFR 625.3(f), and in accordance with the delegated authority provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A, exceptions may be approved on a project basis for designs that do not conform to the minimum or limiting criteria set forth in the standards, policies, and standard specifications adopted in 23 CFR part 625.
The FHWA issued a policy memorandum on April 15, 1985, available on the docket for this notice, and on FHWA's Web site at
The FHWA proposes to streamline the 13 controlling criteria to refine the focus on criteria with the greatest impact on road safety and operation. This streamlined application of the controlling criteria is consistent with the industry's move toward a modified design approach, often referred to as performance based practical design (PBPD), and will reduce the instances when a design exception must be prepared when applicable design standards are not met for projects on the NHS. The controlling design criteria set forth in 1985 are: Design speed, lane width, shoulder width, bridge width, horizontal alignment, superelevation, vertical alignment, grade, stopping sight distance, cross slope, vertical clearance, horizontal clearance, and structural capacity. The term `horizontal clearance' was initially interpreted as the `clear zone' described in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (
The PBPD is an approach to decisionmaking that encourages engineered solutions rather than relying on minimum, maximum, or limiting values found in design criteria. The PBPD is grounded in an analytic framework that enables transportation agencies to utilize existing design flexibility and analytical tools in a way that maximizes benefits while minimizing costs. The PBPD does not disregard engineering guidance or standards. Rather, flexibility in design typically requires more information and a higher level of analysis when defining and deciding on the most appropriate design value for a particular location. Consistent with FHWA's efforts regarding PBPD and to ensure that design exceptions are only required for criteria with significant safety or operational effects, FHWA intends to streamline the controlling criteria based on the findings of recent research. Since 1985, the controlling criteria have been applied to all projects, regardless of roadway type or context. The NCHRP Report 783 found that the 13 controlling criteria had minimal influence on the safety or operations on urban streets. On rural roadways, freeways, and high-speed urban/suburban roadways, a stronger connection to safety and operations was found for some of the criteria than for others.
Based on the findings of NCHRP Report 783 and FHWA's own assessment and experience, FHWA proposes to eliminate the following controlling criteria:
• Bridge Width.
• Vertical Alignment.
• Lateral Offset to Obstruction.
To improve clarity, FHWA proposes to rename the following existing controlling criteria:
• Horizontal Alignment to be renamed Horizontal Curve Radius.
• Grade to be renamed Maximum Grade.
• Structural Capacity to be renamed Design Loading Structural Capacity.
The resulting controlling criteria for design are proposed as follows:
• Design Speed.
• Lane Width.
• Shoulder Width.
• Horizontal Curve Radius.
• Superelevation.
• Stopping Sight Distance.
• Maximum Grade.
• Cross Slope.
• Vertical Clearance.
• Design Loading Structural Capacity.
The FHWA also proposes a revision to the application of the controlling criteria. Most controlling criteria would apply only to high-speed [design speed ≥50 mph (80 km/h)] roadways. Only design loading structural capacity and design speed would continue to be applied to all NHS facility types. Research indicates that the current controlling criteria are less influential on the traffic operational and safety performance of low-speed urban and suburban arterials than other features such as intersection design and access management strategies. Therefore, consistent with FHWA's risk-based approach to stewardship and oversight, FHWA intends to focus application of the controlling criteria on high-speed NHS roadways [design speed ≥ 50 mph (80 km/h)]. On low-speed NHS roadways [design speed <50 mph (80 km/h)], design exceptions are proposed to only be required by FHWA for deviations from the design speed or design loading structural capacity criteria. Exceptions to the controlling criteria must be carefully evaluated and approved by FHWA or on behalf of FHWA if an STA has assumed the responsibility through a Stewardship and Oversight agreement.
While all of the criteria contained in the adopted standards are important design considerations, they do not all affect the safety and operations of a roadway to the same degree, and therefore should not require the same level of administrative control. Based on the findings of recent research and FHWA's assessment and experience, a brief discussion on each of the proposed changes to the controlling criteria is provided below.
1. Bridge width is proposed to be removed from the list of controlling criteria because research found little relationship between bridge width and crash frequency on rural, two-lane highways and surmised the same would be true for other roadway types. Lane and shoulder width criteria apply to roadways and bridges, so any deficiency in bridge width will require design exception documentation if the lane or shoulder width criteria is not met under this proposal. Design criteria allow lesser shoulder width, and therefore lesser bridge widths, on long bridges [overall length over 200 feet (60 m)]. If the minimum lane or shoulder widths are not provided on a long bridge, the deviation would be documented as a lane or shoulder width design exception under the proposed revisions to controlling criteria.
2. Vertical alignment is proposed to be removed from the list of controlling criteria. Three of the existing criteria relate to vertical alignment. Crest vertical curve design is covered under the stopping sight distance criterion. Grade is explicitly covered as a separate criterion, leaving only sag vertical curve length to be covered under the vertical alignment criterion. While research has confirmed the interrelationship between vehicle headlight illuminations, sag vertical curves, and sight distance to features in the roadway, no relationship has extended to the effect of these combined elements on crashes. Furthermore, except when a horizontal curve or overhead structure is also present, sag vertical curve length is not critical under daytime conditions when the driver can see beyond the sag vertical curve, or at night, when vehicle taillights and headlights make another vehicle on the road ahead visible in or beyond a sag vertical curve.
3. Lateral offset to obstruction is proposed to be removed from the list of controlling criteria because on rural roadways, the controlling criterion for shoulder width ensures that there will be at least 18 inches of lateral offset to roadside objects. Lateral offset is most relevant to urban and suburban roadways to ensure that mirrors or other appurtenances of heavy vehicles do not strike roadway objects and so that passengers in parked cars are able to open their doors. While these are important considerations, they do not rise to the same level of effect as other controlling criteria proposed to be retained.
1. Design speed is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion for all facilities on the NHS. Design speed is different from the other controlling criteria in that it establishes the range of design values for many of the other geometric elements of the highway. Because of its effect on a highway's design, the design speed is a fundamental and very important choice that a designer makes. In recognition of the wide range of site-specific conditions, constraints, and contexts that designers face, the design standards allow a great deal of design flexibility by providing ranges of values for design speed. For most cases, the ranges provide adequate flexibility for designers to choose an appropriate design speed without the need for a design exception. If a limited portion of an alignment must be designed to a lower speed, it is generally more appropriate to evaluate specific geometric element(s) and treat those as design exceptions, instead of evaluating an exception for the design speed of the roadway.
2. Lane width is an important design criterion with respect to crash frequency and traffic operations on high-speed and rural highways. The design standards provide the flexibility to choose lane widths as narrow as 10 feet on some facilities.
3. Shoulder width has substantial effect on crash frequency and on traffic speeds on rural highways.
4. Horizontal curve radius, previously called horizontal alignment, has a documented relationship to crash frequency on rural highways of all types. Curve radius also influences traffic operations on urban/suburban arterials. Superelevation is the other main aspect of horizontal alignment and is being retained as independent controlling criterion.
5. Superelevation has a documented relationship to crash frequency on rural, two-lane highways and research suggests this would also be true on rural multilane highways and freeways. Superelevation is generally not provided on low-speed urban/suburban streets.
6. Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion because sufficiently long SSD is needed to enable a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. Research found that SSD less than specified by the design standards for crest vertical curve design, combined with a hidden feature such as a curve, intersection, or driveway, resulted in increased crashes on high speed roadways. Retention of SSD as a controlling criterion will ensure that deviations from this criterion are examined on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether site characteristics and crash history are indicative of potential areas needing attention. From an operational perspective, SSD generally does not affect operations on freeways under free-flow conditions. However, when freeways operate at near-capacity, limited SSD may further reduce capacity below the levels expected based on current predictive models. These impacts are typically examined during project development.
7. Maximum grade is proposed as a controlling criterion but minimum grade is not. The existing controlling criteria of `grade' includes both maximum and minimum grade. Maximum grade is proposed to be retained due to its relationship to crash frequency on rural, two-lane highways and the effect of steep grades on traffic operations on high-speed roadways. Minimum grade is proposed to be excluded because while it does influence roadway drainage, minimum grade alone does not ensure sufficient drainage and does not rise to the level of the controlling criteria.
8. Cross slope is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion to address drainage issues. While research has not been conducted to determine whether there is a relationship between the normal cross slope of roadway pavements and crash frequency, our experience is that inadequate drainage could contribute to vehicle loss of control under some circumstances. Due to the relationship between cross slope and drainage, especially when combined with minimum grades, cross slope is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion.
9. Vertical clearance is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion. While vertical clearance does not affect operations on the roadway other than for those vehicles that are taller than the available vertical clearance allows, vertical clearance crashes can have severe impacts on operations by damaging overpasses and other structures, resulting in extended road closures. In addition, inadequate vertical clearance on Interstate freeways impacts military defense routes and requires additional coordination with the Surface Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency.
10. Design Loading Structural Capacity is related to the strength and service limit state designs, not to traffic operations or the likelihood of traffic crashes. Previously called `structural capacity,' FHWA proposes to clarify that the applicable criterion covered herein relates to the design of the structure, not the load rating. Design loading structural capacity is important in maintaining a consistent minimum standard for safe load-carrying capacity and deviations from this criterion should be extremely rare. Design loading structural capacity is proposed to be retained as a controlling criterion regardless of the design speed for the project. Exceptions to design loading structural capacity on the NHS could impact the mobility of freight, emergency and military vehicles, and the traveling public and requires additional coordination with the FHWA Office of Infrastructure.
As codified in 23 CFR 625.3(f), and in accordance with the delegated authority provided by FHWA Order M1100.1A, exceptions may be approved on a project basis for designs that do not conform to the minimum or limiting criteria set forth in the standards, policies, and standard specifications adopted in 23 CFR part 625. Under this proposal, formal design exceptions, subject to approval by FHWA, or on behalf of FHWA if an STA has assumed the responsibility through a Stewardship and Oversight agreement, would be required for projects on the NHS only when the controlling criteria are not met. The FHWA expects documentation of design exceptions to include all of the following:
• Specific design criteria that will not be met.
• Existing roadway characteristics.
• Alternatives considered.
• Analysis of standard criteria versus proposed design criteria.
○ Supporting quantitative analysis of expected operational and safety performance.
○ Right-of-way impacts.
○ Impacts to human and natural environment.
○ Impacts to the community.
○ Impacts on the needs of all users of the facility.
○ Project cost.
• Proposed mitigation measures.
• Compatibility with adjacent sections of roadway.
• Possibility of a future project bringing this section into compliance with applicable standards.
Design Speed and Design Loading Structural Capacity are fundamental criteria in the design of a project. Exceptions to these criteria should be extremely rare and FHWA expects the documentation to provide the following additional information.
• Design Speed exceptions must address:
○ Length of section with reduced design speed compared to overall length of project.
○ Measures used in transitions to adjacent sections with higher or lower design or operating speeds.
• Design Loading Structural Capacity exceptions must address:
○ Verification of safe load-carrying capacity (load rating) for all State unrestricted legal loads or routine permit loads, and in the case of bridges on the Interstate, all Federal legal loads.
The FHWA encourages agencies to document all design decisions to demonstrate compliance with accepted engineering principles and the reasons for the decision. Deviations from criteria contained in the standards for projects on the NHS, but which are not considered to be controlling criteria, should be documented by the STA in accordance with State laws, regulations, directives, and safety standards. Deviations from criteria contained in standards adopted by a State for projects not on the NHS should be documented in accordance with State laws, regulations, directives, and safety standards. States can determine their own level of documentation depending on their State laws and risk management practices.
The proposed revisions to the controlling criteria and design documentation requirements will be published in final form after considering comments received regarding the proposed changes.
The FHWA requests comments on the revised guidance memorandum, which is available in the docket (FHWA-2015-0020). The FHWA will respond to comments received on the guidance in a second
23 U.S.C. 109 and 315; 23 CFR 1.32 and 625; 49 CFR 1.85.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 10 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualifications standard concerning hearing for interstate drivers. The current regulation prohibits hearing impaired individuals from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. After notice and opportunity for public comment, the Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these drivers to operate property-carrying CMVs will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. The exemptions are valid for a 2-year period and may be renewed, and the exemptions preempt State laws and regulations.
The exemptions are effective October 7, 2015. The exemptions expire on October 10, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
FMCSA grants 10 individuals an exemption from § 391.41(b)(11) concerning hearing to enable them to operate property-carrying CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on the current medical literature and information and the “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety” (the 2008 Evidence Report) presented to FMCSA on August 26, 2008. The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the CDLIS,
On November 24, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 10 individuals (FR 79 69989; Docket number FMCSA-2014-27741). The comment period ended on December 24, 2014. In response to this notice, four comments were received from The Commonwealth of Virginia; The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles; Schneider National, Inc.; The American Trucking Associations, Inc.; Schneider National, Inc.; Hub Group Trucking, Inc., and Werner Enterprises, Inc. Some of these comments were addressed in a previous notice. These stakeholders expressed safety concerns for the far reaching ramifications to the commercial driving industry of allowing deaf drivers to test, train and/or drive commercially. Additionally they expressed concern for the process by which exemptions are granted from parts of 49 CFR 391.41, the increased volume of exemptions, and the need to rely on scientific support as a basis for granting the exemptions. FMCSA acknowledges the stakeholder's concerns and may consider the initial steps to revising the physical qualification standards through a formal rulemaking process.
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, FMCSA grants exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to 10 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 10 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) would have been considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they do not meet the hearing requirement. FMCSA has determined that the following 10 applicants should be granted an exemption:
Mr. Ashby, 28, holds an operator's license in Virginia.
Mr. Cerna-Nieves, 24, holds an operator's license in Florida.
Mr. Levine, 40, holds an operator's license in New York.
Ms. Neri, 51, holds an operator's license in Arizona.
Ms. Palmigiano, 56, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in New York.
Mr. Smith, 80, holds an operator's license in Mississippi.
Mr. Taylor, 46, holds an operator's license in Arizona.
Mr. Tillis, 53, holds an operator's license in Alabama.
Mr. Walker, 66, holds an operator's license in New York.
Mr. Weldon, 52, holds an operator's license in Georgia.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce. The driver must comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption. This includes reporting any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5 and reporting all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR part 391.
The Agency is granting exemptions from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), to 10 individuals based on an evaluation of each driver's safety experience. Safety analysis of information relating to these 10
FMCSA exempts the following 10 drivers for a period of 2 years from the physical qualification standard concerning hearing: Clayton L. Ashby (VA); Joseph G. Cerna-Nieves (FL); Steven C. Levine (NY); Donna Neri (AZ); Brenda J. Palmigiano (NY); Lon Edward Smith (MS); Mark Taylor (AZ); James Clark Tillis (AL); Bruce N. Walker (NY); and Tommy Mark Weldon (GA).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 12 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualifications standard concerning hearing for interstate drivers. The current regulation prohibits hearing impaired individuals from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. After notice and opportunity for public comment, the Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these drivers to operate property-carrying CMVs will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. The exemptions are valid for a 2-year period and may be renewed, and the exemptions preempt State laws and regulations.
The exemptions are effective October 7, 2015. The exemptions expire on October 10, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
FMCSA grants 12 individuals an exemption from § 391.41(b)(11) concerning hearing to enable them to operate property-carrying CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on the current medical literature and information and the “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety” (the 2008 Evidence Report) presented to FMCSA on August 26, 2008. The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the CDLIS,
On May 8, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 12 individuals (FR 80 26610; Docket number FMCSA-2015-11121. The comment period ended on June 8, 2015. In response to this notice, one comment was received expressing safety concerns for the far reaching ramifications to the commercial driving industry of allowing deaf drivers to test, train and/or drive commercially. Some of these concerns were addressed in a previous notice. Additionally they expressed concern for the process by which exemptions are granted from parts of 49 CFR 391.41, the increased
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, FMCSA grants exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to 12 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 12 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) would have been considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they do not meet the hearing requirement. FMCSA has determined that the following 12 applicants should be granted an exemption:
Mr. Carr, 50, holds a Class B commercial driver's license (CDL) in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Griffin, 50, holds an operator's license in California.
Mr. Hall, 35, holds an operator's license in Alabama.
Mr. Hayden, 29, holds an operator's license in Florida.
Mr. Knapp, 47, holds an operator's license in Wisconsin.
Mr. Miller, 37, holds an operator's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Sanchez, 34, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Sexton, 36, holds an operator's license in Oklahoma.
Ms. Sloat, 34, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Toler, 31, holds an operator's license in Missouri.
Mr. Webber, 53, holds an operator's license in Oklahoma.
Mr. Wilkes, 50, holds an operator's license in Massachusetts.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce. The driver must comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption. This includes reporting any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5 and reporting all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391.
The Agency is granting exemptions from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), to 12 individuals based on an evaluation of each driver's safety experience. Safety analysis of information relating to these 12 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
FMCSA exempts the following 12 drivers for a period of 2 years from the physical qualification standard concerning hearing: Thomas M. Carr (PA); Randy Ray Griffin (CA); William Hall (AL); Robert Chance Hayden (FL); Robert J. Knapp (WI); Keith P. Miller (PA); Ramoncito Sanchez (TX); Bradly D. Sexton (OK); Sandy L. Sloat (TX); Robert A. Toler (MS); Jeffry B. Webber (OK); and Michael K. Wilkes (MA).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice and request for information.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval. The FMCSA requests approval to extend an ICR titled, “Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection.” The information collected will be used to help regulate motor carriers transporting household goods (HHG) for individual shippers. FMCSA invites public comment on the ICR.
We must receive your comments on or before
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2015-0255 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Mr. Kenneth Rodgers, Chief, Commercial Enforcement Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building, 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-0073; email
The FMCSA has authority to regulate the overall commercial operations of the household goods industry under 49 U.S.C. 14104, “Household goods carrier operations.” This ICR includes the information collection requirements contained in title 49 CFR part 375, “Transportation of Household Goods in Interstate Commerce; Consumer Protection Regulations.” The information collected encompasses that which is generated, maintained, retained, disclosed, and provided to, or for, the agency under 49 CFR part 375.
Sections 4202 through 4216 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug. 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU) amended various provisions of existing law regarding household goods transportation. It specifically addressed: Definitions (section 4202); payment of rates (section 4203); registration requirements for household goods motor carriers (section 4204); carrier operations (section 4205); enforcement of regulations (section 4206); liability of carriers under receipts and bills of lading (section 4207); arbitration requirements (section 4208); civil penalties for brokers and unauthorized transportation (section 4209); penalties for holding goods hostage (section 4210); consumer handbook (section 4211); release of broker information (section 4212); working group for Federal-State relations (section 4213); consumer complaint information (section 4214); review of liability of carriers (section 4215); and application of State laws (section 4216). The FMCSA regulations that set forth Federal requirements for movers that provide interstate transportation of household goods are found in 49 CFR part 375, “Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection Regulation.”
On July 16, 2012, FMCSA published a Direct Final Rule (DFR) titled, “Transportation of Household Goods in Interstate Commerce; Consumer Protection Regulations: Household Goods Motor Carrier Record Retention Requirements,” (77 FR 41699). The rule amended the regulations governing the period during which HHG motor carriers must retain documentation of an individual shipper's waiver of receipt of printed copies of consumer protection materials. This change harmonized the retention period with other document retention requirements applicable to HHG motor carriers. FMCSA also amended the regulations to clarify that a HHG motor carrier is not required to retain waiver documentation from any individual shippers for whom the carrier does not actually provide services.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemption from the minimum 30-minute rest break provision of the Agency's hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers working under contract to the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC). The exemption will enable SDDC's contract motor carriers and their employee-drivers engaged in the transportation of weapons, munitions, and sensitive/classified cargo to have the same regulatory flexibility that 49 CFR 395.1(q) provides for drivers transporting explosives. The exempted drivers will be allowed to use 30 minutes or more of attendance time to meet the HOS rest break requirements, providing they do not perform any other work during the break.
This exemption is effective from 12:01 a.m., October 22, 2015, through 11:59 p.m., October 21, 2017.
Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-4325. Email:
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
Under 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii), a property-carrying CMV driver is prohibited from operating a CMV on a public road if more than eight hours have passed since the end of the driver's last off duty or sleeper-berth period of at least 30 minutes.
SDDC's initial exemption application for relief from the HOS rest break requirement was submitted in 2013; a copy of the application is in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice. That 2013 application describes fully the nature of the operations of SDDC's contracted drivers. The exemption was granted on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64265). That exemption expires on October 21, 2015.
Certain motor carriers under contract to the SDDC provide protective services while transporting weapons, munitions, and sensitive/classified cargo. SDDC requested renewal of the rest-break exemption to allow its contract drivers to be treated the same as drivers transporting explosives. Section 395.1(q) allows drivers of CMVs carrying Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosives who are subject to the requirement for a 30-minute off-duty rest break in § 395.3(a)(3)(ii) to use 30 minutes or more of on-duty “attendance time” to meet the requirement for a rest break, provided they perform no other work.
SDDC stated that it requires continuous attendance and surveillance of such shipments until they reach their final destination. SDDC also stated that it has instituted several technical and administrative controls to ensure the efficient transportation of cargo requiring protective services, controls that would remain in effect under the requested exemption. They include the following:
• Conducting review of carrier compliance requirements and procedures for moving hazardous cargo.
• Evaluating carrier authority to operate on U.S. roadways.
• Evaluating carrier compliance with FMCSA's Compliance Safety Accountability program and Safety Measurement System standards.
• Providing over-the-road vehicle surveillance.
• Inspecting carrier facilities and corporate headquarters for compliance with DOD and DOT standards.
Further details regarding SDDC's safety controls can be found in its application for exemption. The application can be accessed in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice. SDDC asserted that renewing the exemption would allow driver teams to manage their en route rest periods efficiently and also perform mandated shipment security surveillance, resulting in both safe driving performance and greater security of cargo during long-distance trips.
SDDC anticipates no safety impacts from this exemption and believes that its contract employee drivers should be allowed to follow the requirements in § 395.1(q) when transporting shipments of sensitive DOD cargo. SDDC believes that shipments made under the requested exemption would achieve a level of safety and security that is at least equivalent to that which would be obtained by following the normal break requirement in § 395.3(a)(3)(ii).
SDDC indicated that approximately 1,942 power units and 3,000 drivers would currently be eligible for the exemption, if renewed. The exemption would be effective for 2 years, the maximum period allowed by § 381.300. SDDC reported two crashes in 2014 in which drivers were cited. Neither crash was connected to fatigue that was related to the 30 minute break.
On April 16, 2015, FMCSA published notice of this application, and asked for public comment (80 FR 20556). No comments were submitted to the public docket.
The FMCSA has evaluated SDDC's application for renewal of the exemption. The Agency believes that SDDC will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption [49 CFR 381.305(a)]. The exempted drivers will receive 30 minutes or more of rest when required since they will be free of all duties other than “attending” the vehicle during the break periods. The safety objectives of the break requirement will be met; the only subject of the exemption is the duty status of the driver while attending the vehicle during a required rest break. Therefore, the Agency grants the exemption request subject to the terms and conditions in this
1. Drivers authorized by SDDC to utilize this exemption must have a copy of this exemption document in their possession while operating under the terms of the exemption. The exemption document must be presented to law enforcement officials upon request.
2. All motor carriers operating under this exemption must have a “Satisfactory” safety rating with FMCSA, or be “unrated;” motor carriers with “Conditional” or “Unsatisfactory” FMCSA safety ratings are prohibited from using this exemption.
3. All motor carriers operating under this exemption must have Safety Measurement System (SMS) scores below FMCSA's intervention thresholds, as displayed at
This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) is granted for the period from 12:01 a.m., October 22, 2015, through 11:59 p.m., October 21, 2017.
The exemption is restricted to SDDC's contract driver-employees transporting security-sensitive materials. This exemption is limited to the provisions of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) to allow contract driver-employees transporting security-sensitive materials to be treated the same as drivers transporting explosives, as provided in § 395.1(q). These drivers must comply with all other applicable provisions of the FMCSRs.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to SDDC contract operators in intrastate commerce.
The SDDC must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMVs operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the following information:
a. Exemption Identity: “SDDC,”
b. Name of operating motor carrier and USDOT number,
c. Date of the accident,
d. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or closest to the accident scene,
e. Driver's name and driver's license number and State of issuance,
f. Vehicle number and State license plate number,
g. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
h. Number of fatalities,
i. The police-reported cause of the accident,
j. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws or motor carrier safety regulations, and
k. The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time period prior to the accident.
Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, should this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation or restriction of the exemption. The FMCSA will immediately revoke or restrict the exemption for failure to comply with its terms and conditions.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 14 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualifications standard concerning hearing for interstate drivers. The current regulation prohibits hearing impaired individuals from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. After notice and opportunity for public comment, the Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these drivers to operate property-carrying CMVs will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. The exemptions are valid for a 2-year period and may be renewed, and the exemptions preempt State laws and regulations.
The exemptions are effective October 7, 2015. The exemptions expire on October 10, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5—1951.
FMCSA grants 14 individuals an exemption from § 391.41(b)(11) concerning hearing to enable them to operate property-carrying CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on the current medical literature and information and the “Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function and Commercial Motor Driving Safety” (the 2008 Evidence Report) presented to FMCSA on August 26, 2008. The evidence report reached two conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety: (1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2) evidence from studies of the private driver license holder population does not support the contention that individuals with hearing impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the CDLIS,
On January 22, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 14 individuals (FR 80 3306; Docket number FMCSA-2015-00995). The comment period ended on February 23, 2015. In response to this notice, one comment was received expressing concern for the process by which exemptions are granted from parts of 49 CFR 391.41, the increased volume of exemptions, and the need to rely on scientific support as a basis for granting the exemptions. The American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) submitted a comment stating, “The granting of such a large number of exemptions dilutes the physical qualification standards and constitutes regulation through exemption. FMCSA must begin a dialogue on the need and effectiveness of these standards. If it is determined that these standards need to be altered, it must be done through the formal rulemaking process.” FMCSA acknowledges ATA's concerns and may consider in the future the initial steps to a formal rulemaking process to revise physical qualification standards.
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, FMCSA grants exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to 14 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 14 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) would have been considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they do not meet the hearing requirement. FMCSA has determined that the following 14 applicants should be granted an exemption:
Mr. Arthurs, 28, holds an operator's license in California.
Mr. Ballard, 38, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Brandyberry, 34, holds an operator's license in Nebraska.
Mr. Friede, 40, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Nebraska.
Mr. Hivey, 81, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Hoagland, 35, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Colorado.
Mr. Horning, 40, holds an operator's license in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Lynch, 59, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Ohio.
Mr. McClain, 38, holds an operator's license in Florida.
Mr. McKenzie, 37, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Mcleod, 51, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Georgia.
Mr. Morales-Contreras, 27, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Veronie, 36, holds a chauffeur's license in Louisiana.
Mr. Witcher, 55, holds a chauffeur's license in Michigan.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce. The
The Agency is granting exemptions from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), to 14 individuals based on an evaluation of each driver's safety experience. Safety analysis of information relating to these 14 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
FMCSA exempts the following 14 drivers for a period of 2 years from the physical qualification standard concerning hearing: Weston Tyler Arhurs (CA); Kevin Ray Ballard (TX); Jeremy Wayne Brandyberry (NE); Scott C. Friede (NE); Glenn E. Hivey (PA); Jeremiah Putnam Hoagland (CO); Curtis J. Horning (PA); Leroy Lynch (OH); Floyd McClain, Jr. (FL); Christopher David McKenzie (TX); Kimothy Fred Mcleod (GA); Victor Morales-Contreras (TX); Brandon Veronie, Sr. (LA); and Anthony L. Witcher (MI).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 42 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on June 6, 2015. The exemptions expire on June 6, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On May 6, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 42 individuals and requested comments from the public (80 FR 26133). The public comment period closed on June 5, 2015, and one comment was received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 42 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 42 applicants have had ITDM over a range of one to 30 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the May 6, 2015,
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment is addressed below.
Miguel Morales stated that he is in favor of granting the Federal diabetes exemptions to the drivers.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 42 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR 391.64(b)):
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 10 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the “Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations” have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical examiner. The Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these CMV drivers will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. FMCSA grants exemptions that will allow these 10 individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The exemptions preempt State laws and regulations and may be renewed.
The exemptions are effective October 7, 2015. The exemptions expire on October 10, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001, or via email at
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
FMCSA grants 10 individuals an exemption from the regulatory requirement in § 391.41(b)(8), to allow these individuals who take anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s), the length of time elapsed since the individual's last seizure, and each individual's treatment regimen. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS)
In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, the Agency considered both current medical literature and information and the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP). The Agency previously gathered evidence for potential changes to the regulation at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) by conducting a comprehensive review of scientific literature that was compiled into the “
On October 15, 2007, the MEP issued the following recommended criteria for evaluating whether an individual with epilepsy or a seizure disorder should be allowed to operate a CMV.
•
•
The MEP report indicates individuals with moderate to high-risk conditions should not be certified. Drivers with a history of a single provoked seizure with low risk factors for recurrence should be recertified every year.
FMCSA presented the MEP's findings and the
The Agency acknowledges the MRB's position on the issue but believes
The MRB's recommendation treats all drivers who have experienced a seizure the same, regardless of individual medical conditions and circumstances. In addition, the recommendation to continue prohibiting drivers who are taking anti-seizure medication from operating a CMV in interstate commerce does not consider a driver's actual seizure history and time since the last seizure. The Agency has decided to use the 2007 MEP recommendations as the basis for evaluating applications for an exemption from the seizure regulation on an individual, case-by-case basis.
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, including a review of detailed follow-up information requested from each applicant, FMCSA is granting exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to 10 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 10 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) would have been considered physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they presently take or have recently stopped taking anti-seizure medication. For these 10 drivers, the primary obstacle to medical qualification was the FMCSA Advisory Criteria for Medical Examiners, based on the 1988 “Conference on Neurological Disorders and Commercial Drivers,” stating that a driver should be off anti-seizure medication in order to drive in interstate commerce. In fact, the Advisory Criteria have little if anything to do with the actual risk of a seizure and more to do with assumptions about individuals who are taking anti-seizure medication.
In addition to evaluating the medical status of each applicant, FMCSA evaluated the crash and violation data for the 10 drivers, some of whom drive a CMV currently in intrastate commerce. The CDLIS and MCMIS were searched for crash and violation data on the 10 applicants. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State licensing agency.
These exemptions are contingent on the driver maintaining a stable treatment regimen and remaining seizure-free during the 2-year exemption period. The exempted drivers must submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free. The driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a medical examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5, following the FCMSA's regulations for the physical qualifications for CMV drivers.
FMCSA published a notice of receipt of application and requested public comment during a 30-day public comment period in a
On May 8, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 18 individuals (80 FR 26612; Docket number FMCSA-2015-11123). The comment period ended on June 8, 2015. No commenters responded to this
Mr. Correll-Zerbe is a 26 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2004. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since January 2013. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Correll-Zerbe receiving an exemption.
Mr. Feurerhelm is a 68 year-old class A CDL holder in Iowa. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1985. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Feuerhelm receiving an exemption.
Mr. Forney is a 37 year-old class A CDL holder in Wisconsin. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2005. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2011. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Forney receiving an exemption.
Mr. Jones is a 31 year-old class B CDL holder in Pennsylvania. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 2002. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Jones receiving an exemption.
Ms. Kahle is a 49 year-old class A CDL holder in Pennsylvania. She has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 2004. She takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, she would like to drive a CMV. Her physician states that he is supportive of Ms. Kahle receiving an exemption.
Mr. Martin is a 56 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure since 1985. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2004. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Martin receiving an exemption.
Mr. Marvel is a 64 year-old driver in Virginia. He has a history of epilepsy and has remained seizure free since 1967. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Marvel receiving an exemption.
Mr. McNeal is a 52 year-old class B CDL holder in Indiana. He has a history of a single seizure and resected brain tumor in 2007. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. McNeal receiving an exemption.
Mr. Nelson is a 79 year-old class A CDL holder in Minnesota. He has a
Mr. Williams is a 48 year-old class A CDL holder in Nevada. He has a history of a seizure disorder and has remained seizure free since 1987. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2002. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Williams receiving an exemption.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting the driver to driving in intrastate commerce.
The Agency is granting exemptions from the epilepsy standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), to 10 individuals based on a thorough evaluation of each driver's safety experience and medical condition. Safety analysis of information relating to these 10 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. By granting the exemptions, the interstate CMV industry will gain 10 highly trained and experienced drivers. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for 2 years, with annual recertification required unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
FMCSA exempts the following 10 drivers for a period of 2 years with annual medical certification required: Ian Correll-Zerbe (PA); Alan Feuerhelm (IA); Robert J. Forney (WI); Bryan R. Jones (PA); Terri Kathleen Kahle (PA); Ivan M. Martin (PA); James Joseph Marvel (VA); Andy L. McNeal (IN); Richard S. Nelson (MN); and Michael D. Williams (NV) from the prohibition of CMV operations by persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or seizures. If the exemption is still in effect at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 17 individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualifications standard concerning hearing for interstate drivers. The current regulation prohibits hearing impaired individuals from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. After notice and opportunity for public comment, the Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these drivers to operate property-carrying CMVs will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. The exemptions are valid for a 2-year period and may be renewed. The exemptions preempt State laws and regulations.
The exemptions are effective October 7, 2015. The exemptions expire on October 10, 2017.
Charles A. Horan, III, Director, Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202) 366-4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The current provisions of the FMCSRs concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). This standard was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
FMCSA grants 17 individuals an exemption from § 391.41(b)(11) concerning hearing to enable them to operate property-carrying CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on the current medical literature and information and the “Executive
On October 27, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications and requested public comment on 17 individuals (FR 79 64004; Docket number FMCSA-2014-25453). The comment period ended on November 26, 2014. In response to this notice, FMCSA received 10 comments. Six comments supported deaf drivers driving commercially and four comments expressed safety concerns for granting exemptions to drivers who do not meet the hearing standard. The safety concerns were submitted on behalf of The American Trucking Associations, Inc.; Schneider National, Inc.; Hub Group Trucking, Inc.; and Werner Enterprises, Inc. Some of these comments were addressed in a previous notice. These stakeholders expressed safety concerns for the far reaching ramifications to the commercial driving industry of allowing deaf drivers to test, train and/or drive commercially. Additionally they expressed concern for the process by which exemptions are granted from parts of 49 CFR 391.41, the increased volume of exemptions, and the need to rely on scientific support as a basis for granting the exemptions. FMCSA acknowledges the stakeholder's concerns and may consider the initial steps to revising the physical qualification standards through a formal rulemaking process.
Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications, FMCSA grants exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to 17 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 17 drivers receiving exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) would have been considered as qualified physically to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that they do not meet the hearing requirement. FMCSA has determined that the following 17 applicants should be granted an exemption:
Mr. Craver, 57, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Davis, 37, holds an operator's license in Mississippi.
Mr. Digiovanna, 53, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Dunn, 52, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Louisiana.
Mr. Londo, 29, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Moore, 47, holds an operator's license in Georgia.
Mr. Pippin, 46, holds an operator's license in South Dakota.
Mr. Perdue, 47, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Georgia.
Mr. Rodriguez, 49, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in New York.
Mr. Rodriguez, 56, holds an operator's license in Texas.
Mr. Ross, 61, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Ohio.
Mr. Merjoune, 42, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Maryland.
Mr. Shannon, 36, holds an operator's license in Washington.
Mr. Sneer, 58, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in Minnesota.
Mr. Sloan, 52, holds an operator's license in California.
Mr. Wirick, 31, holds an operator's license in Maryland.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. With the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce. The driver must comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption. This includes reporting any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5 and reporting all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391.
The Agency is granting exemptions from the hearing standard, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), to 17 individuals based on an evaluation of each driver's safety experience. Safety analysis of information relating to these 17 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be
FMCSA exempts the following 17 drivers for a period of 2 years from the physical qualification standard concerning hearing: Martin Anthony Bystrycki (FL); Ronald Craver, Sr. (TX); Byron Davis (MS); Stephen Digiovanna (PA); Bruce Howard Dunn (LA); Brandon Thomas Londo (TX); George T. Moore (GA); Robert J. Pippin (SD); Scott A. Perdue (GA); Adalberto Rodriguez (NY); David Rodriguez (TX); Melvin Randall Ross (OH); Abderrazek Merjoune (MD); Seth Lee Shannon (WA); Thomas D. Sneer (MN); Juan Sloan (CA); and Charles F. Wirick, IV (MD).
In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated May 30, 2015, the Maine Yacht Center, LLC (MYC) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 215-Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2015-0056.
In an effort to increase business, MYC wants to build a self-propelled carrier, for boats 30 to 40 or more feet in length, that will travel one-half mile over the St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad from a waterfront facility to a storage facility. The limiting factor for over-the-road movement of boats is a fixed bridge height of 14 feet. Using rail would allow MYC to move larger boats using a route with a fixed bridge height of 18 feet.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by November 6, 2015 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one individual whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.”
OFAC's actions described in this notice are effective on October 2, 2015.
Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202/622-2420, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202/622-2490, Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202/622-2480, Office of Foreign Assets Control, or Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202/622-2410, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Treasury (not toll free numbers).
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site (
On October 2, 2015, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of the following individual pursuant to E.O. 13224, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism”:
Under the authority granted to me as Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service by the General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury by General Counsel Directive 15, pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act, I have appointed the following persons to the Legal Division Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service Panel:
1. Laura Hildner, Deputy General Counsel
2. Sunita B. Lough, Commissioner (Tax Exempt/Government Entities), IRS
3. Mary Beth Murphy, Deputy Commissioner (Small Business/Self Employed), IRS
Alternate—Donna C. Hansberry, Deputy Commissioner (Tax Exempt/Government Entities), IRS
This publication is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice.
For the period beginning October 1, 2015, and ending on December 31, 2015, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond interest rate is 0.06 per centum per annum.
Comments or inquiries may be mailed to Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-1328. You can download this notice at the following Internet addresses:
Effective October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.
Adam Charlton, Manager, Federal Borrowings Branch, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-1328, (304) 480-5248; Sam Doak, Reporting Team Leader, Federal Borrowings Branch, Division of Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-1328, (304) 480-5117.
Federal law requires that interest payments on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds shall be “at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, except that in no case shall the interest rate exceed 3 per centum per annum.” 8 U.S.C. 1363(a). Related Federal regulations state that “Interest on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds will be at the rate as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, but in no case will exceed 3 per centum per annum or be less than zero.” 8 CFR 293.2. Treasury has determined that interest on the bonds will vary quarterly and will accrue during each calendar quarter at a rate equal to the lesser of the average of the bond equivalent rates on 91-day Treasury bills auctioned during the preceding calendar quarter, or 3 per centum per annum, but in no case less than zero. [Insert FR citation of the methodology notice] In addition to this Notice, Treasury posts the current quarterly rate in Table 2b—Interest Rates for Specific Legislation on the TreasuryDirect Web site.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 6, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501—3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or
This collection of information is necessary to ensure that VA and community partners are developing services that are responsive to the needs of local homeless Veterans, in order to end homelessness and prevent new Veterans from experiencing homelessness. Over the years data from CHALENG has assisted VA in developing new services for Veterans such as the Homeless Veteran Dental Program (HVDP), the expansion of the Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program, the Veterans Justice Programs and Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF). In addition community organizations use CHALENG data in grant applications to support services for homeless Veterans; grant applications are for VA, other Federal, local government, and community foundation dollars, which maximizes community participation in serving homeless Veterans.
By direction of the Secretary.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice and request for comments.
This
Comments must be received by VA on or before November 6, 2015.
Written comments may be submitted through
Tom Puglisi, Ph.D., Executive Director, Office of Research Oversight (10R), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington DC 20420, Telephone: 202-632-7676 (this is not a toll-free number).
VA's policy and implementation plan for increased public access to the results of its research was developed in response to White House initiatives on federally funded scientific research. In its February 22, 2013, memorandum, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) directed each federal agency with over $100 million in annual expenditures for the conduct of research and development to develop a plan to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the federal government, including digital data sets and results published in peer-reviewed scholarly publications arising directly from federally-funded research (OSTP, Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research, February 22, 2013).
In implementing policies on public access to research publications and digital research data, VA must first remain cognizant of its ethical and legal obligations to safeguard the privacy of Veterans (and VA's other research subjects) and the confidentiality of their private information, while promoting the highest quality science. VA also recognizes that Veterans and the public at large have a substantive interest in accessing the results of the research that VA conducts. VA's responsibility precludes unlimited public access to private information about individual research subjects. With this in mind, VA has carefully weighed the public benefits versus the risks of harm to Veterans and other research subjects in establishing the requirements.
VA is committed to ensuring that the final study results, including peer-reviewed publications and digital data from VA-funded scientific research, are made available to the scientific community, industry, and the general public with the fewest constraints possible, while protecting the privacy of the Veterans (and others individuals) about whom research data are obtained and safeguarding the confidentiality of their data.
Requirements for public access to scientific publications will apply to all peer-reviewed publications reporting results of research that are either funded by the VA Office of Research and Development (ORD) or conducted, supported, or sponsored by any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Program Office.
Requirements for public access to digital data will apply to the final research data underlying all peer-reviewed publications reporting results of research that is either funded by the VA ORD or conducted, supported, or sponsored by any VHA Program Office. VA proposes to begin sharing digital research data through controlled public access mechanisms and move toward open public access to the extent that the protection of Veterans' identifiable private information can be ensured.
Alternatively, the document may be obtained by mail or by calling ORO at (202) 632-7676 (this is not a toll-free number).
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 30, 2015, for publication.
Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 6, 2015.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-7492 or email
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VHA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Following the large number of deployments and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number of military members with mental health problems has been rising. All Veterans who need mental health services do not seek them it or receive them from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. This study is to assess barriers to receiving mental health care services among veterans.
By direction of the Secretary.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the headwater chub (
We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before December 7, 2015. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone 602-242-0210. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available, and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The headwater and roundtail chubs' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, their habitats, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of these species, including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
(5) Information as to which prohibitions, and exceptions to those prohibitions, are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the headwater chub or the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
We are also seeking comments regarding potential critical habitat designation for the headwater chub and
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act, including whether there are threats to the species from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of headwater chub and roundtail chub habitat;
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the headwater chub, the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS, and their habitats.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the proposed critical habitat designation; in particular, we seek comments on any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
If you submit information via
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
On December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454), we placed the headwater chub (as
On April 14, 2003, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list the headwater chub (
On December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58455), the roundtail chub was placed on the list of candidate species as a category 2 species. Roundtail chub retained its category 2 candidate status until the practice of identifying category 2 candidates was discontinued in the 1996 CNOR (61 FR 7596; February 28, 1996). At that time, the roundtail chub was removed from the candidate list and no longer recognized under the Act.
On April 14, 2003, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list a distinct population segment (DPS) of the roundtail chub (
On May 3, 2006, we published our 12-month finding (71 FR 26007) that listing of a DPS of the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin was not warranted because it did not meet our definition of a DPS. On September 7, 2006, the Center for Biological Diversity challenged our decision not to list the lower Colorado River basin population of the roundtail chub as an endangered species under the Act. On November 5, 2007, in a stipulated settlement agreement, we agreed to commence a new status review of the lower Colorado River basin population segment of the roundtail chub and to submit a 12-month finding to the
On July 7, 2009, we published a 12-month finding (74 FR 32352) on a petition to list a DPS of roundtail chub and found that the population segment satisfies the discreteness and significance elements of the Interagency Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Act (DPS Policy) (February 7, 1996; 61 FR 4722), and qualifies as a DPS. We further concluded that listing of the lower Colorado River basin DPS was warranted but precluded due to higher priority listing actions at the time. The DPS was subsequently included in all of our CNORs from 2009 through 2014 (74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014).
The lower Colorado River basin DPS of roundtail chub is the candidate entity that is the subject of this proposed rule. The DPS includes the lower Colorado River and its tributaries downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, including the Gila and Zuni River basins in New Mexico.
Headwater chub was first described as a subspecies,
Roundtail chub (
Headwater chubs are cyprinid fish (member of the minnow family Cyprinidae) with streamlined body shapes and are similar in appearance to the roundtail chub and the Gila chub (
Headwater chubs occur in the middle to upper reaches of medium- to large-sized streams (Minckley and DeMarais 2000, p. 255) that are considered cool to warm water streams. Habitats in the Gila River containing headwater chubs consist of tributary and mainstem habitats at elevations of 1,325 meters (m) (4,347 feet (ft)) to 2,000 m (6,562 ft) (Bestgen 1985, entire; Bestgen and Propst 1989, pp. 402-410). Typical adult habitats containing headwater chub consist of nearshore pools (greater than 1.8 m (6 ft.)), adjacent to swifter riffles and runs over sand and gravel substrate, with young-of-the-year and juveniles using smaller pools and areas with undercut banks and low velocity (Barrett 1992, p. 48; Barrett and Maughn 1995, p. 302; Bestgen and Propst 1989, pp. 402-410). Spawning typically occurs in pool-riffle areas with sandy-rocky substrates when water temperatures are between 17-22 degrees Celsius (°C) (63-72 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) (Bonar et al. 2011, p. 10; Bestgen 1985, p. 64; Bonar et al. 2011, p. 11; Neve 1976, pp. 13-14). Snowmelt during late winter and early spring cues spawning and provides water temperatures suitable for spawning.
In the lower Colorado River basin, several chub species are closely related genetically and closely resemble each other morphologically. This is likely the result of multiple independent hybridization events over time (Rinne 1976; Rosenfeld and Wilkinson 1989; DeMarais et al. 1992; Dowling and DeMarais 1993; Minckley and DeMarais 2000; Gerber et al. 2001; Schwemm 2006; Schönhuth et al. 2014). Due to the similarities in morphology and genetics, identification of species in a stream is based on the geographic location of the stream in relation to other known chub streams. In headwater chub, most of their genetic variation occurs among populations, each of which tends to be distinctive. Genetic variation within headwater chub populations is consistent with the presumed multiple hybrid origins of this species (Dowling et al. 2008, p. 2).
Roundtail chub are similar in appearance to Gila chub and headwater chub. Adults range in size from 225-350 mm (9-14 in) in length. Roundtail chub average life span is 8-10 years (Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002, p. 21). Maturity of roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River population segment occurs between ages 3 and 5 years at 150-300 mm (6-12 in) (Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002, p. 21; Brouder et al. 2000, p. 12). In the lower Colorado River population segment, spawning occurs between April and May (Minckley 1981, p. 189; Bestgen 1985b, p. 7; Bryan et al. 2000, pp. 27-28; Bryan and Robinson 2000, pp. 20-21).
Roundtail chub are found in cool to warm waters of rivers and streams, and often occupy the deepest pools and eddies present in the stream (Minckley 1973, p. 101; Brouder et al. 2000, pp. 6-8; Minckley and DeMarais 2000, p. 255; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002, pp. 17-19). Adult roundtail chub favor slow-moving, deep pools. For cover they use large rocks, undercut banks, and woody debris (Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002, p. 18; Brouder et al. 2000, pp. 6-7; Bryan
There was historically greater connectivity and subsequent relatedness of roundtail chub over the lower Colorado River basin, and development of populations in isolation from other roundtail chub populations was not the normal condition across most of the historical range, except in the Bill Williams River and Little Colorado River drainages.
Section 3(16) of the Act defines “species” to include any species or subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). To interpret and implement the distinct population segment provisions of the Act and congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—Fisheries Service), published the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS Policy) in the
In accordance with our DPS Policy, this section details our analysis of whether the vertebrate population segment under consideration for listing qualifies as a DPS, specifically, whether: (1) The population segment is discrete from the remainder of the species to which it belongs; and (2) the population is significant to the species to which it belongs. In our July 7, 2009, 12-month finding for roundtail chub (74 FR 32352) we found that the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin (the lower Colorado River and its tributaries downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, including the Gila and Zuni River basins in New Mexico) met the definition of a DPS. In the following sections, we reaffirm that finding.
Under the DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. The potential DPS population of roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin is not delimited by international governmental boundaries. The following discussion considers whether the potential DPS population of roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors.
The historical range of roundtail chub included both the upper and lower Colorado River basins in the States of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada (Propst 1999, p. 23; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002, p. 25; Voeltz 2002, pp. 9-23), but the roundtail chub was likely only a transient in Nevada, so Nevada is not considered part of its range. Currently, roundtail chubs occur in both the upper and lower Colorado River basins in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Bezzerides and Bestgen (2002, p. 24) concluded that historically there were two discrete population centers, one in each of the lower and upper basins, and that these two population centers remain today. Numerous authors have noted that roundtail chub was very rare with few documented records in the mainstem Colorado River between the two basins (Minckley 1973, p. 102; Minckley 1979, p. 51; Valdez and Ryel 1994, pp. 5-10-5-11; Minckley 1996, p. 75; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002, pp. 24-25; Voeltz 2002, pp. 19, 112), so we do not consider the mainstem to have been occupied historically, and have not considered the Colorado River in our estimates of historical range. The information on historical distribution is clouded because early surveyors also variably used the term “bonytail” to describe roundtail chub (Valdez and Ryel 1994, pp. 5-7). The bonytail chub (
We conclude that, historically, roundtail chub occurred in the Colorado River basin in two population centers, one each in the upper (largely in Utah and Colorado, and to a lesser extent, in Wyoming and New Mexico) and lower basins (Arizona and New Mexico), with apparently little, if any, mixing of the two populations. If there was one population, we would expect to find a large number of records in the mainstem Colorado River between the San Juan and Bill Williams Rivers, but very few records of roundtail chub exist from this reach of stream. Also, there is a substantial distance between these areas of roundtail chub occurrence in the two basins. The mouth of the Escalante River, which contains the southernmost
Additionally, in more recent times, the upper and lower basin populations of the roundtail chub have been physically separated by Glen Canyon Dam. That artificial separation is not the sole basis for our finding that the lower basin population is discrete from the upper basin population. The historical information on collections suggests that there was limited contact even before the dam was built. Available molecular information for the species, although sparse, seems to support this as genetic markers from roundtail chub in the Gila River basin are entirely absent from upper basin populations (Gerber et al. 2001, p. 2028; see
Accordingly, we reaffirm our finding that the lower Colorado River basin population segment of roundtail chub is discrete from other populations of the species.
Since we have determined that the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin meet the discreteness element of the DPS Policy, we now consider the population segment's biological and ecological significance based on “the available scientific evidence of the discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it belongs” in light of congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used “sparingly” while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity (DPS Policy, 61 FR 4722; S. Rep. No. 96-151 (1979)).
The DPS Policy describes four classes of information, or considerations, to take into account in evaluating a population segment's biological and ecological importance to the taxon to which it belongs. As precise circumstances are likely to vary considerably from case to case, the DPS policy does not state that these are the only classes of information that might factor into a determination of the biological and ecological importance of a discrete population. As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722), consideration of the population segment's significance may include, but is not limited to, the following classes of information: (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. Significance of the discrete population segment is not necessarily determined by existence of one of these classes of information standing alone. Rather, information analyzed under these considerations is evaluated relative to the biological or ecological importance of the discrete population to the taxon as a whole. Accordingly, all relevant and available biological and ecological information is analyzed for importance to the taxon as a whole. Below, we provide our analysis of the significance of the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub populations.
Based on our review of the best available information, we found that there are some differences in various ecoregion variables between the upper and lower Colorado River basins. For example, McNabb and Avers (1994) and Bailey (1995) delineated ecoregions and sections of the United States based on a combination of climate, vegetation, geology, and other factors. Populations of roundtail chub in the lower basin and in the upper basin occur primarily in different ecoregions. These ecoregions display differences in the natural hydrograph in the type, timing, and amount of precipitation between the two basins, with the upper basin (8-165 cm (3-65 in) per year) (Jeppson 1968, p. 1) somewhat less arid than the lower basin (13-64 cm (5-25 in) per year) (Green and Sellers 1964, pp. 8-11).
The primary difference is that, in the lower basin there are two seasonal peaks of streamflow, a monsoon hydrograph plus the spring runoff season. In the upper basin, roundtail chub habitats have strong snowmelt hydrographs, with some summer, fall, and winter precipitation, but with the majority of major flow events in spring and early summer (Bailey 1995, p. 341; Carlson and Muth 1989, p. 222; Woodhouse et al. 2003, p. 1551). The biology of the roundtail chub indicates the importance of the spring runoff as the cue for spawning, and this cue operates in both the upper and lower basins (Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002, p. 21). The variability of the monsoon storms to provide for higher flows later in the summer is such that it does not have an influence on successful spawning. While there are differences in the ecological settings between the two segments, these differences are not likely to be significant to the taxon.
Roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin can be considered significant under our DPS Policy because loss of the lower Colorado River populations of roundtail chub would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. The lower and upper Colorado River basins are approximately 443 km (275 river mi) and possess a unique, divergent mtDNA lineage that has never been found outside the lower basin (Dowling and DeMarais 1993, pp. 444- 446; Gerber et al. 2001, p. 2028). The lower Colorado River area constitutes over one third of the species' historical range. There are 74 populations of roundtail chub remaining in the upper basin and 31 in the lower basin. Thus, the lower basin populations constitute approximately one third (30 percent) of the remaining populations of the species (Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002, pp. 28-29, Appendix C; Voeltz 2002, pp. 82-83). The populations in the lower basin account for approximately 49 percent (107,300 square mi, 270,906 square km) of the Colorado River Basin (U.S. Geological Survey 2006, pp. 94-102). In addition, the roundtail chub historically occupied up to 2,796 mi (4,500 km) of stream in the lower basin and currently occupies between 497 mi (800 km) and 901 mi (1450 km) of stream habitat in the lower basin. These populations are not newly established, ephemeral, or migratory. The species has been well established in the lower Colorado River basin, and has represented a large portion of the species' range for a long period of time (Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002, pp. 20-29; Voeltz 2002, pp. 82- 83). The loss of one third of a unique, divergent mtDNA lineage that has never been found outside the lower basin (Dowling and DeMarais 1993, pp. 444- 446; Gerber et al. 2001, p. 2028) of the species as a whole would constitute a significant gap in the range.
As part of a determination of significance, our DPS Policy suggests that we consider whether there is evidence that the population represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range (61 FR 4725). The roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin is not the only surviving natural occurrence of the species. Consequently, this factor is not applicable to our determination regarding significance.
As stated in the DPS Policy, in assessing the significance of a discrete population, the Service considers evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics (61 FR 4725). There have been long-standing difficulties in morphological discrimination and taxonomic distinction among members from the lower Colorado
Along with
Gerber et al. (2001, p. 2037) noted that genetic information in
The divergent genetic lineage within the lower Colorado River basin (Dowling and DeMarais 1993, pp. 444- 446; Gerber et al. 2001, p. 2028) demonstrates a marked difference in genetic characteristics from the upper Colorado River basin segment. In addition, the lower Colorado River basin segment constitutes one third of the species' range; the loss of which would result in a significant gap in the species' range. The lower Colorado River basin population of roundtail chub is therefore significant to the species as whole because the loss of this population would create a significant gap in the range and the population demonstrates a marked difference in genetic characteristics.
We have evaluated the lower Colorado River population segment of the roundtail chub to determine whether it meet the definition of a DPS, addressing discreteness and significance as required by our policy. On the basis of the best available information, we conclude that the lower Colorado River populations are discrete from the upper Colorado River basin populations on the basis of their present and historical geographic separation of 275 river mi (444 km) and because few historical records have been detected in the mainstem Colorado River between the two population centers that would suggest meaningful connectivity. We also conclude that the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub is significant because of its unique genetic lineage, which differs markedly from the upper basin, and that the loss of the species from the lower basin would result in a significant gap in the range of the species. Because this population segment meets both the discreteness and significance elements of our DPS policy, the lower Colorado River population segment of the roundtail chub qualifies as a DPS in accordance with our DPS policy, and, as such, is a listable entity under the Act.
The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species based on any on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We completed the Draft Headwater Chub and Lower Colorado River DPS of Roundtail Chub Species Status Assessment (SSA Report) (Service 2015; entire), which is available online at
In the SSA Report, we summarize the relevant biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future risk factors (causes and effects) and provide an analysis of the viability of the species. Specifically, we evaluate the risk of extirpation of individual analysis units (AUs). The SSA Report provides the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decision regarding whether these species should be listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act. This decision involves the application of standards within the
The occurrence records of both species show some inconsistencies and in some cases use incorrect common names. Therefore, we used the best available information and made some decisions on assignment of chub species that may not be consistent with museum records, but we based these decisions on more current information and biological characters.
Assignment of chubs in a stream to headwater, roundtail, or Gila is difficult due to the morphological and genetic similarities. Typically, assignment to species is based on the geographical location. Assignment to one or the other species has been made for all populations or streams of the headwater chub and roundtail chub DPS. However, there is some uncertainty within three streams (Fossil Creek and West Clear Creek in the Verde River drainage, and Turkey Creek in the Upper Gila drainage) where the species overlap, and likely hybridize with one another. Each of these locations is discussed in more detail below. For the purposes of the SSA Report and the SSA Model, we will evaluate Fossil Creek as having headwater chub from the constructed barrier upstream to Fossil Springs (above the barrier) and roundtail chub from the mouth of Fossil Creek to Irving (below the barrier), with a mix between Irving and the fish barrier. In West Clear Creek, for the SSA Report, we will consider lower and upper West Clear Creek are roundtail chub based on our past assignment. In Turkey Creek for the SSA Report, we will consider Turkey Creek contains only Gila chub, but not headwater chub.
In the SSA Report, we use AUs to describe the populations of chubs. The AUs were delineated based on the hydrological connectivity of currently occupied streams and the ability of chubs to move within or among streams. There are two types of AUs considered in the SSA Report: (1) Those composed of one occupied stream, referred to as independent AUs; and (2) those composed of two or more hydrologically connected occupied streams, referred to as complex AUs.
Based on our assessment, headwater chub historically occupied 26 streams with a maximum total stream length of 892 kilometers (km) (554 miles (mi)). The streams were distributed over three drainage basins: Gila River, Salt River, and Verde River. As of 2015, headwater chub are found in 22 streams with a collective minimum of 432 km (268 mi) of available habitat: 406 km (252 mi) from the historically occupied streams and 26 km (16 mi) from occupied streams newly discovered. We evaluated the reduction in range based on stream length rather than the number of streams because this provides a more accurate assessment of the amount of habitat. Listing the number of streams does not provide an account of the available habitat because streams could vary greatly in length. This represents at least 48 percent of the estimated historical range and no more than a 52 percent reduction in range. We document the extirpation of chubs from four historically occupied streams, totaling 71 km (44 mi). Additionally, we know that chub are not found in portions of Haiger and Tonto Creeks (approximately 25 km (16 mi) and 18 km (11 mi), respectively), where they were historically. This accounts for 114 km of the reduction in range, leaving 346 km (71 mi) unaccounted for. This 346 km (71 mi) may represent actual habitat lost or may be due to differences in the methodologies used in calculating the historical and current ranges, or a combination of both.
The lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS historically occupied 48 streams with a maximum total stream length of 4,914 km (3,053 mi). The streams were distributed across five drainage basins: Bill Williams River, Gila River, Little Colorado River, Salt River, and Verde River. As of 2015, roundtail chub are found in 35 streams with a collective minimum of 2,098 km (1,303 mi) of available habitat: 2,077 km (1,291 mi) from the historically occupied streams and 21 km (13 mi) from occupied streams newly discovered. We evaluated the reduction in range based on stream length rather than the number of streams because this provides a more accurate assessment of the amount of habitat. Listing the number of streams does not provide an account of the available habitat because streams could vary greatly in length. This represents at least 43 percent of the historical range and no more than a 57 percent reduction in range. We document the extirpation of chubs from six historically occupied streams, totaling 1,864 km (1,158 mi). Therefore, approximately 234 km (145 mi) of the potential reduction in range is unaccounted for. This 234 km (145 mi) may represent actual habitat lost or may be due to differences in the methodologies used in calculating the historical and current ranges, or a combination of both.
There are also four newly established populations for the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS: Blue River in the Gila River drainage basin, Ash Creek in the Salt River drainage basin, and Gap Creek and Roundtree Creek in the Verde River drainage basin. Blue River is 81 km (50 mi) watered length, Ash Creek is about 5 km (3 mi) watered length, Gap Creek and Roundtree Canyon Creek are about 3 km (2 mi) in watered length each. The total
Historically, populations in the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS had greater connectivity to each other. However, roundtail chub are extirpated from several large riverine streams that provided connectivity across most of the historically occupied range. This has resulted in the recent isolation of AUs even within the same drainage basin.
Both adult headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS need slow-moving, deep pools, and juveniles and young-of-the-year need shallow water along stream banks. For shelter, they need large rocks, undercut banks, and woody debris. For spawning, they need pool, run, and riffle habitats with sandy-rocky substrates and slow to moderate water velocities. For feeding, adults need plants, detritus, and arthropods (aquatic and terrestrial), and juveniles and young-of-the-year need diatoms, filamentous algae, and insects. Adults may also consume small fish, as they are the top native fish predator in their habitat (Pilger et al. 2010, p. 306).
Both headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS need to have multiple resilient populations distributed throughout different drainage basins within their historical range to maintain viability into the future and avoid extinction. Resilient chub populations must be of sufficient size to withstand stochastic events such as demographic effects of low genetic diversity and environmental variability. The best available data do not indicate a minimum or preferred population size. However, large (or more resilient) populations are better able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in birth rates (demographic stochasticity), or variations in rainfall (environmental stochasticity). The resiliency of headwater chub or the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS populations is largely governed by: (1) The quantity, distribution, and connectivity of habitat; (2) the quality of habitat (specifically deep pools for adults and shallow waters along stream banks for juveniles and young-of-the-year); and (3) the presence or absence of nonnative aquatic species. These conditions combine to control the size of the chub population and its age structure (which increases the resiliency of AUs in terms of demographic stochasticity and genetic diversity). Further, these conditions control the extent of habitat available to serve as refuge sites for chub to survive environmental stochasticity and localized threats from land and water uses, and allow re-occupancy of the affected habitat area after the event.
For redundancy, both the species and DPS need a sufficient number of resilient populations to withstand catastrophic events. The wider the distribution of resilient populations and the greater the number of populations, the more redundancy the species or DPS will have. This redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the range will be negatively affected by any catastrophic event at any one time. Species that are well distributed across their historical range (
Having a breadth of genetic makeup of the species to adapt to changing environmental conditions is needed for representation. Representation can be measured through the genetic diversity within and among populations, and the ecological diversity (variety of ways species interact with each other and the environment) of populations across the species' range. The more representation, or diversity, the species has, the more it may be capable of adapting to changes (natural or human caused) in its environment. In the case of the headwater chub and lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS, maintenance of the identified genetic diversity in AUs across the species' and DPS's geographic range is important.
We reviewed the potential factors that may affect the headwater chub and lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub. We found three primary risk categories: (1) Competition with, predation from, and harassment by nonnative aquatic species; (2) a lack of sufficient water to support the physical and biological components needed for all life stages and life-history functions; and (3) changes in the timing and amount of snowmelt runoff in the spring and precipitation from monsoons in the fall, reduction in hydrologic connectivity within and between streams, and the reduction in the length of flowing reaches (all of which are impacts from climate change). All three of these risks categories likely have population-level effects to both the headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS.
We considered several other potential risk factors that may have population-level effects to either the headwater chub or the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS, but we were not able to incorporate into the model. These include wildfire risk, additional climate change impacts (other than those considered in the model), water loss due to anthropogenic actions, and demographic impacts from these factors and the reduction in the range. We evaluated impacts from these additional risks to each AU and the species/DPS as a whole.
There are other risks to both chub species that can result in localized effects, including grazing, roads, forestry practices, disease, pathogens, and recreation. While these may have effects
Across the historical range, the quality and quantity of habitat, abundance of headwater chub and roundtail chub, and condition of the AUs has been altered. The introduction of nonnative aquatic species and changes in water flows, caused by human activities (either surface water diversion or groundwater pumping) and climate change, leading to a reduction in water availability, have led to reductions in chub abundance and habitat quality and quantity. Nonnative aquatic species occur within almost all streams occupied by these two chub species. The changes in flows have altered the connectivity and spatial distribution of chubs, resulting in segmentation of watered areas within individual streams and loss of connectivity between streams.
Nonnative fish are the most significant risk factor to the lower Colorado River fish fauna, including headwater chub and the lower Colorado River roundtail chub DPS, due to competition and predation (Minckley and Deacon 1991; Carlson and Muth 1989, p. 220; Mueller 2005, pp. 10-12; Olden and Poff 2005, p. 75). It has now been shown that contamination by nonnative fishes is the most significant risk factor to the lower Colorado River fish fauna due to competition and predation (Minckley and Deacon 1991; Carlson and Muth 1989, p. 220; Mueller 2005, pp. 10-12; Olden and Poff 2005, p. 75), and nonnative aquatic species are the primary impediment to the native fish species' success (Minckley and Marsh 2009, p. 51). Declines in native fish, including roundtail and headwater chubs, are largely attributable to predation, with early life stages (Minckley 1983, p. 182) being the most vulnerable. Clarkson
However, there are streams where chubs have maintained populations in the presence of one or more of these nonnative aquatic species, but the mechanisms providing for that coexistence in any particular stream are unknown. The nonnative aquatic species community varies for different streams. The amount of preferred habitat available for both the chub and the nonnative aquatic species may play a role, as may the abundance of the nonnative species and its means of affecting the chub. In some cases, the nonnative aquatic species may have only newly entered the stream and the full effects have not been realized. In other cases, the current habitat and population dynamics may not strongly favor either natives or nonnatives, allowing for persistence of both under those conditions. While chubs coexist with nonnative aquatic species in several streams, this does not mean that nonnative aquatic species are not impacting chubs or that nonnative aquatic species are not having population-level impacts on chubs. Marks
Nonnative aquatic species occur within all streams occupied by chubs with the exception of three streams for each species. We expect that nonnative aquatic species will continue to persist in most, if not all, of the streams they currently occupy because they have readily adapted to the stream conditions and removing them from areas they currently occupy is difficult and expensive. Further, it is likely that the increase in the frequency and severity of droughts, the reduction of flowing regions within a network of streams, and an increase in the length of dry patches within a stream as a result of climate change will exacerbate the impacts from nonnative aquatic species. This is because as the available watered segments decrease, the interactions between nonnatives and chubs increase, with more larvae and young-of-the-year removed from the chub populations due to predation by nonnative aquatic species. In addition, resources become more limited and the competition for these resources increases, resulting in decreased food for chubs and more competition for that food. The reduction in water will likely decrease the water quality (
Nonnative aquatic species could be introduced through the release of baitfish, intentional introduction by anglers for sport fishing, or flooding events, which allow chubs to pass low water barriers. The management of nonnatives is an important tool in the conservation of these species. Currently, due to a lack of a producer for Antimycin A and lack of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registration for other potential piscicides in development, the most effective method to remove fish is rotenone. However, the process for public coordination and other steps required on the pesticide label make it difficult and time-consuming to use rotenone under Federal law, and even more so under Arizona State Law (ARS Title 17-481) and Arizona Game and Fish Commission policy. Given vocal public and political opposition to rotenone treatments, stream restoration has become difficult in Arizona because of the lengthy bureaucratic process attached to those treatments. Without
Water is the basic habitat component needed for both chub species' survival and to support the various life stages and life-history functions. Water supports the needed physical and biological characteristics in streams to provide suitable chub habitat. There is a strong seasonal component to the amount of water available in a stream. There is snowmelt in the spring, which is important for spawning, and monsoon rains in the summer that is important during the driest time of year (late spring, early summer). Spatial and temporal variation in water amount and temperature may influence timing and periodicity of spawning, influence elevation distributions within stream systems, and impact the life cycles and availability of food resources (Dallas 2008, pp. 395-397). Historically, the amount of water in any stream at any time was determined by natural water sources, such as surface flow, springs, and alluvial groundwater input. Currently, these natural water sources are impacted by climate change (discussed below) and human actions. The creation of large water storage dams (such as those on the Salt and Verde Rivers) eliminate flowing sections of water and replace them with large reservoirs that support nonnative fish species. Chubs may be found in these large reservoirs initially, but do not persist there (Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002, p. 18). The dams that form the reservoirs are impassible obstacles and prevent chubs from moving through the system, resulting in occupied fragments of a stream where there was once full connectivity.
On the smaller scale, diversion dams that allow for removal of water from the stream for human uses may or may not be barriers to connectivity depending on their size and structure; however, their effect on flows can be substantial depending on the number of diversions in a stream, and the season of diversion. For agriculture, the primary diversion season is in the late spring through early fall. Generally, late spring and early summer is the time of year with the lowest flow and when water supplies are already stressed. This contributes to local stream drying, where the reach below the diversion can be all or partially dry until any return flows from the land use from agricultural fields, groundwater levels restore surface flow, or monsoon rains. In addition to direct removal of surface flow, wells that tap the alluvial groundwater (the shallow aquifer that also supports the surface flow in a stream) can reduce the level of the groundwater such that it is below the streambed elevation and cannot provide surface flows. In areas with few wells, this is generally not a significant concern; however, in areas with denser human development (as is found along the East Verde River, Oak Creek, and Wet Beaver Creek), stream drying occurs occurs (Girmendonk and Young 1997, pp. 31-32, 42; Paradzick et al 2006, pp.9-12). Demand for water is projected to increase as human populations are predicted to increase, affecting the timing, amount, and distribution of water within streams.
Climate change models project alteration in the timing and amount of snowmelt and monsoon rains, and the frequency and duration of droughts, as well as increases in temperature resulting in increased evaporation. During the spring and early monsoon seasons, the flowing regions of the Verde River stream network (areas with water) are projected to diminish a median of 8 percent and a maximum of 20 percent (Jaeger et al. 2014, p. 3) from their current status in the Verde River basin. Over much of the western United States and western Canada, warmer winters are projected to produce earlier runoff and discharge but less snow water equivalent and shortened snowmelt seasons in many snow-dominated areas (Barnett et al. 2005, entire; Rood et al. 2008, entire; Reba et al. 2011, entire).
Climate change model predictions suggest that climate change will shrink the length of the remaining flowing reaches in the Verde River, in the lower Colorado River basin, where both these species occur (Jaeger et al. 2014, p. 3). The frequency of stream drying events in the Verde Valley is expected to increase by approximately 17 percent (Jaeger et al. 2014, p. 13895), due in large part to groundwater decline. These regions that support flow are increasingly isolated as adjacent dry fragments expand in length and occur more frequently across these seasons. Model predictions suggest that midcentury and late-century climate will reduce network-wide hydrological connectivity. Midcentury and late-century climate model projections suggest that more frequent and severe droughts will reduce network-wide hydrologic connectivity for native fishes by 6 to 9 percent over the course of a year and up to 12 to 18 percent during spring spawning months (Jaeger et al. 2014, p. 3). The reduction in the length of the remaining flowing reaches will further increase native and nonnative aquatic species interactions and resource limitations, and will compromise the ability of these habitats to support native fishes (Jaeger et al. 2014, p. 3), including these chub species.
The best available data indicate that climate change and increased human population levels in the Verde Valley in the lower Colorado River basin will result in lowered groundwater levels and stream base flows to some degree (Garner et al. 2013, p. 23; Jaeger et al. 2014, p. 13895). The decline in groundwater levels and base flows in the region is expected to be caused by increased groundwater pumping, by surface water diversion, and from an increase in the frequency and severity of droughts in Arizona as a result of climate change. Specifically, future water levels and stream base flows are expected to continue decreasing along the Verde River and Oak Creek in response to increased pumping, particularly over the next 50 years (Owens-Joyce and Bell 1983, pp. 1, 65; McGavock 1996, p. 67; Blasch et al. 2006, p. 2; Garner et al. 2013). The best available information regarding future water availability for chubs includes models of the groundwater and base flow in the Verde River through approximately 2050. These models indicate a maximum of 20 percent loss of flow for the Verde River by approximately 2050 during dry times of the year (Jaeger et al. 2014, p. 13897). Despite native fishes having evolved life-history strategies to cope with the harsh environmental conditions that occur as a result of stream drying events, the predicted spatiotemporal changes in streamflow likely will have adverse consequences for the distribution, abundance, and persistence of these species into the future.
Effects to chubs from wildfire vary depending on the wildfire and streams. The severity, location, and timing of the wildfire influence the impact of wildfire to chubs depending on the amount of runoff, and degree of sediment and ash in the runoff. The size and condition of the stream also influences the impact to chubs from wildfire. There are streams where chubs (and other fish species) survived the post-fire ash/sediment flows following wildfire. This happened in the Upper Gila, Black River, and Spring Creek (Tonto River drainage). It is probable that there were individual fish that died or were harmed, and population numbers (or health) were reduced. However, populations that were initially depressed in these streams have rebounded, even increasing in abundance or extent relative to pre-fire conditions. However, in certain streams, like Cave Creek, Gila chub populations were impacted by the
As a result of the risk factors described above, particularly from climate change, the connectivity of chubs within and between streams is impacted, resulting in fragmented streams and AUs that could have population-level impacts to chubs. This results in small and isolated populations, susceptible to demographic impacts. Demographic impacts include loss of genetic diversity from inbreeding depression and genetic drift resulting in young that may have reduced fitness to cope with existing or changing conditions. This decreases a population's ability to adapt to environmental changes and increases vulnerability to extirpation (
These species developed as a result of multiple independent hybridization events over time (Rinne 1976; Rosenfeld and Wilkinson 1989; DeMarais
In headwater chub, most of their genetic variation occurs among populations, each of which tends to be distinctive. Each AU is geographically isolated from the other AUs even in the same drainage basin. For headwater chub, demographic effects could result if AUs become fragmented due the unique genetic variation within each AU. As the demand for water by humans and the effects of climate change increase, water is likely to become more limited. This loss of water affects the water flow in a stream and the number and length of watered and dry stream segments (
Past conservation efforts include the establishment of new populations for roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River Basin DPS and the renovation or securing of currently occupied areas for headwater and roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River Basin DPS. Newly established populations are sites where chubs have been released within the species' historical range. This involves locating a site with suitable habitat, free of nonnative aquatic species or with nonnatives to be removed, through chemical or mechanical means. Establishment of a hatchery broodstock for the streams at risk of loss of wild populations provides for newly established populations to those areas. Renovation or securing of a population involves salvaging the chub species from the stream, then the removal of nonnative aquatic species and potentially the installation of a barrier to keep nonnatives out of the site, and then the release of salvaged chubs back into the stream. Stream renovation is labor- and time-intensive. The salvage of chubs takes significant resources in terms of time, personnel, and funding. Temporary housing for the salvaged chub is needed while the nonnative aquatic species are removed. The eradication of nonnative aquatic species from streams is essential for establishing new populations or securing populations. However, removing nonnative aquatic species from a stream is difficult and typically requires multiple efforts. Rotenone is the most effective means of eradicating nonnatives from a stream. If there is not a barrier to prevent nonnative aquatic species from moving into the renovated area, then a barrier will need to be constructed prior to removing the nonnatives. Once the nonnative aquatic species are removed and a barrier put in place, chubs are released back into the stream. It is likely that not all nonnative aquatic species were removed, and a rotenone treatment will be necessary at some point in the future. This will require salvaging the chubs again and applying the rotenone, and then releasing the salvage chubs.
Removal of nonnative aquatic species has been used as a securing action for Fossil Creek for both headwater and roundtail chub. This effort has been successful, but significant time and resources were expended to secure the site and continue to be needed to maintain this site. Consequently, due to the expense and time, there is uncertainty regarding the securing of sites in the future.
There are currently four newly established sites for the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin. The four new established populations are: Blue River, Ash Creek, Gap Creek, and Roundtree Creek. Blue River is the only established site with documented reproduction. This site has a high potential for success; however, it is a relatively new site established in 2012. The other three sites have not shown reproduction. Their long-term viability is uncertain.
Three of the established sites are free of nonnative aquatic species. Blue
In addition, the U.S. Forest Service has implemented a suite of practices to reduce the risk of high-severity fires in the range of the chubs, such as prescribed burning, mechanical thinning, and retention of large trees. These actions can help southwestern forest ecosystems adapt to climate change and reduce the risk of extreme fire behavior (Finney
In the SSA Report, we used AUs to describe the populations of chubs. The AUs were delineated based on the hydrological connectivity of currently occupied streams and the ability of chubs to move within or among streams. There are two types of AUs considered in the SSA Report: (1) Those composed of one occupied stream, referred to as independent AUs; and (2) those composed of two or more hydrologically connected occupied streams, referred to as complex AUs.
We determined that water availability, nonnative aquatic species, and chub population structure are the three primary risks to these species. We modeled certain components contributing to the primary risks that were most likely to have a population-level impact to both species of chub. We developed a qualitative (measuring by quality of physical and biological components rather than quantitatively) model to summarize our understanding of the risk of extinction of these species due to these factors. To model water availability, we considered stream length as a surrogate for available habitat. We recognize that stream length does not equate to the quality of habitat available, but this is the best available data we have. The effect of nonnative aquatic species was evaluated in terms of the impacts from the community of nonnatives aquatic species present in a stream and the known impacts to chubs from the nonnative aquatic species present in the stream. Chub population structure is expressed in terms of chub abundance, number of age classes, and number of positive surveys for presence of the species. In addition, the model captures past conservation measures, such as stream renovations and newly established populations. Although not incorporated into our model, we also considered additional risk from climate change and water loss due to anthropogenic factors (
The current condition is expressed as our understanding of risk of extirpation now or in the near future (next 5 years). We identified four categories to communicate how we are defining risk of extirpation, described in Table 3, below. An AU categorized as minor risk has a 0 to 5 percent change of extirpation.
The results of our model analysis are displayed in Tables 4, 5, and 6, below. The San Carlos River AU and the upper Salt River AU are within tribal boundaries. The available data for these areas are dated and limited. In our analysis, we consider these AUs occupied; however, we have high uncertainty in this status.
Currently, there are eight AUs over three drainage basins: Gila River, Salt River, and Verde River. Headwater chub are found in 22 streams with a collective minimum of 432 km (268 mi) of available habitat. This represents at least 48 percent of the estimated historical range and no more than a 52 percent reduction in range. Stream lengths range from 3 to 70 km (2 to 44 mi). Average stream length is 17 km (10 mi). Only three streams lack nonnative aquatic species impacting chubs. Only one AU is in the minor risk of extirpation category. There are three AUs in the low risk, and four in the moderate risk categories (see Table 4, below).
Once the modeled results of the current condition were determined, we then evaluated the risk from wildfire, additional risk from climate change, water loss due to anthropogenic actions, and the demographic impacts from these risk factors and reduction in range on the AUs and the species as a whole. We assessed if an AU in each risk category were to experience a wildfire, loss of connectivity, decreased water flow due to anthropogenic actions and climate change, and demographic impacts, how that would further affect the condition of the AU. We recognize that impacts from fire do not always result in adverse impacts to chubs. We then considered how this would impact the redundancy and representation of the species.
Wildfire could impact one or more AUs now or in the near future (5 years). Impacts could range from loss of individuals to loss or significant impacts to entire AUs or multiple AUs. The likelihood of wildfire now or in the near future is high; however, the severity, timing, and location of the wildfire is uncertain.
Climate change is projected to reduce the flowing stream length of river networks. However, there are other impacts from climate change that we considered but were not able to incorporate into the model. This includes the increased lengths of dry reaches within a stream, loss of connectivity within and among streams, changes in the timing and amount of snowmelt and monsoon rains, changes in the frequency and duration of droughts, and the increase in temperatures resulting in increased evaporation. Increased dry reaches can impact chub movement and dispersal. Connectivity within streams is important for headwater chubs to maintain genetic diversity. Alterations in the timing and amount of water in the spring could result in delayed or reduced reproduction and recruitment. Alterations in the timing and amount of monsoon rains could result in a decrease in refugia areas for chubs after the driest time of the year. Impacts from climate change occur throughout the range of the headwater chub and are likely to affect all streams to some degree. In addition to the reduction in water from climate change, we also evaluated impacts to chubs from the loss from surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. These impacts are likely to impact all AUs to some degree.
Currently, there are 15 AUs across five drainage basins: Bill Williams River, Gila River, Little Colorado River, Salt River, and Verde River. Roundtail chub are found in 35 streams with a collective minimum of 2,098 km (1,303 mi) of available habitat. This represents at least 43 percent of the historical range and no more than a 57 percent reduction in range. The stream lengths range from 7 to 320 km (4 to 199 mi), with an average stream length of 50 km (10 mi). Only three streams lack nonnative aquatic species impacting chubs. One stream, Fossil Creek, has undergone renovation (meaning nonnatives have been removed). There are currently four newly established sites (see Table 6, below). There is only one AU in the minor risk of extirpation category. There are seven AUs in low risk, six in moderate risk, and one in high risk (see Table 5, below).
Once the modeled results of the current condition were determined, we then evaluated the risk from wildfire, additional risk from climate change, water loss due to anthropogenic actions, and demographic impacts from these risks factors and reduction in range on the AUs and the species as a whole. We assessed if an AU in each risk category were to experience a wildfire, loss of connectivity, decreased water flow, or demographic impacts, how that would further affect the condition (or resiliency) of the AU. We recognize that impacts from fire do not always result in adverse impacts to chubs. We then considered how this would impact the redundancy and representation of the species.
Wildfire could impact one or more AUs now or in the near future (5 years). Impacts could range from loss of individuals to loss or significant impacts to entire AUs or multiple AUs. The likelihood of wildfire now or in the near future is high; however, the severity, timing, and location of the wildfire is uncertain.
Climate change is projected to reduce the flowing stream length. However, there are other impacts from climate change that we considered but were not able to incorporate into the model. This includes the increased lengths of dry reaches within a stream, loss of connectivity within and among streams, changes in the timing and amount of snowmelt and monsoon rains, changes in the frequency and duration of droughts, and the increase in temperatures resulting in increased evaporation. Increased dry reaches can impact chub movement and dispersal. Connectivity within and among streams is important for the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS to maintain genetic diversity. Alterations in the timing and amount of water in the spring could result in delayed or reduced reproduction and recruitment. Alterations in the timing and amount of monsoon rains could result in a decrease in refugia areas for chubs after the driest time of the year. Impacts from climate change occur throughout the range of the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS and are likely to affect all streams to some degree. In addition to the reduction in water from climate change, we also evaluated the impacts to chubs from the loss from surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. These impacts are likely to impact all AUs to some degree.
There are currently four newly established sites for the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS (see Table 6, below), each site is an individual AU. These are relatively newly established AUs, and their success is unclear at this time. The Blue River site is the only site that has demonstrated reproduction. The remaining three sites have yet to show any reproduction. We analyzed the current condition of these AUs using the same method that we used to analyze the headwater chub and extant populations of lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS, meaning that we analyzed these using the model and then considered wildfire impacts, additional climate change impacts, water loss due to anthropogenic actions, and the demographic effects from these factors. Again, we recognize that impacts from fire do not always result in adverse impacts to chubs. However, we present the results separately due to the uncertainty of their success.
We analyzed the future risk of extirpation of each AU using the same model we used to assess current condition. However, we added a metric to assess conservation measures. We used the current condition of nonnative aquatic species, water availability, and chub population structure as the baseline to analyze projected future impacts. As stated in the current condition, we modeled water availability using stream length as a surrogate for available habitat. To model projected future impacts from climate change, we applied a reduction in length to the baseline stream length (
Given our uncertainty regarding if or when streams or AUs occupied by chubs will experience an increase in nonnative aquatic species, a reduction in water in the future, or conservation actions, we have qualitatively forecasted what both species may have in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation under four different possible future scenarios based on our understanding of the risks to these species. Our modeling allowed us to review four future scenarios of risk to AUs from nonnative aquatic species and water availability. These scenarios extend to the year 2046, about 30 years from present. In addition, we included an assessment of the potential for future conservation actions within each scenario.
To measure impacts from nonnative aquatic species in the future scenarios, we evaluated an increase in the level of impact from the nonnative aquatic species community across a percentage of streams because it is unlikely that all streams will be affected by increased impacts from nonnative aquatic species. It is more realistic that a portion of streams will have increased effects from nonnative aquatic species. Impacts due to reduction in water availability were
We identified two levels of conservation: a high management option and a low management option. The high management option projects that there will be two streams that are renovated or secured (eliminating nonnatives), and two new populations will be established per species. The low management option only projects one new population being established per species. For the two new projected populations for each chub, we did not select real streams but identified a set of conditions to represent a proxy stream similar to what would be considered in selecting a real site for a new population. We randomly selected drainage basins where the new population sites would be implemented. For the purposes of the model, we assumed all of these conservation efforts would result in populations that have reproduction and recruitment.
The below results are from the model analysis; however, it is important to note that our model does not capture all risks affecting these species. For analyzing the future condition, the model captures certain components contributing to the primary risks to the species (nonnative aquatic species and water availability) and conservation measures (establishing new populations and renovating existing populations). Although not incorporated into our model, we also considered additional risk from climate change and water loss due to anthropogenic factors (
The high management options projects that two new AUs will be established and two streams will be renovated. The low management options projects that one new AU will be established and no streams will be renovated. Consequently, scenarios 1 and 2 resulted in 10 AUs, instead of 8, because both of these scenarios incorporate the high management option. Scenarios 3 and 4 resulted in nine AUs due to the low management option projecting only one newly established population. As a result of the established populations and the renovation populations, the representation and redundancy of the species increased. However, the resiliency of some of the AUs is diminished due to the increased risks from nonnative aquatic species and reduced stream length.
The high management options projects that two new AUs will be established and two streams will be renovated. The low management options projects that one new AU will be established and no streams will be renovated. Consequently, scenarios 1 and 2 resulted in 17 AUs, instead of 15, because both of these scenarios incorporate the high management option. Scenarios 3 and 4 resulted in 16 AUs due to the low management option only projecting one newly established
There are currently four established sites for the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS (see Table 10, below), and each site is an individual AU. These are relatively newly established AUs, and their success is unclear at this time. The Blue River site is the only site that has demonstrated reproduction. The remaining three sites have yet to show any reproduction. Consequently, we analyzed these AUs separately because of the uncertainty of their success.
Results for the Lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS newly established populations (Blue River, Ash Creek, Gap Creek, and Roundtree Canyon) are captured in Table 10.
Based on the risk factor discussion above, scenarios 1 and 3 are the most likely scenarios. We are moderately certain that nonnative aquatic species will not impact 45 percent of the streams throughout the range of either species. Consequently, scenario 4 is not a realistic scenario, but it does demonstrate a negative future condition for comparison to the other scenarios. Scenario 2 is similar to scenario 3, with different conservation measures (see Table 7, above). Given the uncertainty in the success and feasibility of the conservation measures, we consider it important to evaluate a scenario with low management options. Consequently, we analyzed the results from scenario 3, rather than scenario 2. Scenarios 1 and 3 vary in the level of impacts from nonnative aquatic species, amount of decrease in stream length, and the level of conservation measures. There is uncertainty in the level of impacts from nonnative aquatic species and climate change. Further, there is uncertainty in the level, feasibility, or effectiveness of conservation measures. By considering both scenario 1 and 3, we address some of this uncertainty. Therefore, the most informative scenarios are scenarios 1 and 3, where impacts from nonnative aquatic species are likely to increase in a percentage of streams across the range of each species, stream lengths will be reduced, and some level of conservation management will be implemented. In addition to the model results, we also assessed risk from wildfire, additional risk from climate change, water loss due to anthropogenic factors, demographic impacts from these risks factors, and the reduction in range, as described in the
In the SSA Report, we used AUs to describe the populations of chubs. The AUs were delineated based on the hydrological connectivity of currently occupied streams and the ability of chubs to move within or among streams. There are two types of AUs considered in this SSA Report: (1) Those composed of one occupied stream, referred to as independent AUs; and (2) those composed of two or more hydrologically connected occupied streams, referred to as complex AUs.
Currently, at least 48 percent of the estimated historical range is occupied and there has been no more than a 52 percent reduction in range. Occupancy is within 22 streams, with a collective minimum of 432 km (268 mi) of available habitat, dispersed over eight AUs across three drainage basins. Three (38 percent) AUs are isolated, and five (62 percent) AUs have some hydrologic connection to each other. Headwater chub populations are naturally fragmented due to the individual hybridization events that created the species. Due to the multiple hybridization events in separate streams that likely gave rise to headwater chub, there are differences between the occupied streams across the occupied range deriving from the specifics of the founding populations and subsequent events that may have reduced population sizes that affected that diversity (Dowling
Six of the eight AUs are located in adjoining drainages: three in the Salt River (upper and lower Tonto Creek complexes and Gunn Creek independent AUs) and three in the Verde River (East Verde River complex and Fossil and Wet Bottom creeks independent AUs). The result is a distribution with 64 percent of the occupied area within immediate proximity to each other in two adjacent drainage basins, which is a concern for catastrophic events (such as floods). The remaining two complexes, San Carlos River and Three Forks, are in separate drainage basins from the other six and each other, and are not likely to be affected by the same catastrophic natural or anthropogenic event. This configuration creates a concern for maintaining redundancy in the future due to a catastrophic event.
There are eight streams from various AUs of approximately 5 km (3 mi) or less in length. These streams are at a higher risk of extirpation from catastrophic events than are longer streams. Further, there are two AUs of approximately 5 km (3 mi) or less, in which a catastrophic event could result in the loss of these AUs and reduce redundancy of the species. In addition, San Carlos River and its tributary Ash Creek within the Gila River drainage basin are on tribal lands, and we have high uncertainty regarding the presence of chubs.
Currently, about 47 to 52 percent of historical range is occupied (or 48 to 53 percent reduction in range). Occupied areas are dispersed over 35 streams within 15 AUs across five drainages. Information about roundtail chub indicated that historically there was greater connectivity and subsequent relatedness over the region, and development of populations in isolation from other roundtail chub was not the normal condition across most of the historical range except in the Bill Williams River and Little Colorado River drainages. Unlike the headwater chub, the roundtail chub's historical connectivity within the Gila, Salt, and Verde Rivers promoted less genetic diversity over the range; however, the Bill Williams and Little Colorado rivers are isolated from that connectivity and are more unique. However, roundtail chub are extirpated from several large riverine streams that provided connectivity across most of the historically occupied range. This has resulted in the recent isolation of AUs even within the same drainage basin. Nine AUs (about 60 percent) are isolated and are not able to naturally recolonize. If a catastrophic event such as wildfire or severe drought occurs in one of these nine populations, it could be extirpated. Variation within populations and connectivity may be more of an issue for roundtail chub in the DPS than with headwater chub. Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or ecological diversity is important to retaining the capacity of the roundtail chub to adapt to future environmental changes.
There are eight streams from various AUs of approximately 5 km (3 mi) or less. These streams are at a higher risk of extirpation from catastrophic events than are longer streams. In addition, one AU is approximately 5 km (3 mi) or less, putting it at higher risk of extirpation due to a catastrophic event, leading to reduced redundancy. In addition, there seven streams within the Upper Salt River drainage basin located on tribal lands where we have high uncertainty regarding the presence of chubs. We consider these streams occupied, but this could be overestimating the range of the headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS.
In the Little Colorado River drainage basin, loss of one of the two occupied streams would impair redundancy. For the Verde River Complex and Upper Salt River Complex AUs, loss of any stream with documentation of recruitment would likely impair the entire complex. The survey data suggest that some streams in the Verde River Complex and Upper Salt River Complex AUs have more recruitment events than others but we do not fully understand how the chub populations are maintained across the entire complex. Under these conditions, loss of a stream with sustained recruitment would affect redundancy across the entire AU. For the Gila River drainage basin, loss of the Eagle Creek AU would effectively eliminate the upper portion of the Gila River drainage basin. The loss of the Aravaipa Creek AU would effectively eliminate the lower portion of the Gila River drainage basin. For the Bill Williams River drainage basin, the loss of one AU complex would reduce redundancy but not necessarily impair redundancy. However, the loss of both AU complexes would impair redundancy because of the potential for loss of a genetic management unit.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Under section 4(b)(1)(a), the Secretary is to make endangered or threatened determinations under section 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to her after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account conservation efforts by States or foreign nations. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the headwater chub and lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” We used the best available scientific and commercial data to evaluate the viability (and thus risk of extinction) for the headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS to determine if they meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species.
The biological information we reviewed and analyzed as the basis for our findings is documented in the SSA Report (Service 2015, entire), a summary of which is provided in the Background section of this proposed rule. The projections for the condition of populations are based on our expectations of the risks (in other words, threats) that may have population-level effects currently or in the future. The risks we evaluated in detail are habitat loss and degradation due to groundwater pumping and surface water diversion (Factor A from the Act), and predation, competition, and harassment from nonnative aquatic species (Factors C and E from the Act). For nonnative aquatic species and reduction in water, we also considered the exacerbating effects of climate change (Factor E from the Act). We reviewed, but did not evaluate in further detail because of a lack of population-level effects, the effects of recreation (Factor B from the Act), grazing, forestry practices, roads, and mining (Factor A from the Act). The overall results of the status assessment found that the best available information indicates that the range of the headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS have decreased, with multiple streams now extirpated, likely due to nonnative aquatic species and loss of habitat (
The purpose of the status assessment was to characterize the future condition of the headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS in the face of risks and conservation efforts described above in the Background section. In the SSA Report, we described the viability of the headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS in terms of resiliency, redundancy, representation now, including the next 5 years, and over the next 30 years under four likely scenarios. We have determined that scenarios 1 and 3 are the most likely future scenarios. Our forecasts take into consideration the four newly established sites and one restoration site for the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS. In addition, our analysis considers wildfire risk, additional climate change impacts, water loss due to anthropogenic actions, and demographic impacts from these factors and the reduction in the range. We recognize the fire does not always result in adverse effects to these chubs. We evaluated impacts from these additional risks to each AU and the headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS as a whole.
The fundamental question before the Service is whether the headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS warrants protection as endangered or threatened under the Act. To determine this, we evaluate the projections of extinction risk, described in terms of the condition and distribution of current (including the next 5 years) and future populations. As population condition declines and distribution shrinks, species' extinction risk increases and overall viability declines.
As described in the determinations below, we first evaluated whether the headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS are in danger of extinction throughout their ranges now (an endangered species). We then evaluated whether they are likely to become in danger of extinction throughout their ranges in the foreseeable future (a threatened species). We finally considered whether the headwater chub and the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS are an endangered or threatened species in a significant portion of their ranges (SPR).
Under the Act, an endangered species is any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Because of the fact-specific nature of listing determinations, there is no single metric for determining if a species is currently in danger of extinction. We used the best available scientific and commercial data to evaluate the viability (and thus risk of extinction) for the headwater chub to determine if it meets the definition of an endangered species. In this proposed rule, we use a description of the condition of populations to describe the viability of headwater chub then determine the species' status under the Act.
To assist us in evaluating the status of the headwater chub, we evaluated the risk factors that we found may have potential population-level effects now. This included nonnative aquatic species, water availability, and chub population structure, which we assessed in our model. In addition, this included current risk from wildfire, climate change, water loss due to anthropogenic actions, and demographic effects from these risks factors and the reduction in range; however, these were not analyzed in the model. All of these factors affect the resiliency of AUs for the headwater chub.
For headwater chub, at least 48 percent of the estimated historical range remains and no more than a 52 percent of the range has been reduced from the historical range. Nonnative aquatic species occupy almost all currently occupied chub streams, and we analyzed impacts to these streams and AUs through the model. Nonnative aquatic species and chubs have coexisted for some time in several of these streams, but the reasons for this are unclear. There are three streams for headwater chub that are currently free of nonnative aquatic species into which nonnatives could expand or be introduced.
In the model, we analyzed the stream length as a measure of water availability. This provided a current condition of the amount of water in a stream at the driest time of year. This captured climate change and anthropogenic action (surface water diversions and groundwater pumping) impacts to the stream. Wildfire is not analyzed in the model, but we did consider impacts from wildfire. Currently, wildfire could occur almost anywhere within the range of this species and impact one or more streams or entire AUs. However, impacts to the headwater chub are dependent on the severity, location, and timing of the fire, as well as the size of the stream.
Since this species developed as a result of multiple independent hybridization events over time (Rinne 1976; Rosenfeld and Wilkinson 1989; DeMarais et al. 1992; Dowling and DeMarais 1993; Minckley and DeMarais 2000; Gerber
The renovation effort in Fossil Creek for headwater chub (and for roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin) has proven successful, but such an effort requires a large commitment of resources including funding and personnel.
Our review found that eight AUs currently exist within the historical range of the headwater chub across three drainage basins. We defined the minor risk category as a 0 to 5 percent current risk of extirpation, the low risk category as a 6 to 30 percent current risk of extirpation, and the moderate risk category as a 31 to 60 percent current risk of extirpation. The model output categorized one AU as minor risk, three AUs as the low risk, and four as the moderate risk categories.
Four AUs are projected as currently having a minor or low risk of extirpation. We consider the one AU in the minor risk category, Fossil Creek, to be resilient because it contains very few nonnative aquatic species, it has a stream length of over 15 km (9 mi), and chub population structure is high (meaning chubs are abundant and recruitment is high). All these components increase the AU's ability to withstand a stochastic event such as wildfire and weather, which are the other risks we considered in our assessment. Based on this, resiliency is sufficient for this AU, and the risk of extirpation is 0 to 5 percent.
Although less resilient than an AU in the minor risk category, the AUs in the low risk category are also considered resilient, because they have low nonnative aquatic species, sufficient stream length, and/or good chub population structure (chubs are common to abundant and recruitment is moderate to high). These components increase the AUs' ability to withstand a stochastic event such as wildfire and drought, which are the other risks we considered in our assessment. However, their ability to withstand a stochastic event is less than an AU in the minor risk, and the range of extirpation risk is greater (6 to 30 percent). The range in risk of extirpation is a factor of the variability in the level of impacts from nonnative aquatic species, water availability, and chub population structure, as well as the uncertainty in the species' response from these risks factors because each AU is different.
Impacts from nonnative aquatic species and water availability, as well as wildfire, climate change, and demographics, are affecting AUs in the minor and low risk categories, but these AUs are currently maintaining chubs and are therefore likely to withstand a stochastic event. In addition, there are two AUs in the moderate risk category that are close to the low risk category score, indicating that while they are in the moderate category they are at the low end of this category (
While impacts from climate change are likely currently, and are impacting chub populations at some scale, they are not having population-level impacts to all AUs at this time.
Nonnative aquatic species occur in all but three streams that headwater chub occupy. While chubs coexist with nonnative aquatic species in several streams, this does not mean that nonnative aquatic species are not impacting chubs; however, the AUs are persisting currently.
We consider the species to have sufficient redundancy and representation, and a number of sufficiently large populations, so that the species is able to withstand catastrophic events. The four AUs identified as minor and low risks are currently spread over a large geographical area, such that all the AUs are highly unlikely to experience a catastrophic event that would impact all AUs now. Further, the current range of the species includes AUs that represent the known diversity of ecological settings and genetic materials for the headwater chub. The current and ongoing threats are not likely to impact all remaining populations significantly now. Certain risks, such as climate change, move slowly across the landscape, and demographic impacts take time to impact a population. The increase or spread of nonnative aquatic species moves faster than climate change or demographics, but it will likely take a few years for a nonnative aquatic species to expand in a currently occupied stream or become established in a new stream. Wildfire is likely to have immediate impacts, but it is highly unlikely that wildfire will impact all AUs at the current time. As a result, it is unlikely that a single stochastic event (
This estimate of the condition and distribution of populations provides sufficient resiliency, representation, and redundancy for the species. The primary threats to the species (nonnative aquatic species, water availability, and climate change) are not currently having population-level effects to all AUs across the range of the headwater chub. Catastrophic or stochastic events in the present are not likely to have population-level impacts to all AUs; consequently the risk of extinction is sufficiently low that the species does not meet the definition of endangered under the Act. Based on the above information, we conclude that the headwater chub does not meet the definition of an endangered species under the Act.
Having found that the headwater chub is not endangered throughout its range, we next evaluated whether this species is threatened throughout its range.
Under the Act, a threatened species is any species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The foreseeable future refers to the extent to which the Secretary can reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making determinations about the future conservation status of the species (U.S. Department of Interior, Solicitor's Memorandum, M-37021, January 16, 2009). A key statutory difference between an endangered species and a threatened species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either now (endangered species) or in the foreseeable future (threatened species). The foreseeable future refers to the extent to which the Secretary can reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making determinations about the future conservation status of the species.
To assist us in evaluating the status of the species in the foreseeable future, we evaluated the risk factors that we found may have potential population-level effects over time. This included nonnative aquatic species, water availability, and conservation actions, which we assessed in our model. In addition, we considered the future risk from wildfire, water loss due to future anthropogenic actions, and demographic impacts from these risk factors, as well as reduction in range. In considering the foreseeable future, we forecasted the future status of the headwater chub as described by the future condition of the AUs. This projected future condition was based on the risk factors and conservation actions affecting the species, and the
The best available information indicates that we have a high level of certainty out to 30 years for climate change risks, which is an essential consideration for the foreseeable future. Therefore, our analysis of the status of the species to the foreseeable future uses a timeframe of 30 years. The outputs of Jaeger
To assist us in evaluating the status of the species, we evaluated the risk factors that we found may have potential population-level effects over a 30-year time period. This included nonnative aquatic species, water availability, and conservation actions, which we assessed in our model. In addition, we considered the future risk from fire, additional climate change, future anthropogenic actions, and demographic effects from these risks factors, as well as reduction in range; however, these were not analyzed in the model. We evaluated impacts from these additional risks to each AU and the species as a whole.
Chubs are affected not only by the quantity and quality of water, but also by the timing and spatial distribution of water. In the model, we analyzed the reduction in stream length as an impact from climate change. However, climate change models project that over the next 50 years: (1) Future water levels and stream base flows are expected to continue to decrease in the Verde River in the lower Colorado River basin; (2) the frequency of stream drying events in the Verde Valley is expected to increase; (3) the length of the remaining flowing reaches of streams in the Verde Valley (or region) will be reduced; and (4) network-wide hydrologic connectivity for native fishes will be reduced (both over the course of the year and during spring spawning months). Climate change is also projected to alter the timing and amount of snowmelt and monsoon rains, and the frequency and duration of droughts. Climate change will also increase temperature, resulting in increased evaporation. Climate change is also likely to exacerbate the effects of water loss, reduction in hydrological connectivity, nonnatives, and species interactions (impacting demographics). All of these factors reduce the resiliency of AUs for the headwater chub. However, the certainty of the model projections decreases as the projected timeframe increases. Further, the severity of climate change impacts depicted in climate models varies depending on the scenario being evaluated, with some projecting low changes (
In the model, we analyzed the stream length as a measure of water availability. This provided a current condition of the amount of water in a stream at the driest time of year. This captured climate change and anthropogenic action (surface water diversions and groundwater pumping) impacts to the stream. Wildfire is not analyzed in the model, but we did consider impacts from wildfire. Currently, wildfire could occur almost anywhere within the range of this species and impact one or more streams or entire AUs. However, impacts to the headwater chub are dependent on the severity, location, and timing of the fire, as well as the size of the stream.
As part of the foreseeable future, we also considered the likely reduction in water availability as a result of increased human demand for water, resulting in increased surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. Demand for water is highly likely to increase as human populations are predicted to increase, affecting the timing, amount, and distribution of water within streams. However, population growth, and the exact location of that population growth, is uncertain. Further, the timing and amount of water consumed is uncertain. To address this uncertainty, we considered different levels of impacts to a subset of streams or AUs.
Nonnative aquatic species occupy almost all currently occupied chub streams, and we analyzed impacts to these streams and AUs through the model. Nonnative aquatic species and chubs have coexisted for some time in several of these streams, but the reasons for this are unclear. We expect that nonnative aquatic species will continue to persist in most if not all of the streams they currently occupy and that nonnative impacts will increase in a percentage of streams across the range of this species. In addition, there are three streams for headwater chub that are currently free of nonnative aquatic species into which nonnatives could expand or be introduced.
The projected effects to chubs from nonnative aquatic species are likely to be exacerbated by climate change, but this was not analyzed in the model. However, we do consider this in our analysis. As the available watered segments decrease, the interactions between nonnative aquatic species and chubs increase, with more larvae and young-of-the-year removed from the chub populations dues to predation by nonnative aquatic species. In addition, resources become more limited, and the competition for these resources increases. Further, the reduction in water will likely decrease the water quality (
Since this species developed as a result of multiple independent hybridization events over time (Rinne 1976; Rosenfeld and Wilkinson 1989; DeMarais
We have a moderate to high level of uncertainty regarding the success of the establishment of new populations. (For example, of the four newly established populations of roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin only one (Blue River) has demonstrated reproduction. One potential factor is the
We used the same categories to categorize the risk of extirpation in the foreseeable future (until 2046) as discussed above in the “III. Evaluation” section. We determined that scenarios 1 and 3 are most likely and therefore most useful in making our determination. The model output for scenario 1 projected 10 AUs due to the high management option projecting two newly established populations and two renovation sites. The projected risk of extirpation by 2046 for the 10 AUs were: two AUs in minor risk, five in low risk, and three in moderate risk. The two AUs in minor risk of extirpation are the newly established sites, and two of the five AUs in low risk are the renovation sites. Scenario 3 projected nine AUs due to the low management option projecting only one newly established population. The projected risk of extirpation by 2046 for the nine AUs were: one AU in minor risk, three in low risk, and five in moderate risk. The one AU in the minor risk is a newly established site.
We consider AUs within the minor to low risk categories to have sufficient resiliency in the future because they contain very few nonnative aquatic species, have long stream length, and have a high chub population structure. All these components increase the AUs' ability to withstand a stochastic event such as wildfire and weather, which are the other risks we considered in our assessment. Under the current condition, the one AU (Fossil Creek) that ranked in the minor risk category was projected to experience an increase in nonnative aquatic species and a reduction in stream length in the future scenarios. These projected impacts resulted in this AU ranking in the low risk under scenario 1 and the moderate risk under scenario 3. This demonstrates the impacts that nonnative aquatic species and water availability have on AUs. The reduced resiliency of this AU affects the redundancy and representation of the species as a whole.
The two AUs in scenario 1, and the one AU in scenario 3, that ranked in the minor risk category are the projected newly established sites. In addition, one of the AUs in the low risk category under scenario 1 is a renovation site, which under the current condition was ranked as moderate risk. Given the high uncertainty in the success of newly established and renovated sites, these are not reliably considered resilient in the future, and therefore we did not consider these in our determination. This leaves four AUs that ranked in the low risk category in scenario 1 and three in scenario 3. Although less resilient than an AU in the minor risk category, the AUs in the low risk category are also considered resilient, because they have low nonnative aquatic species, sufficient stream length, and good chub population structure. Two of these rank closely to the moderate risk category in scenario 1 and three in scenario 3. This leaves two AUs under scenario 1 and scenario 3 that we consider resilient enough to withstand future stochastic events.
Nonnative aquatic species occur in all but three streams that headwater chub occupy. While chubs coexist with nonnative aquatic species in several streams, this does not mean that nonnatives are not impacting chubs. Further, climate change is likely to exacerbate water loss, reduction in hydrological connectivity, nonnative aquatic species, and species interactions (impacting demographics), resulting in increased competition from and predation by nonnatives. Since climate change is likely to affect all streams to varying degrees, it is likely that impacts from nonnative aquatic species will increase in a portion of streams throughout the range of the headwater chub. The level of increased impacts from nonnative aquatic species is dependent on the condition of the chubs and nonnatives in that AU, and the level of impacts from climate change.
The occurrence of wildfire within the headwater chub's range is highly likely. However, the severity, location, and impacts to chubs are uncertain. Over a 30-year period, multiple wildfires could impact multiple AUs. Impacts could range from loss of individuals to loss of streams to loss of AUs. Demand for water is highly likely to increase as human populations are predicted to increase, affecting the timing, amount, and distribution of water within streams. In addition, the synergistic impacts from the increased effects from wildfire, additional impacts from climate change, water loss due to anthropogenic actions, and demographic effects from these risks factors increase the likelihood and severity of stochastic impacts across the range of the species.
The projected number of AUs in moderate risk is three and five under scenarios 1 and 3, respectively (33 to 55 percent, respectively). These AUs have moderate to high nonnative aquatic species, low to moderate stream lengths, and low to moderate chub abundance. These are not considered resilient enough to withstand stochastic events in the foreseeable future. As stated above, the synergistic impacts from the increased impacts from wildfire, additional impacts from climate change, water loss due to anthropogenic actions, and demographic effects from these risks factors increase the likelihood and severity of stochastic impacts across the range of the species. This increase in likelihood and severity increases the risk of extirpation for these AUs in the moderate risk category. Over the 30-year period of the foreseeable future, the risk from demographic (change in age structure and recruitment of populations) and environmental stochasticity (wildfire and weather) may have effects to all AUs (or populations) in the moderate risk category.
In addition, the model projects that three (38 percent) AUs would be isolated and only five (62 percent) AUs would retain some hydrologic connection. There are projected to be eight streams of approximately 5 km (3 mi) or less in length. These streams would be at a higher risk of extirpation due to stochastic and catastrophic events. The loss of these streams from an AU would reduce the resiliency of that AU. Further, there would be two AUs of approximately 5 km (3 mi) or less. These AUs would be at a higher risk of extirpation due to stochastic and catastrophic events.
The AUs are projected to exist across the historical range; however, 64 percent of the AUs would occupy an area within immediate proximity to each other in two adjacent drainage basins, increasing their risk from catastrophic events (such as wildfire). The distribution of the AUs in the future could possibly be adequate to support representation and redundancy for the species, if a sufficient number of AUs were projected to be resilient. However, AUs that are not resilient cannot reliably contribute to redundancy or representation, and only two to three of the eight AUs are considered resilient. Further, the redundancy and representation of the species is diminished based on the projected future condition of the AUs, and the
The significance of isolation in shaping each population highlights the importance of maintaining each independently to preserve the unique genetic variation (Dowling
Because this estimate of the condition and distribution of populations in the foreseeable future would not provide sufficient resiliency, representation, and redundancy for the species, the risk of extinction is sufficiently high in the foreseeable future to meet the definition of a threatened species under the Act. We conclude that the headwater chub meets the definition of a threatened species under the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that headwater chub is threatened throughout all of its range, no portion of its range can be “significant” for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).
Under the Act, an endangered species is any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Because of the fact-specific nature of listing determinations, there is no single metric for determining if a species is currently in danger of extinction. We used the best available scientific and commercial data to evaluate the viability (and thus risk of extinction) for the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS to determine if it meets the definition of an endangered species. In this determination, we used a description of the condition of populations to describe the viability of the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS and then determine the DPS's status under the Act.
To assist us in evaluating the status of the DPS, we evaluated the risk factors that we found may have potential population-level effects now. This included nonnative aquatic species, water availability, and chub population structure, which we assessed in our model. In addition, this included current risk from wildfire, climate change, water loss due to anthropogenic actions, and demographic effects from these risks factors, as well as the reduction in range. However, these were not analyzed in the model. All of these factors affect the resiliency of AUs for the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS.
For roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin, at least 43 percent of the historical range remains and no more than a 57 percent of the range has been reduced from the historic range. Nonnative aquatic species occupy almost all currently occupied chub streams, and we analyzed impacts to these streams and AUs through the model. Nonnative aquatic species and chubs have coexisted for some time in several of these streams, but the reasons for this are unclear. There are three streams occupied by the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS that are currently free of nonnative aquatic species into which nonnatives could expand or be introduced.
In the model, we analyzed the stream length as a measure of water availability. This provided a current condition of the amount of water in a stream at the driest time of year. This captured climate change and anthropogenic actions (surface water diversions and groundwater pumping) impacts to the stream. Wildfire is not analyzed in the model, but we did consider impacts from wildfire. Currently, wildfire could occur almost anywhere within the range of the DPS and impact one or more streams or entire AUs. However, impacts to the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS are dependent on the severity, location, and timing of the fire, as well as the size of the stream.
Since roundtail chub developed as a result of multiple independent hybridization events over time (Rinne 1976; Rosenfeld and Wilkinson 1989; DeMarais
There is a moderate to high level of uncertainty regarding the newly established populations of roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin. Of the four newly established populations of roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin, only one, Blue River, has demonstrated reproduction. This could be related to the size of the site, as Blue River is much larger than the other three sites, but this is not clear.
The renovation effort in Fossil Creek for roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin (and headwater chub) has proven successful, but such an effort requires a large commitment of resources including funding and personnel.
Our review found that 15 AUs currently exist within the historical range of the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS across five drainage basins. To assess the current condition of these populations, we analyzed the impact from nonnative aquatic species, loss of water, and chub population structure. In addition, we considered wildfire, additional impacts from climate change, and demographic impacts from these factors, as well as reduction in range. We defined the minor risk category as a 0 to 5 percent current chance of extirpation, the low risk category as a 6 to 30 percent current
Eight AUs are projected as currently having minor or low risk of extirpation. This provides the resiliency (greater than 50 percent of the AUs are considered resilient enough to withstand stochastic events), redundancy (the AUs exist across the historical range, although some are small or have large nonnative aquatic species impacts, to withstand catastrophic events), and representation (multiple populations continuing to occur across the range of the DPS to maintain ecological and genetic diversity).
We consider AUs within the minor to low risk categories to have sufficient resiliency at the present time. We consider these resilient because the risks from nonnative aquatic species and water availability, as well as wildfire, climate change, and genetics, are not having population-level effects to multiple AUs at this time. While the majority of streams occupied by chubs have nonnative aquatic species, there is little direct evidence of extirpation or significant population reductions of chubs from nonnative aquatic species currently; however, for Arizona and New Mexico native fish in general, this has been documented. Further, while the mechanism is unknown, currently there are several streams within multiple AUs containing chubs that have maintained populations in the presence of one or more of these nonnative aquatic species.
While impacts from climate change are likely currently impacting chub populations at some scale, these do not appear to be having population-level impacts at this time. Climate model predictions suggest that climate will entail: An increase in the frequency and duration of droughts, alteration in the timing and amount of spring and fall flows due to changes in precipitation, and increased temperatures resulting in increased evaporation. All of these effects are likely to negatively affect chub populations. However, these projections are for midcentury (around 2046). The current and ongoing threats are not likely to impact all remaining populations significantly in the near term because these risks, such as climate change, move slowly across the landscape. Projected climate change impacts discussed in this proposed rule are at mid-century (~2046) and are likely to exacerbate water loss, reduction in hydrological connectivity, nonnative aquatic species, and species interactions (impacting demographics) is not projected until 2046.
We consider the DPS to have sufficient redundancy and representation, and sufficiently large populations, that the DPS is able to withstand stochastic events. The AUs are currently spread over a large geographical area such that all the AUs are highly unlikely to experience a catastrophic event that would impacts all AUs now. Further, the current range of the DPS includes AUs that represent the known diversity of ecological settings and genetic materials for the roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin . The current and ongoing threats are not likely to impact all remaining populations significantly in the near term because these risks, such as climate change, move slowly across the landscape, and demographic impacts take time to impact a population. The increase or spread of nonnative aquatic species moves faster than climate change or demographics, but it will likely take a few years for a nonnative aquatic species to expand in a currently occupied stream or become established in a new stream. Wildfire is likely to have immediate impacts, but it is highly unlikely that wildfire will impact all AUs at the current time. As a result, it is unlikely that a single stochastic event (
This estimate of the condition and distribution of populations provides sufficient resiliency, representation, and redundancy for the DPS. The primary threats to the DPS (nonnative aquatic species, water availability, and climate change) are not currently having population-level effects to all AUs across the range of the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS. The threats are not currently impacting multiple populations across the DPS's range. Catastrophic or stochastic events in the present are not likely to have population-level impacts to multiple AUs. Consequently, the risk of extinction is sufficiently low that the DPS does not meet the definition of endangered under the Act. Based on the above information, we conclude that the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS does not meet the definition of an endangered species under the Act.
Having found that the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS is not endangered throughout its range, we next evaluated whether this DPS is threatened throughout its range.
Under the Act, a threatened species is any species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The foreseeable future refers to the extent to which the Secretary can reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making determinations about the future conservation status of the species (U.S. Department of Interior, Solicitor's Memorandum, M-37021, January 16, 2009). A key statutory difference between an endangered species and a threatened species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either now (endangered species) or in the foreseeable future (threatened species). The foreseeable future refers to the extent to which the Secretary can reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making determinations about the future conservation status of the species.
To assist us in evaluating the status of the species in the foreseeable future, we evaluated the risk factors that we found may have potential population-level effects over time. This included nonnative aquatic species, water availability, and conservation actions, which we assessed in our model. In addition, we considered the future risk from wildfire, water loss due to future anthropogenic actions, and demographic impacts from these risk factors, as well as reduction in range. In considering the foreseeable future, we forecasted the future status of the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS as described by the future condition of the AUs. This projected future condition was based on the risk factors and conservation actions affecting the DPS, and the uncertainties associated with these factors and actions. We consider 30 years from now a reasonable time to reliably predict the future conservation status of the DPS.
The best available information indicates that we have a high level of certainty out to 30 years for climate change risks, which is an essential consideration for the foreseeable future. Therefore, our analysis of the status of the DPS to the foreseeable future uses a timeframe of 30 years. The outputs of Jaeger
To assist us in evaluating the status of the DPS, we evaluated the risk factors that we found may have potential population-level effects over a 30-year time period. This included nonnative aquatic species, water availability, and conservation actions, which we assessed in our model. In addition, we considered the future risk from fire, additional climate change, future anthropogenic actions, and demographic effects from these risks factors, as well as reduction in range; however, these were not analyzed in the model. We evaluated impacts from these additional risks to each AU and the DPS as a whole.
Chubs are affected not only by the quantity and quality of water, but also by the timing and spatial distribution of water. In the model, we analyzed the reduction in stream length as an impact from climate change. However, climate change models project that over the next 50 years: (1) Future water levels and stream base flows are expected to continue to decrease in the Verde River in the lower Colorado River basin; (2) the frequency of stream drying events in the Verde Valley is expected to increase; (3) the length of the remaining flowing reaches of streams in the Verde Valley (or region) will be reduced; and (4) network-wide hydrologic connectivity for native fishes will be reduced (both over the course of the year and during spring spawning months). Climate change is also projected to alter the timing and amount of snowmelt and monsoon rains, and the frequency and duration of droughts. Climate change will also increase temperature, resulting in increased evaporation. Climate change is also likely to exacerbate water loss, reduction in hydrological connectivity, nonnatives, and species interactions (impacting demographics). All of these factors reduce the resiliency of AUs for the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS. However, the certainty of the model projections decreases as the projected timeframe increases. Further, the severity of climate change impacts depicted in climate models varies depending on the scenario being evaluated, with some projecting low changes (
In the model, we analyzed the stream length as a measure of water availability. This provided a current condition of the amount of water in a stream at the driest time of year. This captured climate change and anthropogenic action (surface water diversions and groundwater pumping) impacts to the stream. Wildfire is not analyzed in the model, but we did consider impacts from wildfire. Currently, wildfire could occur almost anywhere within the range of the DPS and impact one or more streams or entire AUs. However, impacts to the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS are dependent on the severity, location, and timing of the fire, as well as the size of the stream.
As part of the foreseeable future, we also considered the likely reduction in water availability as a result of increased human demand for water, resulting in increased surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. Demand for water is highly likely to increase as human populations are predicted to increase, affecting the timing, amount, and distribution of water within streams. However, population growth, and the exact location of that population growth, is uncertain. Further, the timing and amount of water consumed is uncertain. To address this uncertainty, we considered different levels of impacts to a subset of streams or AUs.
Nonnative aquatic species occupy almost all currently occupied chub streams, and we analyzed impacts to these streams and AUs through the model. Nonnative aquatic species and chubs have coexisted for some time in several of these streams, but the reasons for this are unclear. We expect that nonnative aquatic species will continue to persist in most if not all of the streams they currently occupy and that nonnative impacts will increase in a percentage of streams across the range of the DPS. In addition, there are three streams occupied by the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS that are currently free of nonnative aquatic species into which nonnatives could expand or be introduced.
The projected effects to chubs from nonnative aquatic species are likely to be exacerbated by climate change, but this was not analyzed in the model. However, we do consider this in our analysis. As the available watered segments decrease, the interactions between nonnative aquatic species and chubs increase, with more larvae and young-of-the-year removed from the chub populations dues to predation by nonnative aquatic species. In addition, resources become more limited, and the competition for these resources increases. Further, the reduction in water will likely decrease the water quality (
Since the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS developed as a result of multiple independent hybridization events over time (Rinne 1976; Rosenfeld and Wilkinson 1989; DeMarais
We have a moderate to high level of uncertainty regarding the success of the establishment of new populations. Of the four newly established populations of roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin, only one (Blue River) has demonstrated reproduction. One potential factor is the size of the site; Blue River is much larger than the other three sites. The renovation effort in Fossil Creek has proven successful. However, such an effort requires a large commitment of resources including funding and personnel. While attempts at establishing new populations in the future are likely, the success of these
We used the same categories to categorize the risk of extirpation in the foreseeable future (until 2046) as discussed above. We determined that scenarios 1 and 3 are most likely and therefore most useful in making our determination. The model output for scenario 1 projected 17 AUs due to the high management option projects two newly established populations and two renovated sites. The projected risk of extirpation for the 17 AUs were: Three AUs in minor risk, seven in low risk, six in moderate risk, and one in high risk of extirpation. Scenario 3 projected: 16 AUs in 2046 due to the low management option only projecting one newly established population. The projected risk of extirpation for the 16 AUs were: Two AUs in minor risk, seven in low risk, six in moderate risk, and one in high risk of extirpation.
We consider AUs within the minor to low risk categories to have sufficient resiliency in the future because they contain very few nonnative aquatic species, have long stream length, and have a high chub population structure. All these components increase the AUs' ability to withstand a stochastic event such as wildfire and weather, which are the other risks we considered in our assessment. However, in scenario 1, two of the three AUs in the minor risk category are newly established sites. In scenario 3, one of the two AUs in the minor risk category was a newly established site.
Nonnative aquatic species occur in all but three streams that the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS occupies. While chubs coexist with nonnative aquatic species in several streams, this does not mean that nonnatives are not impacting chubs. Further, climate change is likely to exacerbate water loss, reduction in hydrological connectivity, nonnative aquatic species, and species interactions (impacting demographics), resulting in increased competition from and predation by nonnatives. Since climate change is likely to affect all streams to varying degrees, it is likely that impacts from nonnative aquatic species will increase in a portion of streams throughout the range of the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS. The level of increased impacts from nonnative aquatic species is dependent on the condition of the chubs and nonnatives in that AU, and the level of impacts from climate change.
The occurrence of wildfire within the range of the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS is highly likely. However, the severity, location, and impacts to chubs are uncertain. Over a 30-year period, multiple wildfires could impact multiple AUs. Impacts could range from loss of individuals to loss of streams to loss of AUs. Demand for water is highly likely to increase as human populations are predicted to increase, affecting the timing, amount, and distribution of water within streams. In addition, the synergistic impacts from the increased effects from wildfire, additional impacts from climate change, water loss due to anthropogenic actions, and demographic effects from these risks factors increase the likelihood and severity of stochastic impacts across the range of the DPS.
This projected number of AUs in moderate and high risk (41 percent) existing across the DPS's range is not considered resilient enough to withstand stochastic events in the foreseeable future. These AUs have moderate to high nonnative aquatic species, low to moderate stream lengths, and low to moderate chub abundance. As stated above, the synergistic impacts from the increased impacts from wildfire, additional impacts from climate change, water loss due to anthropogenic actions, and demographic effects from these risks factors increase the likelihood and severity of stochastic impacts across the range of the DPS. This increase in likelihood and severity increases the risk of extirpation for these AUs in the moderate risk category. Over the 30-year period of the foreseeable future, the risk from demographic (change in age structure and recruitment of populations) and environmental stochasticity (wildfire and weather) may have effects to AUs (or populations) in the moderate risk category. While there are seven AUs that ranked in the low risk category, three of these rank closely to the moderate risk category in scenarios 1 and 3. This leaves three AUs that we consider resilient enough to withstand future stochastic events under the most likely scenarios.
In addition, the model projects that three (38 percent) AUs are isolated and only five (62 percent) AUs have some hydrologic connection. There are projected to be six streams approximately 5 km (3 mi) or less in length. These streams are at a higher risk of extirpation due to stochastic and catastrophic events; the loss of these streams from an AU reduces the resiliency of that AU. Further, there is one AU approximately 5 km (3 mi) or less in length. This AU is at a higher risk of extirpation due to stochastic and catastrophic events. Roundtail chub in the lower Colorado River basin DPS are extirpated from several large riverine streams that provided connectivity across most of the historically occupied range. This has resulted in the recent isolation of AUs even within the same drainage basin. Nine AUs (about 60 percent) are isolated and are not able to naturally recolonize. If a catastrophic event such as wildfire or severe drought occurs within the range of these nine populations, they could be extirpated.
The distribution of the AUs in the future could possibly be adequate to support representation and redundancy for the DPS, if a sufficient number of AUs were projected to be resilient. However, AUs that are not resilient cannot reliably contribute to redundancy or representation. Further, the redundancy and representation of the DPS is diminished based on the projected future condition of the AUs, and the potential impacts from wildfire, additional impacts from climate change, and water loss due to anthropogenic factors (
Historically, the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS had greater connectivity. Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or ecological diversity is important to keep the capacity of the chub to adapt to future environmental changes. The loss of an AU could result in reduced representation due to a loss of genetic diversity. Representation for the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS is projected to be reduced because of the further reduction in connectivity among streams.
Because this estimate of the condition and distribution of populations in the foreseeable future would not provide sufficient resiliency, representation, and redundancy for the DPS, the risk of extinction is sufficiently high in the foreseeable future to meet the definition
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS is threatened throughout all of its range, no portion of its range can be “significant” for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the
When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or
(2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism under Factor B for either the headwater chub or the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. Here, the potential benefits of designation include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the species. Therefore, because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the species/DPS and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for both the headwater chub and lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS.
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, we must find whether critical habitat for the headwater chub or lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
Delineation of critical habitat requires, within the geographical area occupied by the headwater chub or lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS, identification of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species. A careful analysis of the areas that may have the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protections, and thus qualify for designation as critical habitat, will require a thorough assessment. Additionally, critical habitat can include specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are determined to be essential to its conservation. While we have some information on the habitat requirements of the species, the analysis of which of the specific features and areas meet the definition of critical habitat has not been completed. Since we have not determined which specific areas may meet the definition of critical habitat, the information sufficient to perform the required analysis of impacts of the critical habitat designation is lacking. Accordingly, we find designation of critical habitat to be “not determinable” at this time. When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a proposed critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a
Although the headwater chub and lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include land management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Service has discretion to issue regulations that we find necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened wildlife. We may also prohibit by regulation with respect to threatened wildlife any act prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of the Act for endangered wildlife. For the headwater chub and lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS, we are requesting information as to which prohibitions, and exceptions to those prohibitions, are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the headwater chub or the lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, for the enhancement of propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is our policy, as published in the
(1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including herbicide and pesticide use, which are carried out in accordance with any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best management practices.
(2) Recreational activities such as sightseeing, hiking, camping, and hunting in the vicinity of headwater chub or lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS populations that do not destroy or significantly degrade their habitats, and do not result in take of headwater chub or roundtail chub.
Based on the best available information, the following activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of headwater chub or lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS;
(2) Use of piscicides, pesticides, or herbicides in violation of label restrictions;
(3) Introduction of nonnative fish that compete with or prey upon headwater chub or lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS;
(4) Modification of the channel or water flow of any stream or removal or destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation in any body of water in which the headwater chub or lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS is known to occur;
(5) Destruction or alteration of riparian and adjoining uplands of waters supporting headwater chub or lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS by timber harvest, poor livestock grazing practices, road development or maintenance, or other activities that result in the destruction or significant degradation of cover, channel stability, substrate composition, increased turbidity, or temperature that results in death of or injury to any life-history stage of headwater chub or lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS through impairment of the species' essential breeding, foraging, sheltering, or other essential life functions; and
(6) Release of biological control agents that attack any life stage of headwater chub or lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Arizona Ecological Services
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes.
We have determined that there are tribal lands that are occupied by headwater chub or lower Colorado River basin roundtail chub DPS. The lands owned by San Carlos Apache Tribe and White Mountain Apache Tribe contain the largest amount of occupied streams. We have begun government-to-government coordination with these tribes. We sent notification letters in July 2014 to each tribe informing them of our assessment of the species under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We have engaged in conversations with both tribes about the status assessment. We met with the White Mountain Apache Tribe on September 24, 2014, which Chairman Lupe attended, and had a follow-up call with tribal representatives on October 23, 2014. We met with the Recreation and Wildlife Director of the San Carlos Apache Tribe on July 30, 2014. We also sent letters to the following tribes that may be affected by the proposed listing or future proposed critical habitat: Ak-Chin Indian Community, Chemehuevi Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Gila River Indian Community, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Tonto Apache Tribe, Yavapai Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and Zuni Pueblo. We will continue coordinating with these tribes and any other interested tribes.
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Arizona Ecological Services Office.
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
(a) Section 2 is amended to read as follows: “The National Security Medal may be awarded to any person, without regard to nationality, including members of the Armed Forces of the United States, for distinguished achievement or outstanding contribution made on or after July 26, 1947, in the field of national security through either exceptionally meritorious service performed in a position of high responsibility or through an act of heroism requiring personal courage of a high degree and complete disregard of personal safety.”; and
(b) By inserting at the end:
“7. Any individual having personal knowledge of the facts of a potential recipient's exceptionally meritorious service or act of heroism, either as an eyewitness or from the testimony of others who have personal knowledge or were eyewitnesses, may recommend the potential recipient as a candidate for the award to the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council. Any recommendations shall be made with the concurrence of the department or agency employing the proposed recipient, if appropriate, and be accompanied by complete documentation, including, where necessary, certificates, affidavits, or sworn transcripts of testimony. Each recommendation for an award shall show the exact status, at the time of the rendition of the service on which the recommendation is based, with respect to citizenship, employment, and all other material factors of the person who is being recommended for the National Security Medal. Each recommendation shall contain a draft of an appropriate citation to accompany the award of the National Security Medal.
“8. Upon a determination by the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council that the National Security Medal is warranted, and following approval by the President, the Executive Secretary shall notify the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which will then process the award recommendation, prepare the National Security Medal, with any appropriate devices, and deliver the National Security Medal to the National Security Council for presentation to the recipient.”
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |