Page Range | 75631-75784 | |
FR Document |
Page and Subject | |
---|---|
80 FR 75783 - World AIDS Day, 2015 | |
80 FR 75779 - National Impaired Driving Prevention Month, 2015 | |
80 FR 75664 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
80 FR 75680 - Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Provider Enrollment Application Fee Amount for Calendar Year 2016 | |
80 FR 75677 - Farm Credit Administration Board; Sunshine Act; Regular Meeting | |
80 FR 75678 - Sunshine Act Notice | |
80 FR 75688 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
80 FR 75699 - Overseas Schools Advisory Council Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 75665 - Sunshine Act Meetings | |
80 FR 75661 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Gulf of Alaska Trawl Fishery, Rationalization Sociocultural Study | |
80 FR 75686 - Meeting of the California Desert District Advisory Council | |
80 FR 75631 - Technical Amendment to List of Field Offices: Expansion of San Ysidro, California Port of Entry To Include the Cross Border Xpress User Fee Facility | |
80 FR 75683 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Protest | |
80 FR 75684 - Agency Information Collection Activities: User Fees | |
80 FR 75695 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Permit P.M.-Settled Options on Broad-Based Indexes To Expire on Any Wednesday of the Month by Expanding the End of Week/End of Month Pilot Program | |
80 FR 75677 - Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Clarifies Procedure for Disbursing Reverse Auction Incentive Payments | |
80 FR 75657 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews | |
80 FR 75702 - Buy America Waiver Notification | |
80 FR 75679 - World War One Centennial Commission; Notification of Opportunity To View Design Submissions for National World War I Memorial at Pershing Park | |
80 FR 75665 - U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting | |
80 FR 75681 - Recommendations for Assessment of Blood Donor Suitability, Donor Deferral and Blood Product Management in Response to Ebola Virus; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
80 FR 75636 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; English Kills, New York City, NY | |
80 FR 75679 - Patient Safety Organizations: Voluntary Relinquishment From Piedmont Clinic, Inc. | |
80 FR 75662 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
80 FR 75686 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Bureau of Indian Education Tribal Colleges and Universities; Application for Grants and Annual Report Form; Correction | |
80 FR 75687 - Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Acquisition of Florida Power & Light Company Land in the East Everglades Expansion Area | |
80 FR 75678 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
80 FR 75694 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Respirable Coal Mine Dust Sampling | |
80 FR 75693 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response | |
80 FR 75694 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; The 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane Standard | |
80 FR 75701 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Freight Runners Express, Inc. | |
80 FR 75701 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Cargo Airlines Limited | |
80 FR 75700 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; United Airlines, Inc. | |
80 FR 75664 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Safety Standard for Automatic Residential Garage Door Operators | |
80 FR 75674 - Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Amendment to Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity | |
80 FR 75676 - Combined Notice of Filings #3 | |
80 FR 75676 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
80 FR 75675 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
80 FR 75673 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
80 FR 75665 - Emergency Preparedness and Response at the Pantex Plant | |
80 FR 75663 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0061, Daily Trade and Supporting Data Reports | |
80 FR 75690 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Akorn, Inc. | |
80 FR 75690 - Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Registration: Navinta, LLC | |
80 FR 75685 - Proposed Information Collection; Alaska Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest Household Survey | |
80 FR 75689 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC | |
80 FR 75688 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Mylan Technologies, Inc. | |
80 FR 75691 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Organix, Inc. | |
80 FR 75691 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Meridian Medical Technologies | |
80 FR 75689 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: United States Pharmacopeial Convention | |
80 FR 75692 - Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Catalent CTS, LLC | |
80 FR 75692 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Noramco, Inc. | |
80 FR 75691 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | |
80 FR 75700 - Re-Delegation of Certain Authorities and Functions Under the International Organizations Immunities Act | |
80 FR 75700 - Delegation of Authority 390; Delegation of Certain Authorities and Functions Under the International Organizations Immunities Act | |
80 FR 75660 - Silicomanganese From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 | |
80 FR 75636 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Albuquerque-Bernalillo County; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
80 FR 75639 - Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program | |
80 FR 75639 - Petition for Labeling Requirements Regarding Slip Resistance of Floor Coverings; Request for Comments | |
80 FR 75703 - Agency Information Collection (Income, Asset and Employment Statement and Application for Veterans Pension) | |
80 FR 75633 - Wassenaar Arrangement 2014 Plenary Agreements Implementation and Country Policy Amendments; Correction | |
80 FR 75705 - Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS |
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Final rule; technical amendment.
This document amends the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations by revising the list of field offices to expand the limits of the San Ysidro, California Class A port of entry to include the Cross Border Xpress (CBX) user fee facility. Class A ports of entry are designated ports that process all aliens applying for admission into the United States. The CBX facility includes a pedestrian walkway connecting the Tijuana A.L. Rodriguez International Airport (Tijuana Airport) in Mexico to San Diego, California and a passenger terminal located in San Diego that will be used exclusively to process Tijuana Airport passengers traveling to and from the United States via the pedestrian walkway.
This rule is effective on December 9, 2015, the date the CBX facility will open.
Tara Ross, Office of Field Operations,
Ports of entry are places (seaports, airports, or land border ports) designated by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security where CBP officers or employees are assigned to accept entries of merchandise, clear passengers, collect duties, and enforce the various provisions of the customs and immigration laws, as well as other laws applicable at the border. The term “port of entry” is used in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in title 19 for customs purposes and in title 8 for immigration purposes. Subject to certain exceptions, all individuals entering the United States must present themselves to an immigration officer for inspection at a U.S. port of entry when the port is open for inspection.
The ports of entry for immigration purposes for aliens arriving by vessel and land transportation are listed in 8 CFR 100.4(a). These ports are listed according to location by districts and are designated as Class A, B, or C, which designates which aliens may use the port. Class A ports are those designated for all aliens. Class B and C ports are restricted to certain aliens. If the facility processes aliens for immigration purposes, the facility may be considered a port of entry for purposes of title 8 CFR. In such case, an amendment to 8 CFR 100.4(a) is necessary.
On March 21, 2014, the Commissioner of CBP approved a request from Otay-Tijuana Venture, LLC for CBP to provide reimbursable inspection services, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b, at a new cross-border user fee facility named “Cross Border Xpress” or CBX.
The CBX facility was designed in accordance with U.S. and international security standards. It includes an enclosed pedestrian walkway connecting the Tijuana Airport in Mexico to San Diego, California and a passenger terminal located in San Diego that will be used exclusively to process ticketed Tijuana Airport passengers traveling to and from the United States via the walkway. The pedestrian walkway will be accessible only for ticketed Tijuana Airport passengers.
Travelers with departing flights from the Tijuana Airport will use the CBX facility's north entrance in the United States to cross the international border into Mexico. To use the facility, these travelers must present a valid airline ticket for a flight departing from the Tijuana Airport in the next twenty-four hours and purchase a CBX bridge pass. Airline tickets and CBX passes may be purchased the same day at ticket windows at the north entrance. CBX passes may also be purchased online in advance. After being subject to inspection by CBP officers, travelers will use the pedestrian walkway to cross the international border. At the Tijuana Airport, travelers will be processed by Mexican immigration and customs authorities. After processing, the travelers will enter the Tijuana Airport for their departing flight.
Travelers landing at the Tijuana Airport may use the CBX facility to apply for admission or entry to the United States. These travelers must purchase a CBX pass and use the CBX facility within four hours of their flight's arrival at the airport to apply for admission or entry to the United States. Passes may be purchased online in advance or at ticket counters at the Tijuana Airport. Travelers will be processed by Mexican immigration and customs authorities at the Tijuana Airport before entering the CBX facility. Travelers will use the CBX pedestrian walkway to cross the international border into the United States and then apply for admission or entry into the United States at the processing terminal where they will be subject to immigration, customs and agriculture inspection by CBP officers. CBP will
The port of San Ysidro, California is included within the San Diego district and is listed in 8 CFR 100.4(a) as a Class A port of entry. This rule amends 8 CFR. 100.4(a) to expand the San Ysidro Class A port of entry to include the CBX facility.
Under section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), rulemaking generally requires prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delayed effective date, subject to specified exceptions. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), matters relating to agency management or personnel are excepted from the requirements of section 553.
This rule expands the San Ysidro Class A port of entry to include the CBX facility. CBP has already designated the CBX facility as a user fee facility pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b and has approved the request for CBP officers to provide reimbursable inspection services at the CBX facility to Tijuana airport travelers entering and departing the United States at the CBX facility. Otay-Tijuana Venture, LLC, the operator of the facility, will reimburse CBP for the expenses CBP incurs, including the salary and expenses of CBP officers that will provide the CBP services, in accordance with the approved request. The approved request to provide such services, and the update to the list of the Class A ports of entry to reflect this approved request directly relates to CBP's operations and agency management and personnel. As such, CBP finds that this rule pertains to a matter relating to agency management or personnel within 5 U.S.C 553(a)(2) which is excepted from the prior notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements of section 553.
Additionally, as provided in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), the prior notice and comment requirements do not apply when agencies promulgate rules concerning agency organization, procedure, or practice. This rule falls within that category.
As discussed above, on March 21, 2014, the CBP Commissioner approved the request from Otay-Tijuana Venture, LLC for CBP to provide inspection services at the new CBX facility pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b. The designation of the CBX as a user fee facility means that CBP will be providing agency personnel at the facility, pursuant to the approved request, to process travelers for application for admission or entry into and departure from the United States. This rule, which updates the list of Class A ports of entry in 8 CFR 100.4(a) to include the CBX facility within the San Ysidro port of entry, simply makes the necessary amendments to section 100.4(a) to implement the CBP Commissioner's decision to designate the CBX facility as a user fee facility. It is a procedural or organizational rule that does not have a substantial impact on the user fee facility or on the public. For this reason, CBP finds that this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice, which is not subject to notice and comment rulemaking pursuant to § 553(b)(3)(A).
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In 2009, the Otay-Tijuana Venture, LLC applied to the Department of State (DOS) for a Presidential Permit pursuant to Executive Order 11423, as amended, which authorizes the Secretary of State to issue Presidential permits for the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of facilities at the borders of the United States if he or she finds them to be in the national interest. In support of its application for a Presidential permit, Otay-Tijuana Venture, LLC submitted a draft environmental assessment (EA) prepared under the guidance and supervision of DOS, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This EA examined the effects on the natural and human environment associated with the construction and establishment of the facility. On December 29, 2009, DOS provided public notice of the draft EA in the
On July 23, 2010, DOS published a notice in the
The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a) because the establishment of this title 8 Class A Port of Entry is not within the bounds of those regulations for which the Secretary of the Treasury has retained sole authority. Accordingly, this rule may be signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security (or his delegate).
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
For the reasons set forth above, part 100 of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR part 100) is amended as set forth below.
8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458); 8 CFR part 2.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Correcting amendments.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) maintains, as part of its Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the Commerce Control List (CCL), which identifies certain of the items subject to Department of Commerce jurisdiction. This correction rule revises the Commerce Country Chart by implementing revisions that BIS inadvertently omitted from the “Wassenaar Arrangement 2014 Plenary Agreements Implementation and Country Policy Amendments” rule published on May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29442) (“May 21 rule”), for Argentina and South Africa. This rule also implements the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) agreement to make a clarification to the control text for rebreathing equipment that BIS inadvertently did not make in the May 21 rule. A license requirement note indicating jurisdiction is corrected and a related control note is clarified in an entry on the CCL controlling space launch vehicles and “spacecraft,” “space buses,” “spacecraft payloads,” etc., as the range of the reference was incorrectly stated in the May 21 rule. The reference concerning jurisdiction for “specially designed” parts, components, systems and structures, for launch vehicles, launch vehicle propulsion systems or “spacecraft” is corrected in the CCL entry controlling such items in this rule.
In addition, this rule makes one minor correction to remove Fiji from Column D:5 “U.S. Arms Embargoed Countries,” as well as from Country Group D, because Fiji is not listed under any other column within Country Group D and because the Department of State published a final rule that revised the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to rescind the previous policy of denying the export of defense articles and defense services to Fiji.
Lastly, this rule removes an outdated reference in the Definitions part of the EAR.
This rule is effective December 3, 2015.
For general questions contact Sharron Cook, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce at 202-482 2440 or by email:
For technical questions contact:
Categories 7 & 9: Daniel Squire 202-482-3710 or Reynaldo Garcia 202-482-3462
Category 8: Michael Tu 202-482-6462
In the May 21 rule, Argentina and South Africa were added to Country Group A:1. The intent of that rule was also to harmonize Country Group A:1 with national security column 2 and regional stability column 2 of the Commerce Country Chart. However, BIS inadvertently did not remove the corresponding Xs for South Africa and Argentina. Therefore, the Commerce Country Chart is corrected by revising the second columns for national security (NS:2), and regional stability (RS:2) in order to harmonize these columns with the newly revised Country Group A:1, making the license requirement consistent with the risk of diversion to unauthorized end users, end uses and destinations. Specifically, this rule would remove the X,
This rule removes Fiji from Country Group D:5 “U.S. Arms Embargoed Countries,” and from Country Group D in Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR. This minor correction is not the result of a Wassenaar Arrangement agreement, but rather of a final rule published by the Department of State on May 29, 2015, 80 FR 30614 titled “Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Policy on Exports to the Republic of Fiji.” The State Department's rule revised ITAR § 126.1 to remove Fiji from paragraph (p), establishing that it is the policy of the United States to no longer deny licenses or other approval for exports or imports of defense articles and defense services destined for or originating in Fiji. The reasoning behind the change stated in the State Department rule was, “On September 17, 2014, Fiji's acting government followed through on its longstanding commitment to hold democratic elections.” There are specific license exception restrictions that pertain to Country Group D:5 that will no longer apply to Fiji. See Part 740 of the EAR. This revision also affects the national security (§ 742.4) and regional stability (§ 742.6) license review policy for 9x515 or “600 series” ECCNs when destined to Fiji, as well as the application of the
BIS inadvertently removed a thermal imaging camera reporting requirement exemption for Canada in the May 21 rule. The reporting requirements for thermal imaging cameras are corrected by exempting Canada from the reporting requirements, as was the policy prior to the publication of the May 21, 2015, Wassenaar rule. The exception is added to paragraph (b) of § 743.3 of the EAR.
This rule removes a reference for “signal analyzer (dynamic) . . .” that was inadvertently not removed when the definition for “dynamic signal analyzer” was removed from this part.
The May 21 rule inadvertently did not make a regulatory amendment that should have been made to implement a 2014 Wassenaar Arrangement agreement pertaining to diving and underwater swimming apparatus specially designed and modified for military use. The EAR amendment, which this rule makes, replaces paragraph .f with a new paragraph containing two subparagraphs: Subparagraph f.1 for self-contained diving rebreathers, closed or semi-closed circuit; and subparagraph f.2 for underwater swimming apparatus “specially designed” for use with equipment specified in paragraph f.1. Paragraph f.1 narrows the scope by adding the “self-contained” parameter, while f.2 is an expansion of controls.
The May 21 rule added paragraphs a. through f. to ECCN 9A004 in order to harmonize that ECCN with the Wassenaar dual-use list entry 9.A.4., even though the controls for these goods would be under ECCN 9A515. Because the EAR is used globally for export compliance, BIS decided that it would be easier for people to find these goods on the list where they would expect to find them on the European Union List or on the CCL prior to Export Control Reform (ECR) (in ECCN 9A004) and then follow the references in ECCN 9A004 to USML Category IV or ECCN 9A515. However, the range of reference for the paragraphs impacted by ECCN 9A515 in the License Requirement Note for 9A004.a was incorrect. The range of reference in the License Requirement Note is corrected to read “9A004.b through .f.” Also, Note 3 in the Related Controls is revised for clarity.
The Heading to ECCN 9A010 is corrected by removing the reference to the ITAR for jurisdiction over these items and instead referring to the newly added Related Controls paragraph. The added Related Controls paragraph refers to USML Category IV of the ITAR and ECCN 9A604 for paragraphs 9A010.a, .b and .d, as well as USML Category XV of the ITAR and ECCN 9A515 for paragraph 9A010.c. The Related Controls paragraph also refers to Supplement No. 4 to part 774, Order of Review, because one is supposed to review the referenced ITAR category first and if the item is not found there, then the referenced CCL ECCN should be reviewed to determine classification of items specified in ECCN 9A010.
Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015) has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.
Shipments of items removed from license exception eligibility or eligibility for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard a carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port, on December 3, 2015, pursuant to actual orders to a destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license so long as they have been exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) before February 1, 2016. Any such items not actually exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) before midnight, on February 1, 2016, require a license in accordance with this regulation.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public participation, and a 30-day delay in effective date, are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Immediate implementation of these amendments fulfills the United States' international obligation to the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies. The Wassenaar Arrangement contributes to international security and regional stability by promoting greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilizing accumulations of such items. The Wassenaar Arrangement consists of 41 member countries that act on a consensus basis. The corrections set forth in this rule ensure the correct implementation of agreements reached at the December 2014 plenary session of the WA. Because the United States is a significant exporter of the items covered by this rule, implementation of this rule is necessary for the WA to achieve its purpose. Any delay in implementation will create a disruption in the movement of affected items globally because of disharmony between export control measures implemented by WA members. Export controls work best when all countries implement the same export controls in a timely manner. If this rulemaking were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, it would prevent the United States from fulfilling its commitment to the WA in a timely manner and would injure the credibility of the United States in this and other multilateral regimes.
The removal of Fiji from Country Group D:5 also involves a military and foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). Country Group D:5 identifies countries that are
Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Exports.
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, Parts 738, 740, 743, 772 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
(b)
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
50 U.S.C. app. 2401
Items:
f. Diving and underwater swimming apparatus specially designed or modified for military use, as follows:
f.1. Self-contained diving rebreathers, closed or semi-closed circuit;
f.2. Underwater swimming apparatus specially designed for use with the diving apparatus specified in subparagraph f.1;
N.B.: See also 8A002.q.
License Requirements Note:
Related Controls*** (3) See USML Categories IV for the space launch vehicles and XV for other spacecraft that are “subject to the ITAR” (see 22 CFR parts 120 through 130).
Related Controls: (1) See USML Category IV of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120 through 130) and ECCN 9A604 for paragraphs 9A010.a, .b and .d. (2) See USML Category XV of the ITAR and ECCN 9A515 for paragraph 9A010.c. (3) See Supplement No. 4 to part 774, Order of Review for guidance on the process for determining classification of items.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Metropolitan Avenue Bridge across the English Kills, mile 3.4, at New York City, New York. This deviation is necessary to perform operating machinery installation. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for approximately 3 days.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on December 7, 2015 to 5 p.m. on December 10, 2015.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-1019] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email
New York City DOT requested this temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to perform operating machinery installation.
The Metropolitan Avenue Bridge, mile 3.4, across the English Kills has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 10 feet at mean high water and 15 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.801(e).
The waterway has one commercial facility located upstream of the bridge.
Under this temporary deviation, the Metropolitan Avenue Bridge may remain in the closed position from 6 a.m. on December 7, 2015 through 5 p.m. on December 10, 2015.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessel to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the Governor of New Mexico for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The submittal addresses how the existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2008 Pb NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). This i-SIP ensures that the State's SIP for Albuquerque-Bernalillo County is adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), including the four CAA requirements for interstate transport of Pb emissions.
This final rule is effective on January 4, 2016.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0400. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Tracie Donaldson, 214-665-6633,
Throughout this document wherever “we”, “us”, or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our September 11,
We are approving the May 2, 2012, i-SIP submission from Albuquerque-Bernalillo County New Mexico, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Specifically, we are approving the following infrastructure elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M). We are also approving the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County's demonstration that it meets the four statutory requirements for interstate transport of Pb emissions.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 1, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of petition for rulemaking.
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) received a petition requesting that the Commission initiate rulemaking under the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”) to require that manufacturers of floor coverings, floor coverings with coatings, and treated floor coverings label their products' slip resistance in accordance with the applicable American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) standard. The Commission invites written comments concerning the petition.
The Office of the Secretary must receive comments on the petition by February 1, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2015-0033, by any of the following methods:
Todd Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-6833.
The Commission received a petition requesting that manufacturers of floor coverings, floor coverings with coatings, and treated floor coverings (herein abbreviated as “floor coverings”) be required to label their products to provide point-of-sale information regarding such products' degree of slip resistance, in accordance with the labeling requirements of ANSI B101.5-2014.
The petition was filed by the National Floor Safety Institute. Petitioner notes that manufacturers of floor coverings currently are not required to provide consumers with information relating to slip resistance of their products. Petitioner asserts that because different types of floor coverings have pronounced differences in slip resistance, many flooring materials will be inappropriate for specific uses. Petitioner states that the primary focus of the petition is to protect the elderly, a population petitioner believes to be most vulnerable to the risk of slip and fall events. As an example, petitioner cites that in 2014, more than 23,000 elderly Americans died as a result of accidental falls. Furthermore, petitioner notes that the CDC stated that in 2013, the direct medical costs of older adult falls was approximately $34 billion.
Petitioner states that slip resistance labeling would be analogous to the requirements for labeling nutritional content in food, noting that labeling regarding flooring slip resistance would allow consumers to make more informed decisions when selecting a flooring product, enabling elderly consumers to select flooring that offers higher slip resistance, potentially reducing the risk of accidental slip and fall events.
By this notice, the Commission seeks comments concerning this petition. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the petition by writing or calling the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923. A copy of the petition is also available for viewing under “Supporting and Related Materials” in
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) seeks public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for safety certification training. FTA proposes to adopt the current interim safety certification training provisions as the initial regulatory training requirements for public transportation industry personnel responsible for safety oversight of public transportation systems. The NPRM defines to whom the training requirements apply, describes recordkeeping requirements, provides administrative provisions, and compliance requirements.
Comments must be received by February 1, 2016. FTA will accept late-filed comments to the extent practicable.
Please submit your comments by only one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For program issues, contact Ruth Lyons, FTA, Office of Safety and Oversight, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202-366-2233 or email:
In the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; Pub. L. 112-141, July 6, 2012), Congress directed FTA to establish a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program (codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329), one element of which is the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program (PTSCTP). The purpose of today's NPRM is to carry out the statutory mandate to provide a framework to enhance the technical proficiency of those directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation systems.
This proposed rulemaking would incorporate the curriculum promulgated recently for the interim provisions for safety certification training (interim program) as the training requirements for the PTSCTP. The interim program curriculum and training requirements may be found in Section V of the
The NPRM provides a regulatory framework for safety certification training for personnel who are directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation systems and the State personnel who conduct safety audits and examinations of rail transportation systems. Besides incorporating the interim program curriculum and training requirements, this proposal would: (1) Permit participants to request evaluation of non-FTA sponsored safety training for credit towards applicable PTSCTP requirements; (2) require designated personnel to complete a minimum of one hour of refresher safety training every two years as determined by his or her employer; (3) require recipients to maintain administrative records and ensure a participant's curriculum completion status is updated periodically; and (4) require SSOAs and recipients that operate rail fixed guideway systems not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to annually certify compliance with the rule as a condition of receiving Chapter 53 funding.
This rulemaking is issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) which requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe a public transportation safety certification training program for Federal and State employees, or other designated personnel, who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems, as well as employees of public transportation agencies directly responsible for safety oversight. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations to carry out the general provisions of this statutory requirement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(7).
Similar to the interim program, the focus of the proposed rule would be on enhancing the technical proficiency of safety oversight professionals in the rail transit industry. To that end, this proposed rule would incorporate the curriculum set forth in Section V of the
The proposed rule would reflect the interim program in that mandatory participants would continue to be State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) personnel and contractors, and designated personnel of rail transit agencies not otherwise regulated by another Federal agency. Employees or contractors of entities providing safety
Another key proposal is the requirement for SSOAs and recipients that operate rail fixed guideway systems not regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to ensure its designated personnel are enrolled in the PTSCTP electronic database maintained by FTA and to monitor their participation towards completing applicable training requirements. In addition, SSOAs would be required to maintain administrative records of the participation of its designated personnel in applicable technical training as outlined in the SSOA's FTA-approved technical training plan.
Unlike the interim program, FTA is proposing a process for participants to request review of documented training obtained from sources other than FTA for credit towards the equivalent PTSCTP training. In addition, FTA is proposing that mandatory participants be required to undertake at least one hour of refresher training every two years on a safety subject determined by his or her employer. The timeframe for determining the two-year refresher training period would commence following completion of the initial PTSCTP.
Lastly, each SSOA and recipient that operates a rail fixed guideway system not regulated by the FRA would be required to certify compliance with the PTSCTP requirements as part of FTA's procedures for annual grant certification and assurances. Should FTA determine an SSOA or recipient is not in compliance with the PTSCTP, the Administrator would have discretion to withhold Chapter 53 funds following notice and an opportunity for the recipient to respond.
With this NPRM, FTA is seeking comment on its proposal to incorporate the interim program curriculum and technical training requirements as the initial training requirements for the PTSCTP. Additionally, FTA seeks comments of its proposed regulatory framework for the PTSCTP.
As discussed in greater detail below, FTA reviewed data from the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI), the entity that provides substantial safety training to the transit industry, albeit on a voluntary basis. Using this data and our familiarity with how SSOAs are organized, we developed a maximum and minimum number of personnel, to include employees and contractors that would be affected by the PTSCTP. Next, using the same data from TSI, we determined the number of rail transit personnel that would be affected by the PTSCTP. We also reviewed the number of FTA personnel who participate in safety audits and examinations and determined the number of FTA personnel that would be required to undergo some level of training and certification. In developing annual costs for personnel that would attend the PTSCTP, we assumed a minimum and maximum case scenario.
For the minimum case, we assumed that all designated personnel under this program already had completed the Transit Safety and Security Program (TSSP) Certificate and would require only the safety management system (SMS) portion of the coursework described in Section IV of this notice. For the maximum case, we assumed that no one subject to the NPRM has a TSSP Certificate. In this case, all designated personnel would have to take and complete both the TSSP and SMS coursework over the allotted 3-year period. Using these assumptions, we estimate an approximate maximum cost of $2.6 million per year, of which up to 80 percent may be funded with FTA funds.
To assess the benefits for the PTSCTP, we considered how other transportation modes that are in the process of implementing SMS or similar systematic approaches to safety have estimated the benefits of their programs in reducing incidents, adverse outcomes, and improving the industry's safety culture. It is difficult to quantify the effects of a positive safety culture as a safety culture will develop over time. Characteristics of a positive safety culture include: Actively seeking out information on hazards; employee training; information exchanges; and understanding that responsibility for safety is shared. While the returns on investment in training should be fairly quick, establishing, promoting, and increasing safety, even in an industry that is very safe, is difficult to predict with any certainty. Consistent with other recent rulemakings issued by the Department on SMS, we conducted a breakeven analysis. As explained further in Section VI, for the State Safety Oversight (SSO) NPRM published in the
On October 3, 2013, FTA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
In the ANPRM, FTA noted that there are discrete and different skill-sets required for those who perform safety audit and examination functions compared to those who are directly responsible for safety oversight. For example, at the Federal level, FTA's responsibilities include ensuring that SSOA personnel are properly trained and adequately resourced to regulate rail transit systems within their respective jurisdictions. At the State level, SSOA personnel are responsible for direct safety oversight of those rail transit systems under their jurisdiction. And on the local level, public transportation agency personnel are directly responsible for developing and implementing safety oversight within their respective agencies. Recognizing this distinction, FTA outlined its vision for the PTSCTP which included a wholly new FTA-sponsored training curriculum to enhance the technical proficiency of safety oversight professionals in the public transportation industry.
In the ANPRM, FTA noted that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(2), it would promulgate an interim program for safety certification training prior to developing a proposed rule for the PTSCTP. On April 30, 2014, FTA published a
FTA evaluated comments received in response to the proposed interim program notice and promulgated the final interim program requirements in a
Some comments on the ANPRM were outside the scope of the questions posed and, therefore, are not addressed in this notice. However, many of the comments and recommendations were instructive for developing both the interim program and this NPRM. What follows is a discussion of relevant ANPRM comments, development of the interim program requirements, and the regulatory framework proposed for the PTSCTP.
Question 48. In the ANPRM, FTA proposed organizing the training around a series of competencies and basic skills that Federal, State, and public transit agency safety oversight personnel need to perform their respective responsibilities. To that end, FTA proposed a wholly new FTA-sponsored safety training curriculum, provided a list of competencies and technical capabilities supported by the curriculum, and sought comment regarding what other safety-related competency areas or training outcomes should be identified for the PTSCTP.
Thirty commenters responded directly to the question or provided comments relative to the issue. A few commenters indicated that the FTA list sufficiently covered all safety-related competency areas. Several commenters identified safety-related competency areas for inclusion in the PTSCTP, such as: Incident investigation, emergency response, fundamental safety management concepts and processes, methods for the identification, assessment and evaluation of hazards, safety assurance methods, measurement and evaluation of safety management processes and mitigation strategies, National Incident Management System (NIMS) training, and Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) standards.
Some commenters suggested that FTA focus on developing a safety program that recognizes the six key functions of bus safety identified in the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by FTA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA). Those functions include management, operations and maintenance, human resources, safety activities, security activities, and emergency/all hazards management. A few commenters stated that FTA should develop clear and workable guidelines for safety certification training and accommodate the differing needs of small, medium and large agencies in those requirements.
Three commenters indicated that the PTSCTP called for in MAP-21 only applies to the SSO program and does not require specific training requirements for State Department of Transportation (State DOT) staff involved in managing federal funds. Two commenters stated that defining training outcomes and competency areas is not an appropriate role for FTA and should be left up to the determination of a transit agency and based on the scope, scale and complexity of fixed facilities, systems and operating environment. Commenters also suggested the following:
• Since a culture of safety already exists in rural transit, FTA should consider flexible, scalable approaches that use training programs that have a proven track record for driver training, vehicle maintenance, and drug and alcohol compliance;
• there needs to be a concerted effort to drill down on safety concerns that cause the greatest risk in cost and life and focus on improving those areas;
• the FTA Safety Certification Program requirement should allow FRA-regulated properties the flexibility to comply with FRA safety training regulations without requiring additional, redundant training and certification requirements.
In response to the commenters who provided a list of safety-related competency areas for consideration, FTA notes that many of those competency areas are included in the current curriculum for the TSSP, which is a requirement for the interim program and a proposed requirement for the PTSCTP. However, FTA does not believe the initial requirements for the PTSCTP should include NIMS or OSHA training standards because a primary objective of the initial requirements is to promote a common framework for developing SMS principles across the industry.
The curriculum proposed for the PTSCTP would include a risk-based approach for analyzing and mitigating safety risks. It also would leverage existing FTA-sponsored training for all recipients including State DOTs, and both rural and urban bus transit providers. Accordingly, FTA concurs with the commenters who indicated that bus safety training should include the six key functions of bus safety as identified in the FTA/FMCSA MOU signed in 2003. FTA proposes to continue offering the Bus Safety program and other bus safety-related course offerings as a
FTA also concurs with the commenters who indicated that personnel who may be subject to both FRA and FTA training requirements should not be subject to redundant training. Accordingly, the PTSCTP would not apply to personnel of rail transit agencies subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Railroad Administration (
FTA agrees that State DOT personnel involved in managing federal funds that are passed on to subrecipients are not likely to be charged with safety oversight responsibilities. But the State DOT is responsible for ensuring that subrecipients adhere to all applicable Federal requirements. We emphasize that this rule does not propose mandatory training requirements for State DOT personnel who perform safety oversight roles for non-rail public transportation systems.
Question 49. FTA next asked whether all of the competencies listed in the ANPRM are necessary for personnel with safety oversight responsibilities.
Twenty-nine commenters responded directly to the question or provided comments related to the issue. Several commenters agreed that the competencies identified in the ANPRM are necessary to craft a comprehensive safety training program that addresses the various hazards and threats faced by public transportation systems. A couple of these commenters added that the current FTA-sponsored training is not sufficient and transit agencies will need more than the current training programs
Two commenters indicated that the competencies identified were unnecessary. One of the commenters stated the current program is overly broad and beyond the capacity of many small operators. The other commenter recommended that FTA utilize safety training offered through the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). Another commenter indicated that training should cover the four SMS principles and strategies for controlling risk. Several commenters indicated that the competencies required for a small, rural, bus-only agency are far different than those required in a large, urban, multi-modal agency. They noted that agencies with fewer risk factors should be allowed to work within standards appropriate to their risk profile. A few commenters stated they do not see a need for the rules to prescribe specific training requirements for State DOT staff involved in managing federal funds that are passed on to subrecipients. Other commenters suggested the following:
• Advanced SMS Principles for Rail Transit can probably be combined with Level 100 SMS Principles for Rail Transit, and Level 300 SMS Risk Control Strategies can probably be combined with Level 201 Advanced SMS Risk Management;
• public transportation agencies should determine which competencies are necessary for the scope, scale and complexity of their fixed facilities, systems and operating environments;
• many transit safety professionals already have the majority of the specific competencies listed. Emphasis may be placed on specific SMS areas where gaps exist based on the transit agency's safety risk analysis.
As suggested by commenters however, FTA agrees that the existing TSSP curriculum should be revised to better reflect SMS principles. Accordingly, as noted in Section IV, the TSSP curriculum is being updated and FTA is proposing additional courses for the PTSCTP that focus on SMS principles. This approach aligns with FTA's adoption of the SMS framework to enhance safety while effectively leveraging a curriculum and training model familiar to the industry. FTA believes its approach to the interim program and the proposed implementation of the PTSCTP adequately addresses commenter's concerns regarding costs, scalability and flexibility for the transit industry.
Question 50. In the ANPRM, FTA did not propose a timeframe for safety oversight personnel to complete the safety certification training requirements. However, the following question was posed to obtain the industry's perspective on the issue: Should personnel be required to obtain certification prior to starting a position, or should they be given a specific timeframe to obtain safety certification after starting a position?
Forty-seven commenters responded directly to the question or provided comments relative to the question. Forty commenters indicated they do not believe personnel should be required to obtain certification prior to starting a position, and a new hire should be given a period of time to obtain necessary certifications. Many of the commenters noted that it would be more effective to attend required safety certification training concurrently with on-the-job training. Otherwise, it would limit the pool of qualified candidates for safety positions if personnel were required to obtain certification prior to starting a position. Commenters also noted that agencies should have the flexibility to customize training to address their unique safety concerns, size, and management structure. Further, commenters noted that currently it is difficult to recruit and hire safety professionals; therefore, requiring certification prior to starting a position would only increase the difficulty.
A few commenters stated that personnel should be required to obtain all safety certification prior to starting a position because lack of appropriate training could potentially put the public at risk. One commenter stated that both options should be available depending on the position occupied. For instance, at the director level and higher, an individual should have experience with the principles of SMS and program development. At lower levels, a certain amount of on-the-job training could be incorporated in an individual's development plan.
One commenter indicated that it would be costly to require a person to complete the training before a recipient could hire that person. Another commenter stated that both approaches have problems. The commenter noted that if an agency hires inexperienced people with no training and provides the training once aboard, the agency will have trained but inexperienced people. On the other hand, an employee needs to learn the details of the transit business which cannot be taught entirely in the classroom. The commenter noted that if a state agency hires only those that have the requisite training, the agency will have people with the minimum qualifications to do the job but may still require considerable on-the-job training in order to prepare them to actually perform the requirements of a regulator.
Lastly, a commenter stated that since there are no current certification requirements for bus transit, time to obtain the certification would be appropriate. The commenter also stated that personnel performing any specific function or task in a rail system should be certified before being allowed to independently perform in that capacity.
Question 51. In the ANPRM, FTA did not propose a specific timeframe for how often safety oversight personnel should be required to undergo refresher training requirements. However, we did ask the following question to obtain the public's perspective on the needed frequency: How often should personnel be required to receive refresher training?
Forty-seven commenters responded directly to the question or provided comments relative to the issue. Several commenters indicated that personnel should be required to receive refresher training either every two or three years. Some commenters recommended refresher training every three to five years. A few commenters thought refresher training should be conducted annually. Two commenters stated that depending on the number of courses required and the length of the training curriculum, refresher training should occur somewhere between every one to five years.
A few commenters indicated that personnel should receive refresher training on an as-needed basis to keep them up-to-date on new safety standards and changes to existing safety standards. Some commenters suggested that the primary concern should be the quality, not the quantity or frequency of refresher training. In addition, commenters suggested the following:
• Frequency of training should be left to the discretion of the recipient;
• FTA should regularly convene those responsible for public transportation safety oversight at the Federal, State, and agency level to discuss safety critical risks. These discussions should focus on trends in public transportation safety risks, safety risk management practices and risk control strategies;
• the frequency of refresher training should be based on several factors, including, but not limited to the scope of job functions, frequency of application of the functions, and experience with the specific function for which the individual is responsible;
• frequency of refresher training is dependent on the employee's position and safety responsibilities;
• the question is premature and cannot be addressed until the final requirements are adopted and the number of professionals requiring training can be assessed;
• training standards and timing should evolve as the requirements are adopted and implemented. Overlaying refresher training requirements on an already strained training system would further slow training of new safety professionals.
FTA agrees with the commenters who indicated that refresher training should occur every two years following the initial three-year timeframe for completing safety certification training requirements. Since any refresher training should be relevant to a recipient's specific circumstances, the recipient will be in the best position to determine the subject matter and timeframe that should be allotted for refresher training. However, FTA believes that at minimum, one hour of refresher training every two years should be required. The minimum requirement of one hour of biannual refresher training strikes an appropriate balance that reinforces safety oversight training while recognizing that each recipient can best determine refresher training that is appropriate for its safety oversight personnel.
Questions 52 and 53. In the ANPRM, FTA posed a series of questions to assist with identifying the universe of potential personnel that may be subject to the PTSCPT requirements. Question 52 sought to identify which
Twenty-eight commenters responded to the question of which transit agency positions are directly responsible for safety oversight. Several commenters listed various transit agency positions as being directly responsible for safety oversight including: The entire System Safety Department and the divisions under it; agency leadership, operations managers, supervisors, and safety staff; the Director of Safety, the Risk Management Department and various safety departments and trainers that are contractor specific; Safety Managers; Bus and Rail Managers; the responsible Executive; Safety Operations Manager; and Safety Administrators (Bus, Rail).
Some commenters noted that in their organizations every employee has a responsibility for safety. A number of the commenters also noted that overall authority and responsibility was vested in a number of individuals, including the General Manager/Transit Director, Chief Operating Officer/Operations Manager, Facilities Managers, Maintenance Manager, and the Chief Safety Officer and staff. A few commenters stated that FTA already has a process for identifying safety-sensitive personnel subject to its Drug and Alcohol Testing program requirements and recommended that FTA adopt a similar process to identify those subject to the safety rules. Two commenters noted that this decision should be at the discretion of the transit agency as some agencies, because of size, may have a person serving as the safety person in addition to other duties. Two other commenters stated that it varies depending on the size of the agency and the position should be identified by the transit agency General Manager.
With regard to the series of questions about operations personnel, thirty-one commenters responded. Many of the comments were similar to responses to the question above; however, a number of commenters specifically addressed operations personnel. These commenters identified widely varied and diverse operations positions that are directly responsible for safety oversight to include: Operations Supervisors, Department Managers/Supervisors, Safety Department personnel/Safety Managers/Director of Safety, Safety/Training Officer, all supervisory and management personnel, Chief Operating Officer, Operations Managers, Maintenance Directors, and Transportation Safety Specialist.
Comments regarding the duties of operations positions were just as varied and diverse. Duty descriptions included, but were not limited to, contract management, research, development, implementation and maintenance of programs and procedures, policy development, observations, inspections, audits, investigations and liaison. One commenter stated that Bus and Rail Transit Operations Supervisors are
One commenter stated that all operations managers and supervisors are directly responsible for safety oversight and their duties vary, but include development, implementation, training and enforcement of policies/procedures; inspection and observation; hazard management; tool box safety meetings; and assuring compliance with all local, state and federal regulations governing the safe operation of vehicles.
Responses to the question of training received by operations personnel also varied but TSI and OSHA training were mentioned most frequently. A number of commenters indicated that they have received training such as university level safety training courses, fundamentals of bus collision investigation, fatigue and sleep apnea awareness for transit employees, transit industrial safety management, and transit rail incident investigation.
Question 54. FTA asked whether members of a transit agency board of directors or other equivalent entity currently receive any type of safety or risk management training; if so, what does the training cover?
Thirty commenters responded, with twenty-three stating that their Boards or the equivalent do not receive safety/risk management training. In general, several commenters noted that Boards should not be required to receive this type of training. A few commenters indicated that Boards receive some type of training, ranging from informal or familiarization training to training provided by insurance companies or executive staff.
One commenter stated that the Board's involvement with safety/risk issues is at a policy level while two other commenters indicated that the General Manager is responsible for ensuring that board members, or their equivalents, understand the safety culture of the agency. Two commenters stated that the Board receives informal safety training. One of these commenters noted that this training is a part of their service on a Subcommittee for Safety and another responded that the Board is instructed on the definitions related to safety reporting and how to interpret safety data to improve their understanding of the monthly safety data presented to them.
One commenter responded that when members first come onto the Board they are provided familiarization training on FTA safety requirements under 49 CFR part 659. Another commenter noted that board members might receive this training through an agency's insurance company. Another noted that their agency is currently writing a new safety plan that incorporates SMS principles; since the Board of Directors will be required to review and approve the plan they will receive a presentation that will explain SMS principles and processes, including risk management.
Question 55. FTA asked questions about the availability of industry training specifically for personnel with transit safety oversight responsibility; the effectiveness and accessibility of such training; and what other types of training oversight personnel need but that may not be readily available to them.
Twenty-nine commenters responded to this question. Several commenters listed the various training that safety oversight personnel currently receive, with the common thread being federally-sponsored training programs offered by the National Transit Institute (NTI), the National Transportation Safety Board, the National Safety Council, TSI, and OSHA. Some commenters responded that most of their training was developed and/or provided in-house or through on-the-job training. A few commenters noted the availability of the following training for bus small urban and rural operators: Community Transportation Association of America's Certified Safety and Security Officer Training Program and FTA's Bus Safety Program Orientation Seminar. One commenter noted that Colorado has a robust program offering two full-day safety-related training sessions at their spring and fall transit conferences. Two commenters mentioned classes conducted by local safety personnel such as police, fire, sheriffs, emergency management organizations, and the risk manager.
Commenters noted that the effectiveness of the training is evaluated using the following methods: Internal safety audits; facility safety inspections; on the job evaluations by departmental managers, the General Manager, insurance pool staff, or State DOT staff; ride checks; efficiency tests; and SSO triennial audits. In addition, one commenter noted that regulatory audits and written tests are used to measure training effectiveness.
Comments on the types of training that oversight personnel need but is not readily available included SMS training, risk assessment training, reactive training programs that address changes to strategic safety philosophy, and tactical issue-specific initiatives. A few commenters recommended that FTA develop this training specifically for the public transportation industry.
FTA considered the recommendations submitted by commenters on the ANPRM while developing both the interim program and this proposed rule. Many of those recommendations are reflected in the requirements proposed for this rule.
To implement this rule, FTA proposes to leverage the interim program training requirements as the foundation for the PTSCTP. FTA recognizes that the interim program was implemented only recently; therefore, a reasonable period of time should pass to allow FTA to assess its effectiveness before proposing new or additional requirements. The interim program curriculum and technical training requirements are republished in Section IV of this notice for clarity. FTA invites public comment on its proposed implementation of the PTSCTP as noted herein.
As with the interim program, FTA proposes the initial focus of the PTSCTP will be on enhancing the technical proficiency of safety oversight professionals in the rail transit industry.
In response to commenters who recommended that the PTSCTP program requirements be flexible and scalable and take into consideration the varying needs and sizes of different public transit agencies, FTA notes that the PTSCTP's mandatory training would apply only to SSOAs and rail transit agencies with minimum training requirements necessary to enhance technical proficiency. State DOT and bus transit personnel would be voluntary participants. Further, FTA recognizes the value of leveraging its published safety toolkits, best practices guides, and providing technical assistance as the PTSCTP is implemented. Therefore, before FTA would propose new training requirements, existing FTA-sponsored training would be reviewed for applicability and scalability relative to the diverse universe of public transit providers.
FTA also proposes flexibility with regard to how personnel would be identified as participants for the PTSCTP. FTA agrees with commenters who indicated the recipient should have discretion to identify which of its personnel perform safety oversight functions. Comments to the ANPRM indicated that position titles and functions in the public transportation industry are not universal. In general, it would be impractical for FTA to identify the specific positions or titles of those directly responsible for safety oversight or those who conduct audits and examinations. Therefore, the proposed rule includes definitions for the terms “
FTA is proposing flexibility with developing the curriculum for the PTSCTP. Specifically, FTA would use a process similar to that used to identify National Transit Database (NTD) reporting requirements under 49 CFR part 630. To illustrate, FTA periodically publishes revisions to the NTD Reporting Manuals (defined in part 630 as
The proposed PTSCTP is also flexible with regard to its application. FTA is not proposing that a recipient only can hire personnel that have completed the initial training requirements. As suggested by a number of commenters, FTA proposes that personnel would have three years from the date the recipient identifies him or her as designated personnel to complete the initial requirements. FTA believes this measured approach promotes the legislative intent of enhancing the technical proficiency of safety oversight personnel while recognizing the recipient's need to prudently manage its human capital and resources.
Additionally, FTA agrees with commenters who indicated that refresher training should occur every two years following the initial three-year timeframe for completing safety certification training requirements. Topics for refresher training would be at the discretion of the SSOA or rail transit agency, but would likely align with the training requirements to be proposed for the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan. Refresher training would likely place greater emphasis on advanced areas or topics that often lead to accidents, injuries, or non-compliance. This process would allow both FTA and the public transportation industry to analyze safety data and identify risks before recommending risk mitigation strategies. FTA believes a two-year refresher cycle following the initial three-year training period reasonably permits designated personnel to train on relevant safety issues while not significantly impacting operations.
Although each SSOA and rail transit agency would have discretion with regard to the subject matter for refresher training, the proposed rule would require designated personnel to participate in at least one hour of refresher training. FTA emphasizes that this proposal would provide the SSOAs and rail transit agencies with discretion to require more than one hour of refresher training based on the specific safety oversight training needs of the SSOA or rail transit agency.
FTA also agrees with those ANPRM commenters who indicated that FTA should recognize relevant safety training and certification that designated personnel already have obtained. To that end, FTA is proposing to allow designated personnel to have their previous training evaluated by FTA to determine if the training competencies are equivalent to the competencies of the curriculum proposed for the PTSCTP. FTA would have the discretion to determine whether specific PTSCTP training requirements should be waived for the designated personnel.
FTA believes the regulatory construct described above balances flexibility and scalability for recipients while achieving the objective of enhancing the technical proficiency of public transportation personnel. FTA invites public comment on the flexible and scalable approach proposed to implement the PTSCTP.
FTA is providing the following requirements of the interim program here to assist stakeholders with understanding the curriculum and requirements proposed for this rule. As stated previously, FTA adopted these requirements through a notice and comment process and is not seeking comments on the requirements themselves. FTA believes the curriculum and technical training requirements developed for the interim
For purposes of consistency, FTA has changed “covered personnel” to “designated personnel” as that is the term proposed for use in the rule. All other text is the same as that published in the February 27, 2015,
•
•
Each SSOA shall develop a technical training plan for designated personnel and contractor support personnel who perform safety audits and examinations. The SSOA will submit its proposed technical training plan to FTA for review and evaluation as part of the SSOA certification program in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(7). This review and approval process will support the consultation required between FTA and SSOAs regarding the staffing and qualification of the SSOAs' employees and other designated personnel in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(3)(D).
Recognizing that each rail fixed guideway public transportation system has unique characteristics, each SSOA will identify the tasks related to inspections, examinations, and audits, and all activities requiring sign-off, which must be performed by the SSOA to carry out its safety oversight requirements, and identify the skills and knowledge necessary to perform each task at that system. At a minimum, the technical training plan will describe the process for receiving technical training from the rail transit agencies in the following competency areas appropriate to the specific rail fixed guideway system(s) for which safety audits and examinations are conducted:
The SSOA will determine the length of time for the technical training based on the skill level of the designated personnel relative to the applicable rail transit agency(s). FTA will provide a template on its Web site to assist the SSOA with preparing and monitoring its technical training plan and will provide technical assistance as requested. Each SSOA technical training plan that is submitted to FTA for review will:
○ Require designated personnel to successfully:
Complete training that covers the skills and knowledge the designated personnel will need to effectively perform his or her tasks.
Pass a written and/or oral examination covering the skills and knowledge required for the designated personnel to effectively perform his or her tasks.
Demonstrate hands-on capability to perform his or her tasks to the satisfaction of the appropriate SSOA supervisor or designated instructor.
○ Establish equivalencies or written and oral examinations to allow designated personnel to demonstrate that they possess the skill and qualification required to perform their tasks.
○ Require biennial refresher training to maintain technical skills and abilities which includes classroom and hands-on training, as well as testing. Observation and evaluation of actual performance of duties may be used to meet the hands-on portion of this requirement, provided that such testing is documented.
○ Require that training records be maintained to demonstrate the current qualification status of designated personnel assigned to carry out the oversight program. Records may be maintained either electronically or in writing and must be provided to FTA upon request.
○ Records must include the following information concerning each designated personnel:
Name;
The title and date each training course was completed and the proficiency test score(s) where applicable;
The content of each training course successfully completed;
A description of the designated personnel's hands-on performance applying the skills and knowledge required to perform the tasks that the employee will be responsible for performing and the factual basis supporting the determination;
The tasks the designated personnel is deemed qualified to perform; and
Provide the date that the designated personnel's status as qualified to perform the tasks expires, and the date in which biennial refresher training is due.
○ Ensure the qualification of contractors performing oversight activities. SSOAs may use demonstrations, previous training and education, and written and oral examinations to determine if contractors possess the skill and qualification required to perform their tasks.
○ Periodically assess the effectiveness of the technical training. One method of
This section explains the requirements proposed to implement the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1).
This part proposes to implement 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1) by establishing a uniform curriculum of safety certification training to enhance the technical proficiency of individuals who are directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation systems not subject to the safety oversight requirements of another Federal agency. This part would not preempt a State from implementing its own safety certification training requirements for public transportation systems subject to its jurisdiction.
In general, the proposed rule would apply to all recipients of Federal public transportation funding under Chapter 53 of Title 49 of the United States Code. However, the mandatory requirements would apply specifically to SSOA personnel and their contractor support who conduct safety audits and examinations. In addition, the mandatory requirements would apply to rail transit agency personnel who are directly responsible for safety oversight of rail transit systems that are not subject to the requirements of FRA. All other recipients of Chapter 53 funding would have discretion to participate voluntarily in the training requirements proposed for the PTSCTP.
This section would set forth the definitions of some key terms for the proposed rule. Although this would be a new rule, many of the terms used for this section will carry the same or similar meaning as the terms are used in other documents issued by FTA. Specifically, they are “Administrator,” “Contractor,” “FTA,” “Recipient,” “Public Transportation Agency,” “Rail Fixed Guideway System,” “State,” and “State Safety Oversight Agency.”
In addition, there are some new terms proposed for this rulemaking with definitions that are consistent with the common sense use as they appear in the proposed rule text. They are: “Designated Personnel,” “Directly Responsible for Safety Oversight,” “Reference Documents,” “Safety Audits,” and “Safety Examinations.”
With paragraph (a) of this section, FTA is proposing that the State entity authorized by the Governor to perform public transportation safety oversight functions should identify its personnel who conduct safety audits and examinations of the public transportation systems for mandatory participation in training requirements of this part. In general, those identified would be SSOA personnel and the contractor support whose functions include on-site safety audits and examinations of rail public transportation systems. This section also would apply to the managers and supervisors who have direct authority over such personnel. FTA is proposing this approach because each SSOA is better situated to determine which of its personnel and contractors perform safety audit and examination functions as those terms are proposed in the Definitions section for this rule.
Paragraph (b) proposes that personnel designated by the SSOA would have three years to complete the applicable training noted in the Reference Document as the term is defined in proposed section 672.5. To implement this rule, the interim program training requirements listed in Section IV of this notice would be listed in the Reference Document. Paragraph (b) also would require the SSOA to ensure that designated personnel complete at least one-hour of refresher training every two years after the initial three-year period above. The SSOA would have discretion to determine the subject area and time for such training. Paragraph (c) would identify the FTA web address for locating the current version of the safety certification training requirements.
This section would require a recipient to identify its employees whose job function is “directly responsible for safety oversight” of the public transportation system. FTA understands that the unique organizational framework of public transit systems does not reasonably allow for uniform designation of the same position or function as being “directly responsible for safety oversight.” FTA believes each transit agency is better situated to determine which of its personnel should be designated for participation in the PTSCTP, whether mandatory or voluntary.
Paragraph (a) would require each recipient that operates a rail transit system not subject to FRA requirements to identify its designated personnel for mandatory participation in the PTSCTP. Paragraph (b) would allow recipients of other modes of public transportation with personnel who are directly responsible for safety oversight to participate voluntarily. In general, these recipients would be State DOTs, transit agencies with both bus and rail transit systems, as well as bus only systems. These recipients would have discretion to scale their training requirements based on their safety risks, as well as guidance issued by FTA. FTA would continue to provide technical assistance for training through its Safety Training and Resource Web site which can be located at:
Paragraph (c) would provide mandatory participants up to three years from the time of his or her initial designation to complete the initial training requirements. The recipient would then ensure that each mandatory participant completes at least one-hour of refresher training every two years thereafter. However, the recipient may require additional time for such training. As noted in paragraph (d), the FTA web address for locating the current version of the safety certification training requirements is identified.
FTA recognizes the existence of other competent organizations that provide relevant safety training and certification for public transportation safety professionals. Therefore, paragraph (a) of this section would allow a participant to request that FTA review other non-FTA sponsored safety training the participant has completed for the purpose of receiving credit toward equivalent elements of PTSCTP training requirements.
Paragraph (b) would require the participant to provide official documentation from the organization that conducted the training for which credit is being requested. The documentation should indicate the date(s) and subject matter of the completed training. In addition, the
In accordance with paragraph (c), FTA would evaluate the submission to determine if the previously completed safety training conforms to the training objectives and competencies of the FTA curriculum. If approved, FTA would provide the participant credit for the previous training and waive completion of the equivalent element of the PTSCTP requirement. However, the waiver would not exempt a participant from having to comply with any applicable refresher training or technical training requirements.
An essential requirement of any training program is the maintenance of adequate records to document that the training was completed. To that end, as noted in paragraph (a), FTA proposes to maintain an electronic record of each PTSCTP participant. The electronic record would be created when the participant registers online for the program at:
FTA would maintain and administer the online database; however, paragraph (b) would require that each recipient be responsible for ensuring that its designated personnel are properly registered and completing the curriculum for their position (
Paragraph (c) would require each SSOA develop a technical training plan based on applicable requirements identified in the technical training component of Section IV of this notice. Each SSOA would maintain training records that document the technical training undertaken by its designated personnel and contractors who conduct audits and examinations of rail transit systems under its jurisdiction. This documentation would be retained by the SSOA for at least five years from the date the record is created. This documentation process would assist the SSOA in complying with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(3)(E), as it would provide supporting documents that show designated SSOA personnel and contractor support are have received training to perform requisite safety oversight functions. As with the interim program, FTA would provide templates and guidance to assist the SSOA with this process.
With regard to contractors that provide audit and examination services to SSOAs, the SSOA would be responsible for ensuring that any contractor it engages to perform a safety oversight function is qualified to perform the service as contracted. Therefore, it is reasonable for the SSOA, working with its contractor, to maintain training records of those providing contract services.
With this section, FTA is proposing requirements for the safekeeping and limited release of information maintained in accordance with the proposed requirements of this part. Paragraph (a) would require that information maintained in applicable training records not be released without the consent of the participant for whom the record is maintained, except in those limited instances as prescribed by law or as indicated in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).
Paragraph (b) would allow a participant to receive a copy of his or her training records without cost to the participant. To assist with safety oversight activities, paragraph (c) would require a recipient to provide appropriate Federal and SSOA personnel access to all of the recipient's facilities where required training is conducted. In addition, the recipient would be required to grant access to all training records required to be maintained by this part to appropriate Department of Transportation personnel and appropriate State officials who are responsible for safety oversight of public transportation systems. Paragraph (d) would require a recipient to provide information regarding a participant's training when requested by the National Transportation Safety Board when such request is made as part of an accident investigation.
Recipients are required to annually certify their compliance with Federal grant requirements as a condition for receiving funding. Paragraph (a) would require recipients for whom the training requirements are mandatory to self-certify compliance with this part through the annual FTA certification and assurances. Paragraph (b) would require the recipient to identify the person(s) within its organization authorized to certify the status of the recipient's compliance.
This section would define actions available to the Administrator if a recipient for whom the training requirements are mandatory does not comply with the requirements of this part. Paragraph (a) would indicate that the Administrator has discretion to withhold Federal public transportation funds should the Administrator find that a recipient is not complying with the requirements of this part. Paragraph (b) would provide the recipient with written notice of the Administrator's decision and the factual basis for the Administrator's finding of noncompliance. Paragraph (c) would provide the recipient an opportunity to respond to the Administrator within 30 days of receiving written notice of the finding of noncompliance. Paragraph (d) provides actions the Administrator may undertake at his or her discretion.
Section 5329(h) of title 49, United States Code requires FTA to “take into consideration the costs and benefits of each action the Secretary proposes to take” under section 5329. To assess the costs for the PTSCTP, we first reviewed data from the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI). Using this data and our familiarity with how SSOAs are organized, we developed a maximum and minimum number of personnel, to include employees and contractors that would be affected by the PTSCTP. Next, using the same data from TSI, we determined the number of rail transit personnel that would be affected by the PTSCTP. We also reviewed the number of FTA personnel who participate in safety audits and examinations and determined the number of FTA personnel that would be required to undergo the some level of training and certification. In developing annual costs for personnel that would attend the PTSCTP, we assumed a minimum and maximum case scenario.
For the minimum case, we assumed that all designated personnel under this program had already completed the TSSP Certificate Program and would require only the SMS portion of the coursework described in Section IV of this notice. This assumption is supported given the popularity of the TSSP Certificate Program within the industry. This assumption is supported further by the level of voluntary participation by transit industry personnel obtained from current graduation/attendance data at TSI. For the maximum case, we assume that no one subject to the NPRM has a TSSP
To simplify the analysis, we assumed that the total designated personnel under this NPRM would undertake one-third of the total coursework each year. While affected employees will have three years to complete the coursework—it would be unreasonable to expect an employee to be away from a duty station for training purposes for over four consecutive weeks. As noted in the comments received on the ANPRM, many commenters suggested that we harness the existing voluntary training offered by TSI and build upon that base.
Next, we determined the training, by course, that would be required of each person within the scope of the PTSCTP. The TSSP Certificate Program consists of four courses.
The SMS Coursework consists of two courses and three online training sessions. While SSO personnel will be required to take 5.125 days of total training, rail transit agency personnel will not be required to take the two-day SMS Principles Course. However, we assume here that all rail transit agency personnel will take all 5.125 days. This approach is conservative and potentially over counts the total costs by about $65-110,000.00 per year but does not complicate this analysis. The Table below lists the courses and duration.
Using the 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) average wage rate of $40.84 for those taking training under this program, we developed the following Lower Bound and Upper Bound costs for attendance as depicted in the table below.
Next, we developed costs associated with developing, managing, and administering the coursework for the PTSCTP. First, we reviewed the course catalog for TSI and determined the percentage of courses required by the PTSCTP of the total courses offered—a little more than one-fourth (six courses plus three online courses out of 21 total courses or about 28 percent) of the total course offerings would be required of the combined TSSP/SMS training under this NPRM. Furthermore, of the total days of coursework offered by TSI, 30 percent were attributable to the TSSP/SMS coursework. To be conservative, we used 30 percent for weighting for unattributable costs and allocated full costs where we were able to identify cost resulting from the TSSP and/or SMS training components. Using data from FTA's budget for TSI, the cost for the administration of courses, contract costs, and costs for the development of new coursework we developed the program costs. We factored no facility costs as regional transit agencies or FTA Regional Offices host courses. Hence, we also do not account for travel costs because courses are hosted locally—travel for those attending would be included within normal commuting parameters. Lastly, there is no cost associated with taking the coursework for public agency employees. Using this information, we developed the costs presented in the following table.
Using the costs presented above, the table below presents the total annual costs for the PTSCTP. We note here again that we have been very conservative in aggregating costs, so in fact the aggregate cost estimates are greater than we expect to be the case. We have not removed costs for rail transit agency personnel that do not have to take the SMS SSO Principles course. We have assumed in the Maximum scenario, in an overabundance of caution, that everyone has not taken the TSSP Certificate coursework, which is a weak assumption given the level of voluntary participation and popularity of the program. Moreover, we have used a weighting that over estimates unattributable costs given the level of presence in the TSI course load. While we present data for both a Maximum Cost and Minimum Cost scenarios, the actual experience for costs should be closer to the Minimum scenario than to the Maximum scenario.
As the interim provisions only have been in effect for a short time, we were unable to generate any estimate of their benefits. Thus, to assess the benefits for the PTSCTP, we considered how other transportation modes that are in the process of implementing SMS or similar systematic approaches to safety have estimated the benefits of their programs in reducing incidents, adverse outcomes, and improving training programs. For example, although no two programs are identical, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in its final rule implementing its Training Standards issued November 7, 2014 at 79 FR 66460,
Enhancements brought about by SMS have also supported transportation and oversight agencies in mitigating the impacts of those events that do occur. For the SSO program NPRM issued February 27, 2015, at 80 FR 11002-30, FTA considered what percentage of potential safety benefits that rule would need to achieve in order to achieve a “break even” point with the costs based on two different estimates of the potential benefit pool. (FTA noted, therein, that the analysis was not intended to be a full analysis of the potential benefits of SMS for transit safety—rather it was intended to provide some quantified estimate of the potential benefits of the changes to the SSO program proposed in that rule). FTA also noted that the analysis may understate the potential benefits because of the lack of data on some non-injury related costs associated with many incidents, particularly regarding property damage and travel delays. For the SSO NPRM, FTA estimated that the SSO program revisions would realistically garner a 2 percent reduction in costs associated with fatalities and “serious” injuries. FTA performed analyzed the potential safety benefits of the SSO NPRM by reviewing the rail transit incidents specifically identified by the NTSB as related to inadequate safety oversight programs. Of the 19 major rail transit accidents the NTSB has investigated (or preliminarily investigated) since 2004, five had probable causes that included inadequate safety oversight on the part of the rail transit agency or FTA. Based on the analysis for the SSO NPRM, for the benefits to breakeven with the costs to both SSOs and rail transit agencies, the rule would only require a 1.23 percent reduction of the accidents costs per year, which did not include potentially significant unquantified costs related to property damage and disruption.
At base, the SSO NPRM increases the frequency and/or comprehensiveness of activities that are already performed, such as reviews, inspections, field observations, investigations, safety studies, data analysis activities, and hazard management. The SSO NPRM focuses its efforts on process improvements to achieve its benefits.
The SSO program is reliant on the PTSCTP for part of its safety improvements. While the SSO NPRM proposed to improve SSO and rail transit agencies processes, the PTSCTP improves the requisite human capital within the SSO program by improving the training and by making mandatory training for those designated personnel charged with safety oversight at SSO and rail transit agencies.
We were very confident that a 2 percent reduction, which is in line with FRA estimates, could be achieved with the SSO NPRM—in fact, our calculations showed the breakeven point to be a reduction of 1.23 percent. This leaves about .77 percent or nearly $14.3 million in benefits that have been unallocated. FTA believes that training for those charged with safety oversight at SSO and rail transit agencies is an imperative to achieve estimated reductions in incidents and accidents. To this end, we calculated the breakeven point for the PTSCTP. The breakeven point for the maximum case of $2.6 million in annual costs is 0.14 percent and .09 percent for the minimum case of $1.6 million in annual costs. This level of reduction in fatalities and serious injuries is likely to be extremely conservative and we are highly confident that it is easily attainable when complemented with the changes proposed in the SSO NPRM.
As an alternative and to cross-check the benefits of training, we reviewed literature on returns derived from investments in training and training programs. Bartel conducts a panel study that analyzed large firms, studies that
While these results from Bartel's study are not transportation or even transit related, it still gives a clear picture of the benefits that firms across industries have experienced when they have invested in training. We also reviewed a study by Almedia and Carneiro on firm-provided training, in which they estimate the rate of return for firms that invest in human capital (training).
The literature generally shows that returns on investment for training are positive and usually greater than is typically thought. This comports with the conservative assumptions that we have made and use to assess the PTSCTP program.
While the TSSP Certificate Program has been available for some time, it had been an optional certification that some SSOA, rail, and bus safety oversight personnel sought out of self-initiative. With the delineation of a mandatory pool of safety oversight employees, FTA hopes to unify and harmonize the provision of safety-related activities across SSOAs and rail transit agencies. In this way, this pool of employees will gain knowledge to identify and control hazards with the ultimate goal of decreasing incidents. Additionally, FTA expects that the codification of the PTSCTP will help promote a safety culture within the transit industry. This safety culture should help instill a transit agency-wide appreciation for shared goals, shared beliefs, best practices, and positive and vigilant attitudes towards safety.
We are unsure how to quantify the effects of a positive safety culture as a safety culture will develop over time. Characteristics of a positive safety culture include: Actively seeking out information on hazards; employee training; information exchanges; and understanding that responsibility for safety is shared. While the returns on investment in training should be fairly quick, establishing, promoting, and increasing safety in an industry that is already very safe, is difficult to predict with any certainty.
All comments received on or before the close of business on the comment closing date will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition, FTA may continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits—including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
FTA has determined this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the U.S. Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980, 44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979). FTA has determined that this rulemaking is not
This proposed rule was developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency rulemaking) and DOT's policies and procedures to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
As noted in the cost benefit analysis for this rule, FTA developed a maximum and minimum number of employees of recipients that would be affected by the PTSCTP. FTA believes that approximately 70 to 120 SSOA personnel and contractors would be subject to the mandatory PTSCTP training requirements while approximately 340 personnel of rail transit agencies would be mandatory participants. Further, FTA believes that approximately 2,000 personnel may be voluntary participants. Section 5329(e)(6) permits recipients of rural and urbanized area formula funds to use Federal funds to cover up to 80 percent of the PTSCTP costs. Additionally, FTA believes many of the PTSCPT participants will be eligible to receive credit for prior safety training which will further reduce the cost and impact associated with this proposed rulemaking. For these reasons, FTA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rulemaking would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). The cost of training to comply with this NPRM would be an eligible expenditure of Federal financial assistance provided to recipients under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $143.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).
This proposed rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria established by Executive Order 13132, and FTA has determined that the proposed action would not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. FTA has also concluded that this proposed action would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' abilities to discharge traditional State governmental functions.
The regulations effectuating Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this proposed rulemaking.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The information collection would be different for each type of recipient (Federal government personnel, Federal contractors, SSOAs and their contractors, and rail transit agencies). Therefore, the paperwork burden would vary. For example, the burden on SSOAs would be proportionate to the number of rail transit agencies within that State, and the size and complexity of those rail transit systems. This would affect the number of personnel designated for participation. FTA proposes to bear the cost associated with the development and maintenance of the Web site. FTA is seeking comment on whether the information collected will have practical utility; whether its estimation of the burden of the proposed information collection is accurate; whether the burden can be minimized through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and for ways in which the quality, utility, and clarity of the information can be enhanced.
Additional documentation detailing FTA's Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection Request, including FTA's Justification Statement, will be posted in the docket for this rulemaking. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information requirements contained in this proposed rule within 60 days after receiving the information collection request submission from FTA. FTA will summarize and respond to any comments on the proposed information collection request from OMB and the public in the preamble to the final rule.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321,
This rulemaking will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630.
Executive Order 12898 directs every Federal agency to make environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing the effects of all programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The USDOT environmental justice initiatives accomplish this goal by involving the potentially affected public in developing transportation projects that fit harmoniously within their communities without compromising safety or mobility. Additionally, FTA has issued a program circular addressing environmental justice in public transportation, C 4703.1,
This action meets the applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
FTA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking under Executive Order 13045. FTA certifies that this proposed rule will not cause an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
FTA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking under Executive Order 13175 and finds that the action will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; will not preempt tribal laws; and will not impose any new consultation requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.
FTA has analyzed this proposed rulemaking under Executive Order 13211 and has determined that this action is not a significant energy action under the Executive Order, given that the action is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of FTA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment or signing the comment if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or any other entity. You may review USDOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the
This rulemaking is issued under the authority of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; Pub. L. 112-141), and the statutory provision codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)(1), which requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe a public transportation safety certification training program for Federal and State employees, or other designated personnel, who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems and employees of public transportation agencies directly responsible for safety oversight. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations to carry out the general provisions of this statutory requirement pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5329(f)(7).
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN set forth in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
Transportation, Mass transportation, Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5329(c), 5329(f), and the delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.91, the Federal Transit Administration proposes to amend chapter VI of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, by adding part 672 to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 5329(c), 49 U.S.C. 5329(f), 49 CFR 1.91.
(a) This part implements a uniform safety certification training curriculum and requirements that will enhance the technical proficiency of individuals who are directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation agencies not subject to the safety oversight requirements of another Federal agency.
(b) This part does not preempt any safety certification training requirements required by a State for public transportation agencies within its jurisdiction.
(a) In general, this part applies to all recipients of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
(b) The mandatory requirements of this part will apply only to State Safety Oversight Agency personnel and contractor support, and designated personnel of recipients that operate rail fixed guideway systems that are not subject to the requirements of the Federal Railroad Administration.
(c) Other FTA recipients may participate voluntarily in accordance with this part.
As used in this part:
(1) Employees identified by a recipient whose job function requires them to be directly responsible for safety oversight of public transportation provided by the agency; or
(2) Employees and contractors of a State Safety Oversight Agency whose job function requires them to conduct safety audits and examinations of the public transportation systems subject to the jurisdiction of the agency.
(a) Each State Safety Oversight Agency (SSOA) shall designate its personnel and contractors who conduct safety audits and examinations of public transportation systems, including the managers and supervisors of such personnel, and ensure such designated personnel comply with the applicable training requirements in the current Reference Document.
(b) Designated personnel and contractors shall complete applicable training requirements of this part within three (3) years of their initial designation. Thereafter, refresher training shall be completed every two (2) years. The SSOA will determine refresher training requirements which shall include at a minimum, one (1) hour of safety oversight training.
(c)
(a) Each recipient that operates a rail fixed guideway public transportation system not subject to the safety oversight of another Federal agency shall designate its personnel who are directly responsible for safety oversight and ensure that they comply with the applicable training requirements as set forth in the current Reference Document.
(b) Each recipient that operates a bus or other public transportation system not subject to the safety oversight of another Federal agency may designate its personnel who are directly responsible for safety oversight. Such personnel may participate in the applicable training requirements as set forth in the current Reference Document.
(c) Personnel designated under paragraph (a) of this section shall complete applicable training requirements of this part within three (3) years of their initial designation. Thereafter, refresher training shall be completed every two (2) years. The recipient will determine refresher training requirements which will include at a minimum, one (1) hour of safety oversight training.
(d)
(a) Designated personnel subject to this part may request that FTA evaluate safety training or certification previously obtained from another entity to determine if the training satisfies an applicable training requirement of this part.
(b) Designated personnel must provide FTA with an official transcript or certificate of the training, a description of the curriculum and competencies obtained, and a brief statement detailing how the training or certification satisfies the applicable requirement of this part.
(c) FTA will evaluate the submission and determine if any of the applicable training requirements of this part will be credited for waiver. If a waiver is granted, designated personnel are responsible for completing all other applicable requirements of this part.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The name of the designated personnel or contractor;
(2) The title of the training, the date the training was completed and the proficiency test score(s), where applicable;
(3) The content of each training course or curriculum successfully completed and an indication of whether the participant passed or failed any associated tests;
(4) The tasks the participant is deemed qualified to perform; and
(5) The date the designated personnel's status as qualified to perform the task(s) expires, and the date in which biennial refresher training is due.
(a) Except as required by law, or expressly authorized or required by this part, a recipient may not release information pertaining to designated personnel that is required to be maintained by this part without the written consent of the designated personnel.
(b) Designated personnel are entitled, upon written request, to obtain copies of any records pertaining to his or her training that is required to be maintained by this part. The recipient shall promptly provide the records requested by designated personnel and access shall not be contingent upon the recipient's receipt of payment for the production of such records.
(c) A recipient shall permit access to all facilities utilized and records compiled in accordance with the requirements of this part to the Secretary of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration, or any State agency with jurisdiction for public transportation safety oversight authority over the recipient.
(d) When requested by the National Transportation Safety Board as part of an accident investigation, a recipient shall disclose information related to the training of designated personnel.
(a) A recipient of FTA financial assistance described in § 672.3(b) of this part shall annually certify compliance with this part in accordance with FTA's procedures for annual grant certification and assurances.
(b) A certification must be authorized by the recipient's governing board or other authorizing official, and must be signed by a party specifically authorized to do so.
(a)
(b)
(1) A statement of the legal authority for issuance;
(2) A statement of the regulatory provision(s) the recipient is believed to have violated;
(3) A statement of the factual allegations upon which the notice of violation is based; and
(4) A statement of the remedial action sought to correct the violation.
(c)
(d)
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with October anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with October anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than October 31, 2016.
None.
None.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings:
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
On June 4, 2015, the Department of Commerce (Department) published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicomanganese from India covering the period of review (POR) May 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014.
David Lindgren at (202) 482-3870; AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On June 4, 2015, the Department published the
The products subject to the order are all forms, sizes and compositions of silicomanganese, except low-carbon silicomanganese, including silicomanganese briquettes, fines and slag. The silicomanganese subject to the order is currently classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, follow as an appendix to this notice.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made no adjustments to the margin calculations for Nava.
The final weighted-average dumping margin for the period May 1, 2013, through April 30, 2014, is as follows:
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Nava's weighted-average dumping margin in these final results is zero percent. Therefore, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The Department intends to issue the appropriate assessment instructions for Nava to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results.
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of silicomanganese from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Nava will be the weighted-average dumping margin listed above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 17.74 percent, as established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.
We will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results of administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before February 1, 2016.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 66165, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Stephen Kasperski, (206) 526-4727 or
This request is for a revision to an existing information collection using a slightly modified survey instrument by removing questions that were unclear or not consistently interpreted by respondents, or are irrelevant after more information about the program design have been developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and clarifying the wording of remaining questions.
Historically, changes in fisheries management regulations have been shown to result in impacts to individuals within the fishery. An understanding of social impacts in fisheries—achieved through the collection of data on fishing communities, as well as on individuals who fish—is a requirement under several federal laws. Laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (as amended 2007) describe such requirements. The collection of this data not only helps to inform legal requirements for the existing management actions, but will inform future management actions requiring equivalent information.
Fisheries rationalization programs have an impact on those individuals participating in the affected fishery, as well as their communities and may also have indirect effects on other fishery participants. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is considering the implementation of a new rationalization program for the Gulf of Alaska trawl fishery. This research aims to study the affected individuals both prior to and after the design and implementation of the rationalization program. One year of pre-program design data from this survey was collected in 2014. The current proposal is to collect a second round of baseline data collection post-program design using a slightly modified survey instrument (
The data collected will be used in conjunction with the 2014 survey data to provide a description of the changes that have occurred in the industry as the program has been developed as well as allow for an analysis of the changes experienced by individuals and communities after the rationalization program has been implemented. The measurement of these changes will lead to a greater understanding of the social impacts the program may have on the individuals and communities affected by fisheries regulations. To achieve these goals, it is critical to collect the necessary data after program design and prior to the implementation of the rationalization program to understand what changes in the industry were made prior to implementation in expectation of future changes in management. This second baseline will also allow for the comparison of data collected after the management program has been implemented to understand how rationalization programs impact individuals and communities throughout the design and implementation of the program.
Literature reviews, secondary sources including Internet sources, United States Census data, key informants, focus groups, paper surveys, electronic surveys, and in-person interviews will be utilized in combination to obtain the greatest breadth of information as possible.
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.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before February 1, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by “Renewal of Collection Pertaining to Regulation 16.02 Daily Trade and Supporting Data Reports 3038-0061”, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The CFTC reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
Thomas Guerin, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; (202) 734-4194, email:
Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of Information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3 and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CFTC, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the CFTC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information under the safety standard for automatic residential garage door operators, approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0125. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by February 1, 2016.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0054, by any of the following methods:
Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to:
CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:
The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:
Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
All of the requirements and conditions set forth in
A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Department of the Air Force, Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, DOD.
Meeting notice.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the Department of Defense announces that the United States Air Force (USAF) Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) Winter Board meeting will take place on 19 January 2016 at the Arnold & Mabel Beckman Center, located at 100 Academy Drive in Irvine, CA 92617. The meeting will occur from 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 January 2016. The session open to the
Any member of the public that wishes to attend this meeting or provide input to the USAF SAB must contact the USAF SAB meeting organizer at the phone number or email address listed below at least five working days prior to the meeting date. Please ensure that you submit your written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the USAF SAB meeting organizer at the address listed below at least five calendar days prior to the meeting commencement date. The USAF SAB meeting organizer will review all timely submissions and respond to them prior to the start of the meeting identified in this noice. Written statements received after this date may not be considered by the USAF SAB until the next scheduled meeting.
The USAF SAB meeting organizer, Major Mike Rigoni at,
80 FR 72052, (November 18, 2015).
1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m., December 1, 2015.
On page 72052, in the third column, on lines 5 and 6, change the
Mark Welch, General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Notice, recommendation.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286a(b)(5), the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has made a recommendation to the Secretary of Energy concerning the need to address specific deficiencies with, and strengthen regulatory compliance of, the emergency preparedness and response capability at the National Nuclear Security Administration's Pantex Plant that require timely resolution.
Comments, data, views, or arguments concerning the recommendation are due on or before January 4, 2016.
Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2001.
Mark Welch at the address above or telephone number (202) 694-7000. To review the figures referred to in Recommendation 2015-1, please visit
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) recommends that deficiencies identified with the implementation of existing requirements in Department of Energy (DOE) Order 151.1C,
The Board communicated its concerns with emergency preparedness and response across the DOE complex in its Recommendation 2014-1,
Background: Emergency Preparedness and Response Capability. Personnel at the Pantex Plant conduct work vital to our national defense. Due to the nature of the operations and the spectrum of materials in use at the site, the range of possible accidents varies widely. Working with high explosives, hazardous chemicals, and radioactive materials results in the potential for operational emergencies ranging from industrial process-related accidents to significant material releases due to energetic events. The site is also subject to a range of natural phenomena hazards; tornados, high winds, lightning strikes, rain-induced flooding, and earthquakes are all possible in the region. Of particular concern to us are those accident scenarios that may cause radioactive material to be dispersed and deposited off site. Given the short distance from some facilities to the site perimeter and the average wind speeds at the site, these materials may affect public lands in the emergency planning zone within a short period of time.
Board Finding: Drill and Exercise Programs. Based on our observations, we conclude that the Pantex Plant contractor has not demonstrated adequate capabilities through its drill and exercise programs. The Pantex Plant contractor's execution of emergency drills and exercises is insufficient to provide opportunities for all personnel to develop and demonstrate proficiency at emergency response. No site-wide exercises conducted since 2011 have simulated any significant radiological consequences. No site-wide exercise was conducted in 2013 (although a hurriedly executed, unchallenging small-scale scenario in January 2014 purportedly fulfilled the 2013 site-wide exercise requirement). The Board also observed that both NPO and contractor capabilities to assess site performance in drills and exercises are inadequate, and believes this limits the effectiveness of the existing programs. A robust drill and exercise program would be varied enough to address all response elements across the spectrum of hazards and facilities over time.
Board Finding: Timely, Accurate Information to the Public Regarding Off-Site Radiological Consequences. Our review found no demonstrated capability to provide timely, accurate information to the public regarding off-site radiological consequences. State radiological monitoring response teams are located in Austin, TX, and must travel nearly 500 miles before they are available to monitor affected areas.
Board Finding: Technical Planning Basis and Decision-Making Tools. The Board reviewed the technical planning bases and decision-making tools for the Pantex Plant's emergency management program and found that they are inadequate to demonstrate protection from time-sensitive events and do not consider all hazards at the site. Decision-making tools
Conclusion. The mission of the Pantex Plant is vital to our nation's defense, and the consequences of a significant accident would be difficult to overcome. A robust, comprehensive, tested, and sustainable emergency preparedness and response capability is vital to ensure the adequate protection of the public health and safety during operational emergencies. Specifically, deficiencies must be addressed in the drill and exercise programs, in demonstrating the capability to provide timely, accurate information to the public regarding off-site radiological consequences, and in the technical planning bases and decision-making tools.
Recommendations. To address the deficiencies summarized above, the Board recommends that DOE and NNSA take the following actions at the Pantex Plant:
1. Ensure the Pantex Plant drill and exercise programs comprehensively demonstrate proficiency in responding to emergencies for all hazards, all facilities, and all responders, consistent with the technical planning bases and any updates to them, over a five-year period in accordance with DOE Order 151.1C (or subsequent revisions). As part of this demonstration of proficiency:
a. Develop and institute a basis for conducting the drill program in support of emergency operations.
b. Strengthen the exercise program to provide an adequate number of challenging scenarios per year, including at least one full-scale, site-wide exercise, in order to maintain qualifications and ensure proficiency of the emergency response organization and first responders.
c. Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the drill and exercise programs bases, schedule, and execution against a risk-ranked set of:
i. All hazards;
ii. All facilities; and
iii. All response elements.
d. Evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the NPO and contractor processes used to critique drills and exercises.
2. Develop and implement processes and demonstrate the capabilities to:
a. Ensure the timeliness and accuracy of notifications to state and local authorities is commensurate with the initiation of off-site release of radioactive material at the Pantex Plant.
b. Provide consistent radiological monitoring support if an accident releases radiological material off-site, until state resources arrive and can assume responsibility for off-site monitoring.
3. Evaluate, incorporate, and validate (correctness, completeness, and effectiveness), the following changes to the Pantex Plant decision-making tools and notification processes:
a. Evaluate the emergency action level (EAL) process for those accident scenarios identifiable solely via instrumented systems to reduce delays in determining and implementing protective actions.
b. For those accident scenarios that are not identifiable solely via instrumented systems, evaluate the range of emergency conditions and potential indicators, and identify where new monitoring systems can be added or existing administrative controls can be modified to improve timeliness of response.
c. For all scenarios, evaluate if some protective actions should be initiated based solely on initial indicators (
d. Upon completion of these evaluations, incorporate new guidance and training for any changes made to the EAL decision-making tools and notification processes into the drill and exercise program.
Introduction. During the past three years, members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) staff conducted several activities to gain and maintain awareness of the state of emergency preparedness and response at the Pantex Plant. In October 2012, the staff team conducted a wide-scope program review supporting preparations for the Board's March 2013 public meeting and hearing in Amarillo, TX. After the public meeting and hearing, members of the Board's staff interacted with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Production Office (NPO) and the contractor
During each of these activities, the Board's staff team provided on-site feedback to NPO and the contractor, and culminated this exchange with a formal teleconference close-out brief on March 17, 2015. Pantex Plant personnel took action in response to some of the concerns identified during the activities noted above, but significant concerns still exist. The following section expands on observations provided to the Pantex Plant during the March 2015 teleconference and provides the technical basis for further Board action.
Observations. The Board's staff team's observations are organized into three main sections: the drill and exercise programs, notification and support to off-site agencies, and technical planning bases and decision-making tools.
Department of Energy (DOE) Order 151.1C
• A formal exercise program must be established to validate all elements of the emergency management program over a five-year period.
• Each exercise must have specific objectives and must be fully documented (
• Exercises must be evaluated.
• A critique process, which includes gathering and documenting observations of the participants, must be established.
• Corrective action items identified as a result of the critique process must be incorporated into the emergency management program.
Additionally, specified facility-level requirements include:
• Each DOE/NNSA facility subject to this chapter must exercise its emergency response capability annually and include at least facility-level evaluation and critique.
• DOE evaluations of annual facility exercises (
• Site-level emergency response organization elements and resources must participate in a minimum of one exercise annually. This site exercise must be designed to test and demonstrate the site's integrated emergency response capability. For multiple facility sites, the basis for the exercise must be rotated among facilities.
For the five-year period (2011-2015) reviewed by the Board's staff team, the following scenarios represent the totality of Pantex Plant's site-wide exercises:
• 2011: Explosion in a nuclear explosive facility with no contamination outside the facility.
• 2012: Seismic event leading to building damage (no radiological or hazardous material release).
• 2014a: Liquid nitrogen release from a truck accident (make-up for no exercise in 2013).
• 2014b: Severe event (tornado) table-top.
• 2015a: Severe event (seismic) with a transportation accident, wildfire, and mass casualty (no radiological or hazardous material release).
• 2015b: Security event with hazardous material release.
The Board's staff team reviewed documentation that showed some facilities at the Pantex Plant did not hold an evaluated activity to demonstrate response capability, regardless of whether the activity was a site-wide exercise, limited scope exercise, or other form of evaluation.
The Pantex Plant has a range of hazards that may challenge emergency responders and decision-makers. Natural phenomena such as tornados, fires, lightning strikes, and rain-induced flooding exist alongside operational activities involving hazardous and radiological materials. The Board's staff team observed, directly and by document review, the range of exercise scenarios being conducted and found them to be too limited compared to the range of hazards at the plant. Often these scenarios were simplistic and not sufficiently challenging to truly demonstrate response capability for the hazard being exercised. DOE Guide 151.1-3,
The potential for more significant consequences and complicated responses exists at the Pantex Plant's facilities. For example, a high explosive violent reaction has the potential to release radioactive material both on site, outside of the nuclear explosive facility (
The Pantex Plant has not consistently exercised all response elements between 2011 and 2015, which is insufficient to meet DOE requirements. There does not appear to be a deliberate approach to demonstrating integrated emergency response capability. For example, the August 2014 exercise [3] relied on to meet the annually required site-wide demonstration of proficiency, postulated a tornado affecting the site. This was the plant's first significant effort at exercising a severe event, but was also credited as the annual site-wide exercise. The Board's staff team observed that few field participants demonstrated their response capabilities. While this was a valuable training and planning activity for a severe event, this exercise was the sole site-wide event for that time period. The Board's staff team believes that it is appropriate to exercise a more complete array of site response elements, not just fire and rescue responders, demonstrating their proficiency. The 2013 exercise (conducted in January 2014) and the February 2015 exercise also did not involve significant field participation other than fire and rescue services. Within the last five years, Pantex has not completed a full participation exercise (
First, the objectives reviewed by the staff team were not always adequate to evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken by responders. For example, objectives do not always differentiate between taking an action and taking the right action in a timely fashion. The February 2015 exercise evaluation guide for the Plant Shift Superintendents (PSS) [5] included four criteria to evaluate the PSS's objective of
Another example of an objective from the February 2015 exercise that the staff team believes was not adequate involved processing information (see Figure 2). This objective evaluates the collection of information by the PSS, but does not evaluate communication of this information to responders. The PSS received information about trapped victims involved in an on-site transportation accident event involving a passenger vehicle and a material transporter, but did not verify that the Incident Commander took the correct response. In fact, the Incident Commander was not notified that the on-site transportation accident had occurred, and no action was taken for almost an hour, at which point the Fire Department responded. During the controller/evaluator after action critique, the objective was evaluated as “Met” based on the fact that the PSS received the information; although the controller/evaluator did note in the After Action Report that “No communication with the Incident Commander was observed” [6]. This objective did not require the controller/evaluator to adequately consider the quality of the action taken upon receipt of the information.
Second, if all objectives are weighted equally, the importance of certain actions over others cannot be distinguished. The Pantex Plant is undertaking an effort to change the grading scheme for emergency exercises to focus only on objective-by-objective performance and not incorporate any objective and criterion weighting or overall grade scheme. In the objective shown in Figure 1, selecting the correct protective action is a single criterion,
Last, the Pantex Plant could meet all of its exercise objectives but still fundamentally fail to protect the workers and public. The February 2015 exercise is an example. During the participant hot wash and controller/evaluator after-action critique, most objectives were determined to be “Met.” Yet, on-site first responders were potentially exposed to an off-site chemical hazard. This was not considered an objective and, therefore, did not influence the positive perception of the exercise results by the participants, controllers, and evaluators. Developing meaningful objectives requires a balance between criteria that are reasonably observable versus the need to confirm a subjective quality (
The Board's staff team believes that deficiencies in assessing performance in exercises also contribute to the continuing limited effectiveness of the emergency management program. Exercise participants conduct hot washes at the end of each exercise. The hot washes are intended to be a vehicle for participants to self-critique their response performance, including both positive and negative aspects, and to identify potential areas for improvement. The hot washes that the Board's staff team observed at the Pantex Plant tended to focus on faults with the exercise scenario rather than issues with emergency response performance. The participants raised issues such as the perception that a scenario was unrealistic or that controllers did not have adequate simulations for what the participants would observe in real-life. Many participant observations focused on deficiencies in administrative equipment and tools, such as printer or fax machine problems. While the readiness of these resources is important to an adequate response, the purpose of the exercise program is to demonstrate proficiency. Many participant observations also focused on the positive results of their actions, but failed to identify whether the actions taken would have been effective during the given emergency scenario. As a best practice, mature organizations tend to have an experienced functional team leader (
For each exercise, controllers and evaluators conducted after action critiques to collect data and observations about the performance of exercise response participants, as well as concerns with exercise control. While these were preliminary data gathering activities, the Board's staff team noted the same lack of critical assessment among the exercise evaluators. Evaluators did not explicitly compare the actions taken by participants to the expected or most desirable responses as they related to the fundamental purpose of emergency response. For example, while data on when a particular communication was faxed may have been collected, the quality and usefulness of the communication to inform its addressee were not evaluated. Discussions focused on specific functional area performance, as assessed against binary objectives such as a checklist, but did not address the effectiveness of interfaces between functional areas.
For example, during the February 2015 exercise, the EOC received information concerning an off-site release of a hazardous chemical from a train accident. The consequence assessment team performed modeling to inform decision-makers of the effect on plant personnel, including first responders. Fire Department personnel who responded to the on-site transportation accident were within the projected plume while performing rescue operations. Neither the PSS nor the EOC informed the Fire Department personnel of the potential exposure (
Notification to off-site organizations provides two important functions: first, it warns members of the public to take protective action in response to an accident; second, it initiates off-site response assets that can control access and conduct radiological monitoring. The notification processes used at the Pantex Plant may not provide enough time for protective action recommendations to be issued and executed before radioactive material is dispersed off-site. Any delay in notification adds to the time necessary for state response assets to deploy. Notification may be delayed due to the emergency action level (EAL) decision-making processes. Additionally, state radiological monitoring assets may be delayed in reaching the vicinity of Amarillo due to geographic constraints.
There are limited requirements in DOE Order 151.1C that specify how the site will plan for these events and handle off-site radiological monitoring. The Board's staff team notes that the Pantex Plant has made agreements, via memoranda of understanding, with state and local authorities to create communication channels for much of this information. However, these existing mechanisms do not provide the proactive support from the plant to the local community that is necessary to ensure any release of contamination is accurately tracked in a timely manner to ensure the protection of the public. Given that the Pantex Plant is close to public roads and land, and has the potential to release radiological material off site within minutes of an initiating event, stronger requirements in the Order are needed to ensure the plant performs effective off-site monitoring until the necessary State of Texas resources arrive.
To meet DOE Order 151.1C emergency planning element requirements, a site must conduct an all-hazard analysis. From this survey, certain accident sequences are selected for additional consideration in the EPHA. The EPHA provides the basis for developing the site's EALs. EALs, which are also required by DOE Order 151.1C, are used during an emergency event to determine the categorization and level of classification of the emergency event. When using an EAL, emergency response decision-makers attempt to answer two questions. First, is the event an operational emergency? Second, if so, what is the potential area of impact and the degree of emergency response? The safety basis development process uses a similar hazard analysis process. When developing a safety basis, some infrequent accidents may be screened out of further analysis if they have a low probability of occurrence. However, for the purposes of EPHAs, low-probability, high-consequence events should be further analyzed to determine the magnitude of potential consequences and the expected level of response. Guidance is provided in DOE's Emergency Management Guide 151.1-1a,
For events that Pantex Plant emergency management personnel have analyzed, the site uses EALs as a tool to determine if an operational emergency is occurring and the classification of the event, to notify site workers of the need for protective actions, and to notify the public of recommended protective actions. As currently developed, these EALs include a confirmatory step that may delay decision-makers providing these notifications and recommendations for protective actions for several minutes, possibly up to 30 minutes. The ability to provide notifications and recommendations for protective actions to workers and the public in a timely manner significantly increases the safety of these groups during operational emergencies. DOE
Pantex Plant emergency management personnel chose to use a decision tree model in their EALs, visually guiding an operator through decisions being made in response to an event on site. The example in Figure 3 below, taken from the Pantex EALs [12], shows the flow-path through decision making to action.
An operator—in the case of the Pantex Plant, the PSS—enters the EAL with relevant information concerning an emergency event. This leads the PSS to a conservative emergency categorization and classification. These classifications (Alert, Site Area Emergency, and General Emergency) ensure appropriate responses are taken given the anticipated magnitude of the accident consequences. In most radiological EALs at the Pantex Plant, the PSS receives initial information of emergency conditions from an instrumented signal. For example, coincident fire and radiation monitor alarms would indicate the presence of a possible fire with radioactive material release.
The Pantex Plant EALs also include confirmatory indicators as an explicit step in the decision-making process before classification can be performed. These are typically in the form of personnel providing eyewitness confirmatory statements about the nature of an event. From the EAL front matter [12], page 8:
These classification decisions allow the PSS to determine what, if any, protective actions are necessary for personnel on site and recommended protective actions for the public off site. Waiting for confirmation from first responders, if not provided by some other source, may cause a delay in the PSS issuing notifications and recommendations for protective actions to the workforce and the public. For example, in the following EAL, if no confirmatory information is provided, someone must be dispatched to confirm if an explosion truly occurred [12].
Similarly, note the reliance on personnel observations and inferences to assist the decision maker through appropriate classification of a fire in a nuclear explosive or special nuclear material facility [12].
In the following example, radiological support personnel must be dispatched, if not immediately available at the scene, to confirm the validity of a tritium release alarm before the appropriate emergency classification and protective actions are determined [12].
In the following example, it is not clear what a “Convincing Report” or combination of fire indicators is without further training or guidance on expectations for those who may report such events [12].
The specific examples provided, which are not intended to be all encompassing, demonstrate that the Pantex Plant emergency management strategy is reliant on confirmatory indicators and does not always provide sufficient guidance on how to accomplish the required confirmation. Immediate (or precautionary) protective actions, which protect the site workers in the short-term, would be delayed while additional assessment is performed. Such additional assessment would also delay notifying the off-site public of protective action recommendations. The Board's staff team believes changes to these procedures, or incorporation of additional instrumentation of adequate reliability, would provide the level of protection necessary to ensure a time-sensitive response to radiological accidents while minimizing false alarms.
Conclusions. The Board's staff team considers the concerns described above to be significant and concludes that the Pantex Plant's emergency management program will require Board action to influence DOE to address these deficiencies. The plant has made changes to specific programmatic elements; however, significant improvements have not yet been realized. Focused effort at addressing the concerns will substantially ensure protection of the workers and public at the Pantex Plant. Some specific actions to address these concerns include:
• Ensure the Pantex Plant drill and exercise programs comprehensively demonstrate proficiency in responding to emergencies for all hazards, all facilities, and all responders, consistent with the technical planning bases and any updates to them, over a five-year period in accordance with DOE Order 151.1C (or subsequent revisions). As part of this demonstration of proficiency:
○ Develop and institute a basis for conducting the drill program in support of emergency operations.
○ Strengthen the exercise program to provide an adequate number of challenging scenarios per year, including at least one full-scale site-wide exercise, in order to maintain qualifications and ensure proficiency of the emergency response organization and first responders.
○ Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the drill and exercise programs bases, schedule, and execution against a risk-ranked set of:
All hazards;
All facilities; and
All response elements.
○ Evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the NPO and contractor processes used to critique drills and exercises.
• Develop and implement processes and demonstrate the capabilities to:
○ Ensure the timeliness and accuracy of notifications to state and local authorities is commensurate with the initiation of off-site release of radioactive material at the Pantex Plant.
○ Provide consistent radiological monitoring support if an accident releases radiological material off-site, until state resources arrive and can assume responsibility for off-site monitoring.
• Evaluate, incorporate, and validate (correctness, completeness, and effectiveness), the following changes to the Pantex Plant decision-making tools and notification processes:
○ Evaluate the emergency action level (EAL) process for those accident scenarios identifiable solely via instrumented systems to reduce delays in determining and implementing protective actions.
○ For those accident scenarios that are not identifiable solely via instrumented systems, evaluate the range of emergency conditions and potential indicators, and identify where new monitoring systems can be added or existing administrative controls can
○ For all scenarios, evaluate if some protective actions should be initiated based solely on initial indicators (
○ Upon completion of these evaluations, incorporate new guidance and training for any changes made to the EAL decision-making tools and notification processes into the drill and exercise program.
The Board's staff team believes these problems will not be adequately addressed by Board's Recommendation 2014-1,
The recommendation addresses vulnerabilities in the Pantex Plant's implementation of Department of Energy (DOE) requirements for emergency preparedness and response. In accordance with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) enabling statue and Policy Statement 5 (PS-5),
The Board's assessment of risk may involve quantitative information showing that the order of magnitude of the risk is inconsistent with adequate protection of the health and safety of the workers and the public . . . the Board will explicitly document its assessment of risk when drafting recommendations to the Secretary of Energy in those cases where sufficient data exists to perform a quantitative risk assessment.
DOE's hazards assessments address initiating events, preventive and mitigative controls, and consequences. Initiating events in these assessments include operational and natural phenomena events. Preventive and mitigative controls are design basis controls identified in safety analysis documents. Consequences cover a wide spectrum, ranging from insignificant to catastrophic effects.
The emergency management program exists at the Pantex Plant because the risk associated with its facilities is acknowledged by DOE and is required by law. Emergency response provides the “last line of defense in the event of . . . [an] accident” [15]. Therefore, the emergency management program needs to function effectively to protect the workers and the public.
This recommendation is focused on improving the effectiveness of the Pantex Plant's emergency management program. A quantitative risk assessment on the effectiveness of this program requires data on probability and consequences. Detailed data on the probability of failure in emergency management program elements are not available for the Pantex Plant, nor do effective comparisons exist. Therefore, it is not possible to do a quantitative assessment of the risk of these elements to provide adequate protection of the workers and the public.
The Board believes that more robust implementation of existing requirements would reduce the risk associated with the spectrum of accidents postulated at the plant, regardless of the cause, including process upsets, the effects of natural phenomena, and man-made initiating events, as well as provide additional margin to respond to those events considered beyond the design basis.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Blythe Solar 110, LLC.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Powerex Corp.
Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Removal of Affiliate Waiver to be effective 11/1/2015.
Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Removal of Affiliate Waiver to be effective 11/1/2015.
Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Removal of Affiliate Tariff to be effective 11/1/2015.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities 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 November 18, 2015, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore), 1110 Forrest Avenue, Dover, Delaware 19904, filed in the above referenced docket an amendment to the certificate application in Docket No. CP15-18-000, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations. Eastern Shore proposes to construct Kemblesville Loop portion of the White Oak Mainline Expansion Project (Project) along existing right-of-way rather than along a new right-of-way, as was originally proposed all in Chester County, Pennsylvania, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
The filing may also be viewed on the Web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to William Rice, King & Spalding LLP, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006, by phone 202-626-9602, by fax 202-626-3737, or by email
Specifically, Eastern Shore originally proposed to construct a 3.9 mile long 16-inch diameter pipeline loop near Kemblesville, Pennsylvania (Kemblesville Loop) along new right-of-way away from the existing structures. However, upon closer review of the environmental impacts, Eastern Shore became aware that Alternative 2 route in the original filing would be more preferable. Alternative 2 route will (1) reduce the total length of the Kemblesville loop by 1.8 miles; (2) reduce the acreage of mature tree clearance from approximately 12 to approximately 6; (3) open up less forested acreage to the potential spread of noxious weeds and vines that over time could kill mature trees; and (4) minimize the removal of other vegetation thus reducing potential adverse impacts to Delaware River Basin. Eastern Shore requests that the Commission issue the requested authorizations during the first quarter of 2016, in order to allow Eastern Shore complete and place the project in service no later than September 1, 2016.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 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 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:
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 December 10, 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
Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. Please send an email to
* Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552b(c)(8) and (9).
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document clarifies procedure for reverse incentive auction payments for Auction 1001.
This is a summary of the
1. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) in response to a number of comments and inquiries clarified the circumstances under which the Commission will accept payment
2. In addition, the Bureau clarified that incentive payments will be disbursed only to a single payee and into a single account. Any division of payments (
3. The Bureau is not providing guidance on how the federal tax laws may apply to incentive payments. Specific procedures for disbursing payments, including the forms for submitting instructions and the necessary financial information, will be set forth by future public notice.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 10, 2015.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
(Issues include whether motions to reopen the cases should be granted by the Commission.)
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 28, 2015.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
World War One Centennial Commission, GSA.
Public Exhibition of Stage II Design Submittals.
Notice of this opportunity is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2). This notice provides information about a public display of design submissions for the National World War I Memorial at Pershing Park.
Daniel S. Dayton, Designated Federal Officer, c/o The Foundation for the Commemoration of the World Wars, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 123, Washington, DC 20004-2608, telephone number 202-380-0725 (note: this is not a toll-free number).
The World War One Centennial Commission was established by Public Law 112-272, as a commission to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of World War I, to provide for the designation of memorials to the service of members of the United States Armed Forces in World War I, and for other purposes including the enhancement of Pershing Park site of the National World War I Memorial. Under this authority, the Committee will plan, develop, and execute programs, projects, and activities to commemorate the centennial of World War I, encourage private organizations and State and local governments to organize and participate in activities commemorating the centennial of World War I, facilitate and coordinate activities throughout the United States relating to the centennial of World War I, serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about events and plans for the centennial of World War I, and develop recommendations for Congress and the President for commemorating the centennial of World War I.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of delisting.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to b-26, (Patient Safety Act) and the related Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule, 42 CFR part 3 (Patient Safety Rule), published in the
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on October 15, 2015.
Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS Web site:
Eileen Hogan, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 06N94B, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when the PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of federally approved PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification from Piedmont Clinic, Inc., a component entity of Piedmont Healthcare Inc., PSO number P0084, to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, Piedmont Clinic, Inc. was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on October 15, 2015.
Piedmont Clinic, Inc. has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO. In addition, according to sections 3.108(c)(2)(ii) and 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding disposition of PSWP, the PSO
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO Web site at
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a $554.00 calendar year (CY) 2016 application fee for institutional providers that are initially enrolling in the Medicare or Medicaid program or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP); revalidating their Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP enrollment; or adding a new Medicare practice location. This fee is required with any enrollment application submitted on or after January 1, 2016 and on or before December 31, 2016.
This notice is effective on January 1, 2016.
Frank Whelan, (410) 786-1302.
In the February 2, 2011
As indicated in §§ 424.514 and § 455.460, the application fee is not required for either of the following:
• A Medicare physician or non-physician practitioner submitting a CMS-855I.
• A prospective or revalidating Medicaid or CHIP provider—
++ Who is an individual physician or non-physician practitioner; or
++ That is enrolled in Title XVIII of the Act or another state's Title XIX or XXI plan and has paid the application fee to a Medicare contractor or another state.
In the December 5, 2014
• Section 1866(j)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Act established a $500 application fee for institutional providers in CY 2010.
• Consistent with section 1866(j)(2)(C)(i)(II) of the Act, § 424.514(d)(2) states that for CY 2011 and subsequent years, the preceding year's fee will be adjusted by the percentage change in the consumer price index (CPI) for all urban consumers (all items; United States city average, CPI-U) for the 12-month period ending on June 30 of the previous year.
• The CPI-U increase for CY 2011 was 1.0 percent, based on data obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This resulted in an application fee amount for CY 2011 of $505 (or $500 × 1.01).
• The CPI-U increase for the period of July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 was 3.54 percent, based on BLS data. This resulted in an application fee amount for CY 2012 of $522.87 (or $505 × 1.0354). In the aforementioned February 2, 2011 final rule, we stated that if the adjustment sets the fee at an uneven dollar amount, we would round the fee to the nearest whole dollar amount. Accordingly, the application fee amount for CY 2012 was rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount, or $523.00.
• The CPI-U increase for the period of July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 was 1.664 percent, based on BLS data. This resulted in an application fee amount for CY 2013 of $531.70 ($523 × 1.01664). Rounding this figure to the nearest whole dollar amount resulted in a CY 2013 application fee amount of $532.00.
• The CPI-U increase for the period of July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 was 1.8 percent, based on BLS data. This resulted in an application fee amount for CY 2014 of $541.576 ($532 × 1.018). Rounding this figure to the nearest whole dollar amount resulted in a CY 2014 application fee amount of $542.00.
• The CPI-U increase for the period of July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 was 2.1 percent, based on BLS data. This resulted in an application fee amount for CY 2015 of $553.382 ($542 × 1.021). Rounding this figure to the nearest whole dollar amount resulted in a CY 2015 application fee amount of $553.00.
Using BLS data, the CPI-U increase for the period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 was 0.2 percent. This results in a CY 2016 application fee amount of $554.106 ($553 × 1.002). As we must round this to the nearest whole dollar amount, the resultant application fee amount for CY 2016 is $554.00.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. However, it does reference previously approved information collections. The forms CMS-855A, CMS-855B, and CMS-855I are approved under OMB
We have examined the impact of this notice as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), and the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity. A regulatory impact analysis (RIA) must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). As explained in this section of the notice, we estimate that the total cost of the increase in the application fee will not exceed $100 million. Therefore, this notice does not reach the $100 million economic threshold and is not considered a major notice.
The costs associated with this notice involve the increase in the application fee amount that certain providers and suppliers must pay in CY 2016.
In the December 5, 2014 application fee notice, we estimated that based on CMS statistics—
• 10,000 newly enrolling Medicare institutional providers would be subject to and pay an application fee in CY 2015.
• 35,000 revalidating Medicare institutional providers would be subject to and pay an application fee in CY 2015.
• 8,438 newly enrolling Medicaid and CHIP providers would be subject to and pay an application fee in CY 2015.
• 19,421 revalidating Medicaid and CHIP providers would be subject to and pay an application fee in CY 2015.
Based on CMS data, we estimate that in CY 2016 approximately—
• 10,000 newly enrolling institutional providers will be subject to and pay an application fee; and
• 45,000 revalidating institutional providers will be subject to and pay an application fee.
Using a figure of 55,000 (10,000 newly enrolling + 45,000 revalidating) institutional providers, we estimate an increase in the cost of the Medicare application fee requirement in CY 2016 of $5,585,000 (or (10,000 additional newly enrolling or revalidating institutional providers × $554) + (45,000 × $1.00) from our CY 2015 projections and as previously described.
Based on CMS and state statistics, we estimate that approximately 30,000 (9,000 newly enrolling + 21,000 revalidating) Medicaid and CHIP institutional providers will be subject to an application fee in CY 2016. Using this figure, we project an increase in the cost of the Medicaid and CHIP application fee requirement in CY 2016 of $1,213,973 (or ((562 additional newly enrolling institutional providers + 1,579 additional revalidating institutional providers, or 2,141 total additional institutional providers) × $554) + 27,859 × $1.00) from our CY 2015 projections and as previously described.
Based on the foregoing, we estimate the total increase in the cost of the application fee requirement for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP providers and suppliers in CY 2016 to be $6,798,973 ($5,585,000 + $1,213,973) from our CY 2015 projections.
The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.5 million to $38.5 million in any 1 year. Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small entity. As we stated in the RIA for the February 2, 2011 final rule with comment period (76 FR 5952), we do not believe that the application fee will have a significant impact on small entities.
In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area for Medicare payment regulations and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act because we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this notice would not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2015, that threshold is approximately $144 million. The Agency has determined that there will be minimal impact from the costs of this notice, as the threshold is not met under the UMRA.
Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has federalism implications. Since this notice does not impose substantial direct costs on state or local governments, the requirements of Executive Order 13132 are not applicable.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Recommendations for Assessment of Blood Donor Suitability, Donor Deferral and Blood Product Management in Response to Ebola Virus; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document provides blood establishments that collect blood and blood components for transfusion or further manufacture, including Source Plasma, with FDA recommendations for assessing blood donor suitability, donor deferral, and blood product management in the event that an outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD) with widespread transmission is declared in at least one country. The draft guidance document applies primarily to Ebola virus (species
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by March 2, 2016.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
•
Paul E. Levine, Jr., Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Recommendations for Assessment of Blood Donor Suitability, Donor Deferral and Blood Product Management in Response to Ebola Virus; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document provides blood establishments that collect blood and blood components for transfusion or further manufacture, including Source Plasma, with FDA recommendations for assessing blood donor suitability, donor deferral, and blood product management in the event that an outbreak of EVD with widespread transmission is declared in at least one country.
Ebola virus is a member of the family
Transmission of Ebola virus from human to human occurs by direct contact with body fluids (such as blood, urine, stool, saliva, semen, vaginal fluids, or vomit) of symptomatic infected individuals. Therefore, blood and blood products from symptomatic individuals, if they were to donate, would have the potential of transmitting Ebola virus to recipients.
Current regulations 21 CFR 640.3(b) and 21 CFR 640.63(b)(3) require that a donor be in good health with a normal temperature at the time of donation. Standard procedures that are in place to assure that the donor feels healthy at the time of donation serve as an effective safeguard against collecting blood or blood components from a donor who seeks to donate after the onset of clinical symptoms. FDA is providing guidance to reduce the risks of collecting blood and blood components from potentially Ebola virus-infected persons during the asymptomatic incubation period before the onset of clinical symptoms, as well as from individuals with a history of Ebola virus infection or disease.
The draft guidance permits blood establishments to update their donor educational materials to instruct donors with a history of Ebola virus infection or disease to not donate blood or blood components. In the event that one or more countries is designated as having widespread transmission of Ebola virus, the draft guidance includes recommendations to blood establishments to update their donor history questionnaire (DHQ), including the full-length and abbreviated DHQ and accompanying materials, to assess prospective donors for risk of Ebola virus infection or disease. The draft guidance also includes recommendations to blood establishments to defer indefinitely a blood donor with a history of Ebola virus infection or disease, until more data regarding the persistence of Ebola virus in survivors becomes available. For a donor who in the past 8 weeks has been a resident of or has travelled to a country with widespread transmission of Ebola virus disease, FDA recommends that establishments defer the donor for 8 weeks from the time of the donor's departure from that country. For a donor who has had close contact with a person confirmed or under investigation for Ebola virus infection or disease in whom diagnosis is pending, FDA recommends that establishments defer a donor for 8 weeks after the last close contact that could have resulted in direct contact with body fluids, or 8 weeks after the last sexual contact with a person known to have recovered from Ebola virus disease. In addition, FDA recommends that establishments defer for a period of 8 weeks after exposure a donor who has been notified by a Federal, State, or local public health authority that he or she may have been exposed to a person with Ebola virus disease.
The draft guidance includes FDA recommendations on retrieval and quarantine of blood and blood components from a donor later determined to have Ebola virus infection or disease or risk factors for Ebola virus infection or disease, for notification of consignees, and for reporting a biological product deviation to FDA. The draft guidance also addresses convalescent plasma intended for transfusion.
The draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Recommendations for Assessment of Blood Donor Suitability, Donor Deferral and Blood Product Management in Response to Ebola Virus; Draft Guidance for Industry.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
The draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR 601.12 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; the collections of information in 21 CFR 606.160(b)(1)(i), 640.3(a) and 640.63(b)(3) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0116; the collection of information in 21 CFR 606.171 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0458.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Protest. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before February 1, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments may be mailed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
The matters that may be protested include: The appraised value of merchandise; the classification and rate and amount of duties chargeable; all charges within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; exclusion of merchandise from entry or delivery, or demand for redelivery; the liquidation or reliquidation of an entry; and the refusal to pay a claim for drawback.
The parties who may file a protest or application for further review include: the importer or consignee shown on the entry papers, or their sureties; any person paying any charge or exaction; any person seeking entry or delivery, or upon whom a demand for redelivery has been made; any person filing a claim for drawback; or any authorized agent of any of the persons described above.
CBP Form 19 collects information such as the name and address of the protesting party, information about the entry being protested, detailed reasons for the protest, justification for applying for further review.
The information collected on CBP Form 19 is authorized by Sections 514 and 514(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and provided for by 19 CFR part 174. This form is accessible at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: User Fees. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments should be received on or before February 1, 2016 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments may be mailed to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Attn: Tracey Denning, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
In addition, CBP requires express consignment courier facilities (ECCFs) to file lists of couriers using the facility in accordance with 19 CFR 128.11. In cases of overpayments, carriers using the courier facilities may send a request
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2016. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by February 1, 2016.
Send your comments on the IC to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or
To request additional information about this IC, contact Hope Grey at
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742d) designate the Department of the Interior as the key agency responsible for managing migratory bird populations that frequent the United States and for setting harvest regulations that allow for the conservation of those populations. These responsibilities include gathering accurate geographical and temporal data on various characteristics of migratory bird harvest. We use harvest data to review regulation proposals and to issue harvest regulations.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Protocol Amendment (1995) (Amendment) provides for the customary and traditional use of migratory birds and their eggs for subsistence use by indigenous inhabitants of Alaska. The Amendment states that its intent is not to cause significant increases in the take of species of migratory birds relative to their continental population sizes. A submittal letter from the Department of State to the White House (May 20, 1996) accompanied the Amendment and specified the need for harvest monitoring. The submittal letter stated that the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG), and Alaska Native organizations would collect harvest information cooperatively within the subsistence eligible areas. Harvest survey data help to ensure that customary and traditional subsistence uses of migratory birds and their eggs by indigenous inhabitants of Alaska do not significantly increase the take of species of migratory birds relative to their continental population sizes.
Between 1989 and 2004, we monitored subsistence harvest of migratory birds using annual household surveys in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, which is the region of highest subsistence bird harvest in the State of Alaska. In 2004, we began monitoring subsistence harvest of migratory birds in subsistence eligible areas Statewide. The Statewide harvest assessment program helps to track trends and changes in levels of harvest. The harvest assessment program relies on collaboration among the Service, the ADFG, and a number of Alaska Native organizations.
We gather information on the annual subsistence harvest of about 60 bird species/species categories (ducks, geese, swans, cranes, upland game birds, seabirds, shorebirds, and grebes and loons) in the subsistence eligible areas of Alaska. The survey covers 11 regions of Alaska, which are further divided into 29 subregions. We survey the regions and villages in a rotation schedule to accommodate budget constraints and to minimize respondent burden. The survey covers spring, summer, and fall harvest in most regions.
In collaboration with Alaska Native organizations, we hire local resident surveyors to collect the harvest information. The surveyors list all households in the villages to be surveyed and provide survey information and harvest report forms to randomly selected households that have agreed to participate in the survey. To ensure anonymity of harvest information, we identify households by a numeric code. The surveyor visits households three times during the
We have designed the survey methods to streamline procedures and reduce respondent burden. We plan to use two forms for household participation:
• FWS Form 3-2380 (Tracking Sheet and Household Consent). The surveyor visits each household selected to participate in the survey to provide information on the objectives and to obtain household consent to participate. The surveyor uses this form to record consent and track subsequent visits for completion of harvest reports.
• FWS Forms 3-2381-1, 3-2381-2, 3-2381-3, and 3-2381-4 (Harvest Report). The Harvest Report has drawings of bird species most commonly available for harvest in the different regions of Alaska, with fields for writing down the numbers of birds and eggs taken. There are four versions of this form: Interior Alaska, North Slope, Southern Coastal Alaska, and Western Alaska. This form has a sheet for each season surveyed, and each sheet has fields for the household code, community name, harvest year, date of completion, and comments.
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. 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 Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs published a document in the
Elizabeth K. Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, (202) 273-4680;
In the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) California Desert District Advisory Council (DAC) will meet as indicated below.
The DAC will participate in a field tour of BLM-administered public lands on Friday, December 4, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and will meet in formal session on Saturday, December 5, 2015, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in El Centro, California. Members of the public are welcome. They must provide their own transportation, meals and beverages. Final agendas for the Friday field trip and the Saturday public meeting, along with the Saturday meeting location, will be posted on the DAC Web page at
Stephen Razo, BLM California Desert District External Affairs, 1-951-697-5217. 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 individuals. You will receive a reply during normal hours.
All DAC meetings are open to the public. The 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management on BLM-administered lands in the California desert. Public comment for items not on the agenda will be scheduled at the beginning of the meeting Saturday morning. Time for public comment is made available by the council chairman during the presentation of various agenda items, and is scheduled at the end of the meeting for topics not on the agenda.
While the Saturday meeting is tentatively scheduled from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., the meeting could conclude prior to 5:00 p.m. should the council conclude its presentations and discussions. Therefore, members of the public interested in a particular agenda item or discussion should schedule their arrival accordingly. Agenda for the Saturday meeting will include updates by council members, the BLM California Desert District Manager, five Field Managers, and council subgroups. Focus topics for the meeting will include renewable energy, Salton Sea, and geothermal. Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land Management, External Affairs, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553. Written comments also are accepted at the time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, will be incorporated into the minutes.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the acquisition of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) land in the East Everglades Expansion Area (EEEA), Everglades National Park, Florida.
The NPS will execute the Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of its Notice of Availability of the Final EIS in the
Electronic copies of the Final EIS will be available online at
Brien Culhane, Everglades National Park, 40001 State Road 9336, Homestead, FL 33034-6733 or by telephone at (305) 242-7717.
The Final EIS addresses alternatives for NPS acquisition of existing FPL land located within the park, or of a sufficient interest in the property, to facilitate hydrologic and ecologic restoration of the park and the Everglades ecosystem. The acquisition of the existing FPL parcel is needed to support the goals of restoring the Northeast Shark River Slough and to fulfill the purposes of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Acquisition of land within the EEEA through an exchange of lands with FPL is legally authorized by Public Law 111-11 (March 30, 2009).
The Final EIS describes five alternatives. The Final EIS addresses the potential impacts from the acquisition of FPL land in the park, as well as the indirect impacts that could result from the subsequent construction and operation of transmission lines, which could be built either inside or outside the park as a result of the land acquisition alternative selected. The following describes each of the alternatives included in the Final EIS:
Alternative 1a, No NPS Action—No FPL Construction (environmental baseline): The NPS would not take action to acquire FPL property within the park. This alternative assumes that FPL would not construct transmission lines on its existing land in the park, in the exchange corridor, or in any area outside the park.
Alternative 1b, No NPS Action—FPL Construction in the Park: the NPS would not take action to acquire FPL property within the park, the same as alternative 1a, but this alternative assumes that FPL would construct transmission lines on its existing land in the park.
Alternative 2, NPS Acquisition of FPL Land: the NPS would acquire the FPL property by purchase or through the exercise of eminent domain authority by the United States. This alternative would result in an increase of 320 acres of NPS-owned land within the authorized boundary of the park and would allow for flowage of water on this property. This alternative assumes that FPL would likely acquire a replacement corridor east of the existing park boundary within or adjacent to the FPL and Miami-Dade Limestone Products Association (MDLPA) West Consensus Corridor to meet its transmission needs, and the transmission lines would be built outside the park. Alternative 2 is the environmentally preferable alternative.
Alternative 3 (NPS Preferred Alternative), Fee for Fee Land Exchange: the NPS would acquire fee title to the FPL property through an exchange for park property, as authorized by the exchange legislation. NPS land conveyed to FPL (the “exchange corridor”) would consist of 260 acres along 6.5 miles of the eastern boundary of the EEEA. The NPS would also convey to FPL a 90-foot-wide perpetual
This alternative has been revised from the Draft EIS to the Final EIS due to updated transmission line siting requirements included in the state site certification process, which were not available in time for the Draft EIS. The final order directed FPL to avoid siting any transmission lines in the park and pursue the use of the West Consensus Corridor as the primary corridor for siting transmission lines. The FPL West Preferred Corridor (which includes the NPS exchange lands) would only be used for transmission lines if FPL cannot secure an adequate right-of-way within the FPL West Consensus Corridor (outside of the park boundary) in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. FPL's success in acquiring interests in the West Consensus Corridor would minimize or eliminate the amount of property in the exchange corridor required for these transmission lines.
In the Final EIS, this alternative now includes a commitment that FPL shall reconvey to the NPS all acreage in the exchange corridor that is determined to be unneeded by FPL to build the transmission lines. FPL would not develop land within the exchange corridor until completing the requirements of the site certification process and determining land ownership needs. The park boundary would be adjusted after the reconveyance, so that it reflects the actual final land ownership between FPL and NPS. These commitments would be identified in a binding exchange agreement between the two parties.
Alternative 4, Easement for Fee Land Exchange: the NPS would acquire fee title to the FPL property through an exchange for an easement on NPS property. This is similar to alternative 3, except that NPS would grant FPL an easement for potential transmission line construction (not fee title) over the lands along the eastern boundary of the EEEA, in accordance with the terms and conditions developed for this easement for fee exchange. The NPS would retain ownership of the corridor, but would no longer have unencumbered use of it. The NPS would also convey a 90-foot-wide perpetual nonnative vegetation management easement to FPL adjacent to the entire length of the exchange corridor. The easement for fee land exchange would be subject to terms and conditions that are to be agreed upon between NPS and FPL and incorporated into a binding exchange agreement. Similar to alternative 3, the FPL easement corridor would be subject to a perpetual flowage easement.
Alternative 5, Perpetual Flowage Easement on FPL Property: the NPS would acquire a perpetual flowage easement on FPL's property within the EEEA through purchase, condemnation, or donation by FPL. FPL would retain ownership of its corridor in the park during the term of the easement and could seek to site transmission lines there. The flowage allowed under this easement would allow sufficient water flow over this area to support ecosystem restoration projects. The construction scenario associated with this alternative would be the same as the one for alternative 1B (FPL construction of transmission lines on its existing land in the park).
The Final EIS responds to, and incorporates, agency and public comments received on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was available for public review and comment for 60 days from January 17, 2014, through March 18, 2014. During the comment period, 275 pieces of correspondence were received. Two of these were petitions or letters containing 14,075 total signatures; a third form letter contained 178 signatures and 70 individual pieces of correspondence, which are included in the 275 total comments received. Alternative 2 is the environmentally preferable alternative and alternative 3 is the NPS preferred alternative.
The responsible official for this EIS is the Regional Director, NPS Southeast Region, 100 Alabama Street SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
United States International Trade Commission.
December 11, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-549 and 731-TA-1299-1303 (Preliminary) (Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations on December 14, 2015; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on December 21, 2015.
5. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-550 and 731-TA-1304-1305 (Preliminary) (Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and China). The Commission is currently scheduled to be completed and filed on December 14, 2015; views of the Commission are currently scheduled to be completed and filed on December 21, 2015.
6. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 29, 2015, Mylan Technologies, Inc., 110 Lake Street, Saint Albans, Vermont 05478 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the company's own domestically-manufactured FDF. This analysis is required to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured FDF to foreign markets.
Notice of registration.
Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC applied to be registered as an importer of a certain basic class of controlled substance. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC registration as an importer of this controlled substance.
By notice dated September 16, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of remifentanil (9739), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for product development and preparation of stability batches.
Notice of registration.
United States Pharmacopeial Convention applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants United States Pharmacopeial Convention registration as an importer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated June 25, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of United States Pharmacopeial Convention to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in bulk powder form from foreign sources for the manufacture of analytical reference standards for sale to their customers.
The company plans to import analytical reference standards for distribution to its customers for research and analytical purposes. Placement of these drug codes onto the company's registration does not translate into automatic approval of subsequent permit applications to import controlled substances. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under to 21 U.S.C 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Notice of registration.
Navinta, LLC applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Navinta, LLC registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.
By notice dated June 25, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Navinta, LLC to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans initially to manufacture API quantities of the listed controlled substances for validation purposes and FDA approval, then eventually upon FDA approval to produce commercial size batches for distribution to dosage form manufacturers.
Notice of registration.
Akorn, Inc. applied to be registered as an importer of a certain basic class of controlled substance. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Akorn, Inc. registration as an importer of this controlled substance.
By notice dated September 1, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Akorn, Inc. to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of remifentanil (9739), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import remifentanil in dosage form for distribution.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before January 4, 2016. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before January 4, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 20, 2015, Meridian Medical Technologies, 2555 Hermelin Drive, Saint Louis, Missouri 63144 applied to be registered as an importer of morphine (9300), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company manufactures a product containing morphine in the United States. The company exports this product to customers around the world. The company has been asked to ensure that its product, which is sold to European customers, meets the standards established by the European Pharmacopeia, administered by the Directorate for the Quality of Medicines (EDQM). In order to ensure that its product will meet European specifications, the company seeks to import morphine supplied by EDQM for use as reference standards.
This is the sole purpose for which the company will be authorized by the DEA to import morphine.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before January 4, 2016. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before January 4, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on October 12, 2015, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 781 Chestnut Ridge Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the company's own domestically-manufactured FDF. This analysis is required to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured FDF to foreign markets.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before February 1, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on September 7, 2015, Organix, Inc., 240 Salem Street, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture reference standards for distribution to its research and forensics customers. In reference to drug codes 7360 (marihuana) and 7370 (THC) the company plans to manufacture these drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before February 1, 2016.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on October 6, 2015, Noramco, Inc., 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801-4417 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:
The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers.
Notice of registration.
Catalent CTS, LLC applied to be registered as an importer of a certain basic class of controlled substance. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Catalent CTS, LLC registration as an importer of this controlled substance.
By notice dated August 21, 2015, and published in the
The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Catalent CTS, LLC to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of marihuana (7360), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule I.
The company plans to import finished pharmaceutical products containing cannabis extracts in dosage form for clinical trial studies.
This compound is listed under drug code 7360. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration. Approval of permits applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under to 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Notice.
On November 30, 2015 the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before January 4, 2016.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Standard information collection. The HAZWOPER Standard specifies a number of information collection requirements. Employers can use the information collected under the HAZWOPER rule to develop the various programs the Standard requires and to ensure that their workers are trained properly about the safety and health hazards associated with hazardous waste operations and emergency response to hazardous waste releases. The OSHA uses the records developed in response to this Standard to determine adequate compliance with the Standard's safety and health provisions. An employer's failure to collect and distribute information required in this standard will significantly affect OSHA efforts to control and reduce injuries and fatalities. Such failure would also be contrary to the direction Congress provided in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Notice.
On November 30, 2015, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) revision titled, “Respirable Coal Mine Dust Sampling,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before January 4, 2016.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or sending an email to
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks approval under the PRA for revisions to the Respirable Coal Mine Dust Sampling. This information collection has been classified as a revision, because it increases burden based on provisions transferred to this collection from the request approved under ICR Reference Number, 201210-1219-002. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 section 103(h) authorizes this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “The 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane Standard,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before January 4, 2016.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at
Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910-1044. The Standard mandates an Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) covered employer subject to the Standard to train workers about the hazards of DBCP, to monitor worker exposure, to provide medical surveillance, and to maintain accurate records of worker exposure to DBCP. Employers, workers, physicians, and the Government use these records to ensure workers are not harmed by exposure to DBCP in the workplace. OSH Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange seeks to expand the End of Week/End of Month Pilot Program to permit P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes to expire on any Wednesday of the month. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below (additions are
(a) No change.
(b) End of Week Expirations
(a)-(d) No change.
(e)
(1) End of Week (“EOW”) Expirations. The Exchange may open for trading EOWs on any
The maximum numbers of expirations that may be listed for EOWs is the same as the maximum numbers of expirations permitted in Rule 24.9(a)(2) for standard options on the same broad-based index.
(2) End of Month (“EOM”) Expirations. The Exchange may open for trading EOMs on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on last trading day of the month. EOMs shall be subject to all provisions of this Rule and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on [on] the third Friday of the expiration month; provided, however, that EOMs shall be P.M.-settled.
The maximum numbers of expirations that may be listed for EOMs is the same as the maximum numbers of expirations permitted in Rule 24.9(a)(2) for standard options on the same broad-based index. EOM expirations shall be for [the nearest]
[(3)]
[(4)]
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On September 14, 2010, the Commission approved a CBOE proposal to establish a pilot program under which the Exchange is permitted to list P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes to expire on (a) any Friday of the month, other than the third Friday-of-the-month (“EOWs”), and (b) the last trading day of the month (“EOM”).
The purpose of this filing is to expand the Pilot to permit P.M.-settled options on broad-based indexes to expire on any Wednesday of the month (“WEDs”), other than Wednesdays that are EOM. To expand the Pilot as described, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 24.9(e)(3) to expressly provide the Exchange with the ability to list P.M.-settled WEDs on broad-based indexes eligible for options trading. In order to allow data regarding WEDs to be collected, this proposal seeks to extend the duration of the Pilot to May 3, 2017.
With respect to Wednesday expirations, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 24.9(e)(3) by adding the following rule text
Wednesday (“WED”) Expirations. The Exchange may open for trading WEDs on any broad-based index eligible for standard options trading to expire on any Wednesday of the month, other than a Wednesday that is EOM. WEDs shall be subject to all provisions of this Rule and treated the same as options on the same underlying index that expire on the third Friday of the expiration month; provided, however, that WEDs shall be P.M.-settled.
WEDs will be subject to the same rules that currently govern the trading of traditional index options, including sales practice rules, margin requirements, and floor trading procedures. Contract terms for WEDs will be similar to EOWs.
With respect to the maximum number of expirations, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 24.9(e)(3) by adding the following rule text:
The maximum numbers of expirations that may be listed for WEDs is the same as the maximum numbers of expirations permitted
In support of this change, CBOE states that under Rule 24.9(a)(2), the maximum numbers [sic] of expirations varies depending on the type of class or by specific class. Therefore, the maximum number of expirations permitted for WEDs on a given class would be determined based on the specific broad-based index option class. For example, if the broad-based index option class is used to calculate a volatility index, the maximum number of WEDs permitted in that class would be 12 expirations (as is permitted in Rule 24.9(a)(2)).
For WEDs, CBOE proposes that other than expirations that coincide with an EOM expiration, WED expirations shall be for consecutive Wednesday expirations.
CBOE also proposes to follow the listing hierarchy described in the original Pilot filing, which provides that if the last trading day of the month is a Friday, the Exchange will list an EOM instead of an EOW.
Finally, CBOE proposes to add that other expirations in the same class would not be counted as part of the maximum numbers of WED expirations for a broad-based index class. CBOE states that this provision is modeled after the maximum number of expirations applicable to EOW and EOM options.
CBOE has analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any additional traffic associated with the listing of the maximum number of WED expirations permitted under the Pilot.
Since WEDs will be a new type of series and not a new class, the Exchange proposes that WEDs on the same broad-based index (
As part of adding WED expirations to the existing EOW/EOM Pilot Program, the Exchange believes it is necessary to retitle paragraph (e) of Rule 24.9. Thus, the Exchange proposes to retitle the Pilot as the “Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program.”
As part of the Pilot, the Exchange currently submits a Pilot report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) at least two months prior to the expiration date of the Pilot (the “annual report”) . The annual report contains an analysis of volume, open interest and trading patterns. In addition, for series that exceed certain minimum open interest parameters, the annual report provides analysis of index price volatility and, if needed, share trading activity. The annual report will be expanded to provide the same data and analysis related to WED expirations as is currently provided for EOW and EOM expirations.
The Pilot is currently set to expire on May 3, 2016. As the annual report is provided at least two months prior the expiration date of the Pilot, there would not be significant data concerning WED expirations in the next annual report, which is due in approximately February 2016. Thus, the Exchange is seeking to extend the pilot to May 3, 2017. The Exchange will still provide an annual report in approximately February 2016 that covers EOWs, EOMs, and WEDs.
For EOW, EOM, and WED series, the annual report will contain the following volume and open interest data for each broad-based index overlying EOW, EOM, and WED options:
(1) Monthly volume aggregated for all EOW, EOM, and WED series,
(2) Volume in EOW, EOM, and WED series aggregated by expiration date,
(3) Month-end open interest aggregated for all EOW, EOM, and WED series,
(4) Month-end open interest for EOM series aggregated by expiration date, week-ending open interest for EOW series aggregated by expiration date, and Wednesday-ending open interest for WED series aggregated by expiration date,
(5) Ratio of monthly aggregate volume in EOW, EOM, and WED series to total monthly class volume, and
(6) Ratio of month-end open interest in EOM series to total month-end class open interest, ratio of week-ending open interest in EOW series to total week-ending open interest, and ratio of Wednesday-ending open interest in WED series to total week-ending open interest.
Upon request by the SEC, CBOE will provide a data file containing: (1) EOW, EOM, and WED option volume data aggregated by series, and (2) EOW week-ending open interest for expiring series, EOM month-end open interest for expiring series, and WED Wednesday-ending open interest for expiring series.
In the annual report, CBOE also proposes to identify EOW, EOM, and WED trading patterns by undertaking a time series analysis of open interest in EOW, EOM, and WED series aggregated by expiration date compared to open interest in near-term standard Expiration Friday A.M.-settled series in order to determine whether users are shifting positions from standard series to EOW, EOM, and WED series. Declining open interest in standard series accompanied by rising open interest in EOW, EOM, and WED series would suggest that users are shifting positions.
For each EOW, EOM, and WED Expiration that has open interest that exceeds certain minimum thresholds, the annual report will contain the following analysis related to index price changes and, if needed, underlying share trading volume at the close on expiration dates:
(1) A comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on a given expiration date with comparable price changes from a control sample. The data will include a calculation of percentage price changes for various time intervals and compare that information to the respective control sample. Raw percentage price change data as well as percentage price change data normalized for prevailing market volatility, as measured by the CBOE Volatility Index (“VIX”), will be provided; and
(2) if needed, a calculation of share volume for a sample set of the component securities representing an upper limit on share trading that could be attributable to expiring in-the-money EOW, EOM, and WED expirations. The data, if needed, will include a comparison of the calculated share volume for securities in the sample set to the average daily trading volumes of those securities over a sample period.
The minimum open interest parameters, control sample, time intervals, method for selecting the component securities, and sample periods will be determined by the Exchange and the Commission.
In support of this proposal, the Exchange states that it trades other types of series and FLEX Options
The Exchange trades P.M.-settled EOW expirations, which provide market participants a tool to hedge special events and to reduce the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange seeks to introduce P.M.-settled WED expirations to, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and to continue the reduction of premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes that a WED expiration, similar to EOW expirations, would allow market participants to purchase an option based on their needed timing and allow them to tailor their investment or hedging needs more effectively. With SPX WEDs in particular, the Exchange believes VIX options and futures traders will be able to use SPX WEDs to more effectively manage the pricing complexity and risk of VIX options and futures. In addition, because P.M.-settlement permits trading throughout the day on the day the contract expires, the Exchange believes this feature will permit market participants to more effectively manage overnight risk and trade out of their positions up until the time the contract settles.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the EOW/EOM Pilot has been successful to date and that WEDs simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risks against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same way that EOWs and EOMs have expanded the landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange believes WEDs should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and provide customers with the ability to more closely tailor their investment objectives.
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intramarket competition as all market participants will be treated in the same manner as existing EOWs and EOMs. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition as market participants on other exchanges are welcome to become Trading Permit Holders and trade at CBOE if they determine that this proposed rule change has made CBOE more attractive or favorable. Finally, although the majority of the Exchange's broad-based index options are exclusively-listed at CBOE, all options exchanges are free to compete by listing and trading their own broad-based index options that expire on Wednesdays.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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.
The Overseas Schools Advisory Council, Department of State, will hold its Executive Committee Meeting on Thursday, January 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. in conference room 1498, Marshall Center, Department of State Building, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public and will last until approximately 12:00 p.m.
The Overseas Schools Advisory Council works closely with the U.S. business community to improve American-sponsored schools overseas that are assisted by the Department of State and attended by dependents of U.S. government employees, and children of employees of U.S. corporations and foundations abroad.
This meeting will deal with issues related to the work and support provided by the Overseas Schools Advisory Council to the American-sponsored overseas schools. There will be a report and discussion about the status of the Council-sponsored projects such as The World Virtual School and The Child Protection Project. The Regional Education Officers in the Office of Overseas Schools will make presentations on the activities and initiatives in the American-sponsored overseas schools.
Members of the public may attend the meeting and join in the discussion, subject to the instructions of the Chair. Admittance of public members will be limited to the seating available. Access to the State Department is controlled, and individual building passes are required for all attendees. Persons who plan to attend should advise the office of Dr. Keith D. Miller, Department of State, Office of Overseas Schools, telephone 202-261-8200, prior to January 14, 2016. Each visitor will be asked to provide his/her date of birth and either a driver's license or passport number at the time of registration and attendance, and must carry a valid photo ID to the meeting.
Personal data is requested pursuant to Public Law 99-399 (Omnibus
Any requests for reasonable accommodation should be made at the time of registration. All such requests will be considered, however, requests made after January 14, 2016, might not be possible to fill. All attendees must use the C Street entrance to the building.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the International Organizations Immunities Act (the Act), and delegated on November 19, 2015, and to the extent consistent with law, I hereby delegate to the following officers the authorities and functions contained in Section 8 of the Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 288e):
(1) The Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Foreign Missions;
(2) the Chief of Protocol and Assistant Chief of Protocol for Diplomatic Affairs; and
(3) the Deputy Permanent Representative and Minister Counselor for Host Country Affairs, of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, New York.
Notwithstanding any provisions herein, the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, or the Under Secretary for Management may at any time exercise the functions herein delegated. Any act, executive order, regulation, manual or procedure subject to, affected, or incorporated by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation, manual or procedure as amended from time to time.
This document shall be published in the
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and the International Organizations Immunities Act (the Act), and delegated pursuant to Delegation of Authority 245-1, dated February 13, 2009, I hereby delegate to the Under Secretary for Management, to the extent consistent with law, the authorities and functions contained in Section 8 of the Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 288e).
This authority may be re-delegated to the extent consistent with law.
Any actions related to the functions described herein that may have been taken prior to the date of this delegation of authority by the Office of the Chief of Protocol; the U.S. Mission to the United Nations; or the Office of Foreign Missions, are hereby confirmed and ratified. Such actions shall remain in force as if taken under this delegation of authority, unless or until such actions are rescinded, amended or superseded.
Notwithstanding any provisions herein, the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, or the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources may at any time exercise the functions herein delegated. Any act, executive order, regulation, manual or procedure subject to, affected, or incorporated by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation, manual or procedure as amended from time to time.
This document shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before December 23, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-4360 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267-4025, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before December 23, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-4436 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For technical questions concerning this action, contact Nia Daniels, (202) 267-7626, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20009.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before December 23, 2015.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-3898 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Keira Jones (202) 267-4025, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the obligation of Federal-aid funds for 74 State projects involving the acquisition of vehicles and equipment on the condition that they be assembled in the U.S.
The effective date of the waiver is December 4, 2015.
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Gerald Yakowenko, FHWA Office of Program Administration, 202-366-1562, or via email at
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the
This notice provides information regarding FHWA's finding that a Buy America waiver is appropriate for the obligation of Federal-aid funds for 74 State projects involving the acquisition of vehicles (including sedans, vans, pickups, trucks, buses, and street sweepers) and equipment (such as Bridge snooper truck and trail grooming equipment) on the condition that they be assembled in the U.S. The waiver would apply to approximately 547 vehicles. The requests, available at
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, section 635.410 requires that steel or iron materials (including protective coatings) that will be permanently incorporated in a Federal-aid project must be manufactured in the U.S. For FHWA, this means that all the processes that modified the chemical content, physical shape or size, or final finish of the material (from initial melting and mixing, continuing through the bending and coating) occurred in the U.S. The statute and regulations create a process for granting waivers from the Buy America requirements when its application would be inconsistent with the public interest or when satisfactory quality domestic steel and iron products are not sufficiently available. In 1983, FHWA determined that it was both in the public interest and consistent with the legislative intent to waive Buy America for manufactured products other than steel manufactured products. However, FHWA's national waiver for manufactured products does not apply to the requests in this notice because they involve predominately steel and iron manufactured products. The FHWA's Buy America requirements do not have special provisions for applying Buy America to “rolling stock” such as vehicles or vehicle components (see 49 U.S.C. 5323(j)(2)(C), 49 CFR 661.11, and 49 U.S.C. 24405(a)(2)(C) for examples of Buy America rolling stock provisions for other DOT agencies).
Based on all the information available to the agency, FHWA concludes that there are no domestic manufacturers that produce the vehicles and vehicle components identified in this notice in such a way that their steel and iron elements are manufactured domestically. The FHWA's Buy America requirements were tailored to the types of products that are typically used in highway construction, which generally meet the requirement that steel and iron materials be manufactured domestically. In today's global industry, vehicles are assembled with iron and steel components that are manufactured all over the world. The FHWA is not aware of any domestically produced vehicle on the market that meets FHWA's Buy America requirement to have all its iron and steel be manufactured exclusively in the U.S. For example, the Chevrolet Volt, which was identified by many commenters in a November 21, 2011,
In accordance with Division K, section 122 of the “Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015” (Pub. L. 113-235), FHWA published a notice of intent to issue a waiver on its Web site at
Based on FHWA's conclusion that there are no domestic manufacturers that can produce the vehicles and equipment identified in this notice in such a way that steel and iron materials are manufactured domestically, and after consideration of the comments received, FHWA finds that application of FHWA's Buy America requirements to these products is inconsistent with the public interest (23 U.S.C. 313(b)(1) and 23 CFR 635.410(c)(2)(i)). However, FHWA believes that it is in the public interest and consistent with the Buy America requirements to impose the condition that the vehicles and the vehicle components be assembled in the
In accordance with the provisions of section 117 of the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Technical Corrections Act of 2008” (Pub. L. 110-244), FHWA is providing this notice of its finding that a public interest waiver of Buy America requirements is appropriate on the condition that the vehicles and equipment identified in the notice be assembled in the U.S. The FHWA invites public comment on this finding for an additional 15 days following the effective date of the finding. Comments may be submitted to FHWA's Web site via the link provided to the waiver page noted above.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a collection of information notice in the
Crystal Rennie, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, at 202-632-7492.
In FR Doc. 2015-28615, published on November 12, 2015, at 80 FR 70081, make the following correction. On page 70081, in the second and third columns, the notice should read as follows:
VA proposes to remove VA Form 21-527EZ, Application for Veterans Pension, from OMB control number 2900-0747 and have it assigned to OMB control number 2900-0002 since the form has been transferred to Pension & Fiduciary Service (21P). Also, due to the change in business lines, we are changing the form prefix to 21P.
VA Form 21P-527—This form will be used by Veterans to apply for pension benefits after they have previously applied for pension or for service-connected disability compensation using one of the prescribed forms under 38 U.S.C 5101(a). A veteran might reapply for pension if a previous compensation or pension claim was denied or discontinued, or if the veteran is receiving compensation and the veteran now believes that pension would be a greater benefit.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The
By direction of the Secretary.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The primary purpose of this proposal is to address interstate air quality impacts with respect to the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, to address interstate transport of ozone pollution under the 1997 ozone NAAQS and fine particulate matter (PM
This proposal finds that ozone season emissions of NO
Comments must be received on or before January 19, 2016. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before January 4, 2016.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500, to the
Mr. David Risley, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6204M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9177; email address:
The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.
The EPA promulgated the original Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, to address interstate ozone transport under the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to update CSAPR to address interstate emission transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The 2008 ozone NAAQS is an 8-hour standard that was set at 75 parts per billion (ppb).
The purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce interstate emission transport that significantly contributes to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the eastern U.S. To achieve this goal, this proposal would further limit ozone season (May 1 through September 30) NO
Ozone causes a variety of negative effects on human health, vegetation, and ecosystems. In humans, acute and chronic exposure to ozone is associated with premature mortality and a number of morbidity effects, such as asthma exacerbation. Ozone exposure can also negatively impact ecosystems.
Studies have established that ozone occurs on a regional scale (
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), sometimes called the “good neighbor provision,” requires states
The EPA originally finalized CSAPR on July 6, 2011.
CSAPR provides a 4-step process to address the requirements of the good neighbor provision for ozone or PM
Application of this process with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS provides the analytic basis for proposing to further limit ozone season EGU NO
The requirements of this proposal are in addition to existing, on-the-books EPA and state environmental regulations, including the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which is included in the base case for this proposal. On August 3, 2015, President Obama and EPA announced the Clean Power Plan—a historic and important action on emissions that contribute to climate change. The CPP reduces carbon pollution from the power sector. Due to the compliance timeframes of the CPP, the EPA does not anticipate significant interactions with the CPP and the near-term ozone season EGU NO
In addition to reducing interstate ozone transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, this proposal also addresses the status of outstanding interstate ozone transport obligations with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Under CSAPR, the EPA promulgated FIPs for 25 states to address ozone transport under the 1997 NAAQS. For 11 of these states,
This action also responds to the July 28, 2015 opinion of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) remanding without vacatur 11 states' CSAPR phase 2 NO
On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the ground-level ozone NAAQS, based on extensive scientific evidence about ozone's effects on public health and welfare. This proposal to reduce interstate emission transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS is a separate and distinct regulatory action and is not meant to address the CAA's good neighbor provision with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS final rule.
The Clean Air Act gives states the responsibility to address interstate pollution transport through good neighbor State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The EPA supports state efforts to submit good neighbor SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and has shared information with states to facilitate such SIP submittals. However, in the event that good neighbor SIPs are not submitted or cannot be approved, this rulemaking proposes Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs), as required under section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, to establish and implement EGU NO
On July 13, 2015, the EPA published a rule finding that 24 states
The EPA would finalize a FIP for a state that we find has failed to submit a complete good neighbor SIP or for which we issue a final rule disapproving its good neighbor SIP.
The EPA proposes to align implementation of this proposed rule with relevant attainment dates for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as required by the D.C. Circuit's decision
In order to apply the first and second steps of the CSAPR 4-step process to interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA used air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017. The EPA evaluated these modeling projections for the air quality monitoring sites and considered current ozone monitoring data at these sites to identify receptors that are anticipated to have problems attaining or maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA then used air quality modeling to evaluate contributions from upwind states to these downwind receptors.
CSAPR and previous federal transport rules, such as the NO
To apply the third step of the 4-step process, the EPA assessed ozone season NO
The EPA is not proposing to quantify non-EGU emission reductions to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS at this time because we are uncertain that significant NO
To evaluate full elimination of a state's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance, EGU and non-EGU ozone season NO
However, the EPA believes that it is beneficial to implement, without further delay, EGU NO
At the same time, the EPA also notes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA only requires upwind states to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. It does not shift to upwind states the full responsibility for ensuring that all areas in other states attain and maintain the NAAQS. Downwind states also have control responsibilities because, among other things, the Act requires each state to adopt enforceable plans to attain and maintain air quality standards. The requirements established for upwind states through this proposed rule will supplement downwind states' local emission control strategies that, in conjunction with the certainty on maximum allowable upwind state EGU emissions that this proposed rule would provide, promote attainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
To meet the fourth step of the 4-step process (
These FIP requirements, if finalized, would begin with the 2017 ozone season and would continue for subsequent ozone seasons to ensure that upwind states included in this proposed rule meet their Clean Air Act obligation to address interstate emissions transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS for 2017 and future years. To the extent that emissions in an included state would otherwise exceed the promulgated emission level, these good neighbor EGU emissions limits will ensure that future emissions are consistent with states' ongoing good neighbor obligations. To the extent that emissions in an included state would be reduced for other reasons, for example planned lower-NO
Generally, for states that would be affected by one of the FIPs proposed in this action and that are already included in the CSAPR NO
The proposed FIPs, if finalized, would not limit states' flexibility in meeting their CAA requirements, as any state included in this proposed rule can submit a good neighbor SIP at any time that, if approved by the EPA, could replace the FIP for that state. Additionally, CSAPR already provides states with the option to submit abbreviated SIPs to customize the methodology for allocating NO
The EPA therefore proposes revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically 40 CFR part 97, subpart BBBBB (federal CSAPR NO
The 23 eastern states for which the EPA proposes to promulgate FIPs to reduce interstate ozone transport as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS are listed in Table I-1.
For eastern states for which the EPA is not proposing FIPs in this action, the EPA notes that updates to the modeling for the final rule, made based on comments received on the proposal, could change the analysis as to which states significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance. In this regard, the final modeling could result in additional states being included in the final rule. Therefore, the EPA provides all data and methods necessary for all eastern states to comment on all aspects of this proposal in the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis TSD. This information includes EGU NO
The EPA notes that the annual PM
The major provision of this action are described in the remainder of this preamble and organized as follows: Section III describes the human health and environmental context, the EPA's overall approach for addressing interstate transport, and the EPA's response to the remand of certain CSAPR NO
The proposed rule would achieve near-term emission reductions from the power sector, lowering ozone season NO
Consistent with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” we have estimated the costs and benefits of the proposed rule. Estimates here are subject to uncertainties discussed further in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in the docket. The estimated net benefits of the proposed rule at a 3 percent discount rate are $700 million to $1.2 billion (2011$). The non-monetized benefits include reduced ecosystem effects and reduced visibility impairment. Discussion of the costs and benefits of the proposal is provided in preamble section VIII, below, and in the RIA,
This proposed rule affects EGUs, and regulates the following groups:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 97.504. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
Interstate transport of NO
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between NO
Because ground-level ozone formation increases with temperature and sunlight, ozone levels are generally higher during the summer. Increased temperature also increases emissions of volatile man-made and biogenic organics and can indirectly increase NO
The 2008 primary and secondary ozone standards are both 75 parts per billion (ppb) as an 8-hour level. Specifically, the standards require that the 3-year average of the fourth highest 24-hour maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration may not exceed 75 ppb.
Studies have established that ozone formation, atmospheric residence, and transport occurs on a regional scale (
The EPA has previously concluded in the NO
Recent assessments of ozone, for example those conducted for the October 2015 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone (EPA-452/R-15-007) continue to show the importance of NO
There are five general categories of NO
Previous regional ozone transport efforts, including the NO
As described later in this notice, the EPA's analysis finds that the power sector continues to be capable of making NO
The Clean Air Act's good neighbor provision requires states and the EPA to address interstate transport of air pollution that affects downwind states' ability to attain and maintain NAAQS. Other provisions of the CAA, namely sections 179B and 319(b), are available to deal with NAAQS exceedances not attributable to the interstate transport of pollution covered by the good neighbor provisions but caused by emission sources outside the control of a downwind state. These provisions address international transport and exceptional events, respectively.
Exposure to ambient ozone causes a variety of negative effects on human health, vegetation, and ecosystems. In humans, acute and chronic exposure to ozone is associated with premature mortality and a number of morbidity effects, such as asthma exacerbation. In ecosystems, ozone exposure causes visible foliar injury, decreases plant growth, and affects ecosystem community composition. See the EPA's November 2014 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone (EPA-452/P-14-006), in the docket for this proposal and available on the EPA's Web site at:
The 2008 revisions to the ozone NAAQS were promulgated on March 12, 2008.
On July 6, 2011, the EPA finalized CSAPR, in response to the DC Circuit's remand of the EPA's prior federal transport rule, CAIR.
On September 2, 2011, consistent with the direction of the President, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget returned the draft final 2008 ozone rule EPA had developed upon reconsideration to the Agency for further consideration.
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in
On January 23, 2013, the Supreme Court granted the EPA's petition for certiorari.
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's
The Supreme Court holding affirmed that states were required to submit SIPs addressing the good neighbor provision with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS by March 12, 2011. To the extent that states have failed to submit SIPs to meet this statutory obligation, then the EPA has not only the authority, but the obligation, to promulgate FIPs to address the CAA requirement.
Following the remand of the case to the D.C. Circuit, the EPA requested that the court lift the CSAPR stay and toll the CSAPR compliance deadlines by three years. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted the EPA's request. The EPA issued an interim final rule to revise the regulatory deadlines in CSAPR to reflect the three-year delay in implementation. Accordingly, CSAPR phase 1 implementation began in 2015 and phase 2 will begin in 2017.
On March 6, 2015, the EPA's final 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule
On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion regarding CSAPR on remand from the Supreme Court,
CSAPR establishes a 4-step process to address the requirements of the good neighbor provision.
Step 1—In the original CSAPR, downwind air quality problems were assessed using modeled future air quality concentrations for a year aligned with attainment deadlines for the NAAQS considered in that rulemaking. The assessment of future air quality conditions generally accounts for on-the-books emission reductions
Step 2—The original CSAPR used a screening threshold of one percent of the NAAQS to identify upwind states that were “linked” to downwind air pollution problems. States were identified as needing further evaluation for actions to address transport if their air quality impact
Step 3—For states that are linked in step 2 to downwind air quality problems, the original CSAPR used a multi-factor test to evaluate emission reductions available in upwind states by application of uniform cost thresholds. The EPA evaluated NO
Step 4—Finally, the original CSAPR used allowance trading programs to implement the necessary emission reductions. Specifically, the emissions budgets identified in step 3 were implemented via a tradable allowance program. Emissions allowances were issued to units covered by the trading program and the allowances can be turned in at the close of each compliance period to account for a specified amount of ozone season EGU NO
Given the unique circumstances surrounding the implementation of the 2008 ozone standard that have delayed state and EPA efforts to address interstate transport, at this time the EPA is focusing its efforts on the immediately available and cost-effective emission reductions that are achievable by the 2017 ozone season.
This rulemaking proposes to establish (or revise currently established) FIPs for 23 eastern states under the good neighbor provision of the CAA. These FIPs contain requirements for EGUs in these states to reduce ozone season NO
While these reductions are necessary to assist downwind states attain and maintain the 2008 ozone NAAQS and are necessary to address good neighbor obligations for these states, the EPA acknowledges that they may not be sufficient to fully address these states' good neighbor obligations.
To evaluate full elimination of a state's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance, EGU and non-EGU ozone season NO
Because the reductions proposed in this action are EGU-only and because EPA has focused the policy analysis for this proposal on reductions available by 2017, for most states they represent a first, partial step to addressing a given upwind state's significant contribution to downwind air quality impacts for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Generally, a final determination of whether the proposed EGU NO
The EPA has shared information with states to facilitate the development of the ozone transport SIPs.
The EPA also notes that many states have already submitted, or are currently developing, SIP submittals to address the good neighbor provision of the CAA for the 2008 ozone standard, and expects that some may assert that the state plan fully addresses the state's good neighbor obligation.
The EPA anticipates that those SIPs intending to fully address the state's good neighbor obligations and for which the state is seeking approval may fall into one of two categories:
(1) The SIP concludes that the state is meeting its good neighbor obligation without need for additional NO
(2) The SIP demonstrates that the state will timely achieve reductions that fully address its significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in downwind states. This demonstration could include an assessment of how all emissions source sectors contribute to the state's contribution and how these sectors are controlled in that state. States wishing to seek full approval of good neighbor SIPs should contact their appropriate regional office. Guidance on developing such SIPs is outside the scope of this action, but the EPA intends to work closely with any state that is interested in pursuing this option.
CSAPR and previous federal transport rules, such as the NO
While the EPA proposes to focus this rulemaking on eastern states, we seek comment on whether to include western states in this rule. The EPA notes that analyses developed to support this proposal, including air quality modeling and the EPA's assessment of EGU NO
The EPA seeks comment on the data provided for western states, including emissions inventories, ozone concentration modeling, contribution modeling, and EPA's assessment of EGU NO
In eastern states, the highest measured ozone days tend to occur within the hottest days, weeks, or months of the summer. On many high ozone days, there is higher demand for electricity (for instance, to run air conditioners). In general and technical discussions with representatives and officials of eastern states in April 2013 and April 2015, and in several letters to the EPA, officials from the Ozone Transport Region (OTR)
Some states have also asked the EPA to consider whether existing emission controls are being turned off for short periods (
The EPA seeks comment on whether or not short-term (
As noted above, in
The court's decision explicitly applies to 11 state budgets involved in that litigation: Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The EPA notes that it is able to propose addressing the D.C. Circuit's remand of CSAPR NO
Separately, various petitioners filed legal challenges in the D.C. Circuit to a supplemental rule that added five states to the CSAPR ozone-season trading program, 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011).
For the two remaining ozone-season states affected by this portion of the
Accordingly, in order to address the Court's remand with respect to these two states' interstate transport responsibility under the 1997 ozone standard, the EPA proposes to remove these states from the CSAPR ozone-season trading program beginning in 2017 when the phase 2 ozone-season emissions budgets were scheduled to be implemented.
The EPA notes that because the proposed rule modeling was performed prior to the D.C. Circuit's issuance of
The EPA seeks comment on this approach with respect to addressing the remand as to Florida and South Carolina, including the proposed budgets that would apply to those states if a linkage is identified, which are available in the docket.
Additionally, the EPA notes Florida and South Carolina may be relying upon emissions reductions that result from now-remanded emissions budgets in Florida and South Carolina to satisfy statutory obligations other than the interstate transport requirements. However, Florida and South Carolina may have an interest in submitting SIPs to continue their participation in the CSAPR NO
The D.C. Circuit also remanded without vacatur the CSAPR SO
In the original CSAPR, the EPA noted that the reductions for 11 states may not be sufficient to fully eliminate all significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance for certain downwind areas with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
To evaluate whether additional emission reductions would be needed in these 11 states to address the states' full good neighbor obligation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA reviewed the 2017 baseline air quality modeling conducted for this proposal, which includes emission reductions associated with the CSAPR phase 2 ozone-season budgets.
The updated 2017 air quality modeling shows that the predicted average DVs and maximum DVs for 2017 are below the level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the downwind receptors of concern that the 11 states were linked to in the original CSAPR for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Further, the 2017 air quality modeling shows that there are no other nonattainment or
The statutory authority for this proposed action is provided by the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401
Section 110(a)(1) provides that states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and that these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS.
The EPA has historically referred to SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the applicable requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required content of these submissions. It includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.
Section 110(c)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate a FIP at any time within 2 years after the Administrator: (1) Finds that a state has failed to make a required SIP submission, (2) finds a SIP submission to be incomplete pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(C), or (3) disapproves a SIP submission, unless the state corrects the deficiency through a SIP revision that the Administrator approves before the FIP is promulgated.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the “good neighbor provision,” provides the basis for this proposed action. It requires that each state SIP shall include provisions sufficient to “prohibit[] . . . any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will—(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any [NAAQS].”
The EPA has previously issued three rules interpreting and clarifying the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for states in the eastern half of the United States. These rules, and the associated court decisions addressing these rules, provide important guidance regarding the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
The NO
The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated in 2005, addressed both the 1997 PM
In 2011, the EPA promulgated CSAPR to address the issues raised by the remand of CAIR and additionally to address the good neighbor provision for the 2006 PM
On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision reversing the D.C. Circuit's
Finally, on July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion on CSAPR regarding the remaining legal issues raised by the Petitioners on remand from the Supreme Court,
Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA also gives the Administrator of the EPA general authority to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out her functions under the Act.
In particular, the EPA is proposing to use its authority under sections 110 and 301 to promulgate FIPs that establish or revise EGU NO
As discussed above, all states have an obligation to submit SIPs that address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. With respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, states were required to submit SIPs addressing the good neighbor provision by March 12, 2011. If the EPA finds that a state has failed to submit a SIP to meet its statutory obligation to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) or if EPA disapproves a good neighbor SIP, then the EPA has not only the authority but the obligation, pursuant to section 110(c)(1), to promulgate a FIP to address the CAA requirement within 2 years of the finding or disapproval.
On July 13, 2015, the EPA published a rule finding that 24 states failed to make complete submissions that address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to the interstate transport of pollution as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July 13, 2015) (effective August 12, 2015). The finding action triggered a 2-year deadline for the EPA to issue FIPs to address the good neighbor provision for these states by August 12, 2017. The states included in this finding of failure to submit are: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Since the EPA issued the findings notice, EPA has received a SIP submission addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS from the state of Maine on which the EPA has not yet proposed action.
Several additional states—Connecticut, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia—have previously submitted SIPs to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. To the extent that the EPA has not finalized action on these submitted SIPs, these states can evaluate their submissions in light of this proposal and the actions we are taking to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to a judgment issued on May 15, 2015, the
On March 7, 2013, the EPA finalized action on the State of Kentucky's SIP submission addressing, among other things, the good neighbor provision requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
On April 30, 2013, the Sierra Club filed a petition for review of the EPA's action based on the Agency's conclusion that the FIP clock was not triggered by the disapproval of Kentucky's good neighbor SIP.
In this notice, the EPA is proposing to correct the portion of the disapproval notice indicating that the FIP clock would not be triggered by the SIP disapproval. The EPA believes that the EPA's obligation to develop a FIP was triggered on the date of the judgment issued by the Supreme Court in
The EPA recognizes that some states are currently developing SIP submissions or revising their submitted SIPs to address the good neighbor provision of the CAA for the 2008 ozone standard. The EPA encourages SIP development and will continue to assist states in developing transport SIPs. As noted above, the EPA is subject to a court order requiring final action on certain state SIPs by January 29, and June 7, 2016.
The fact that the EPA is proposing a FIP for any state does not suggest that the EPA has determined that the state's submittal is not approvable. If EPA finalizes approval of a state's good neighbor SIP before the FIP is applied, the FIP that is now being proposed for that state would no longer be necessary.
Further, the EPA notes that the remedy being proposed in this notice are not the only means a state has to mitigate interstate ozone transport under the good neighbor provision. States could submit measures that strengthen their current SIPs and achieve reductions that are similar to, or more efficacious in eliminating significant transport than, those that would be achieved by the FIPs proposed in this action. The EPA strongly encourages such strengthening actions. If a state submits a SIP that is approved (in whole or in part) by the EPA via notice-and-comment rulemaking and that achieves ozone season NO
In this section, we describe the air quality modeling performed to (1) identify locations where we expect there to be nonattainment or maintenance problems for 8-hour ozone for the 2017 analytic year chosen for this proposal, and (2) quantify the contributions from anthropogenic emissions from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at monitoring sites projected to be in nonattainment or have maintenance problems in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Air quality modeling to assess the health and welfare benefits of the emissions reductions expected to result from this proposal is described in section VIII.
This section includes information on the air quality modeling platform used in support of the proposed rule with a focus on the base year and future base case emission inventories. We also provide the projection of 2017 ozone concentrations and the interstate contributions for 8-hour ozone. The Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document (AQM TSD) in the docket for this proposed rule contains more detailed information on the air quality modeling aspects of this rulemaking.
On August 4, 2015, the EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (80 FR 46271) requesting comment on the air quality modeling platform and air quality modeling results that are being used for this proposed rule. Specifically, in the NODA, the EPA requested comment on the data and methodologies related to the 2011 and 2017 emissions and the air quality modeling to project 2017 concentrations and contributions. Comments received on that data via the NODA will be considered for the final rule.
The EPA performed air quality modeling for three emissions scenarios: A 2011 base year, a 2017 baseline, and a 2017 illustrative control case that
The EPA used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) version 6.11
The 2011-based air quality modeling platform includes 2011 base year emissions and future year projections of these emissions and 2011 meteorology for air quality modeling with CAMx. In the remainder of this section, we provide an overview of (1) the 2011 and 2017 emissions inventories, (2) the methods for projecting future nonattainment and maintenance along with a list of 2017 baseline nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the eastern U.S., (3) the approach to developing metrics to measure interstate contributions to 8-hour ozone, and (4) the predicted interstate contributions to downwind nonattainment and maintenance in the eastern U.S. We also identify which predicted interstate contributions are at or above the CSAPR screening threshold, which we are proposing to apply for regulation of interstate transport of ozone for purposes of the 2008 ozone standard.
The EPA developed emission inventories for this proposal including emission estimates for EGUs, non-EGU point sources, stationary nonpoint sources, onroad mobile sources, nonroad mobile sources, wild fires, prescribed fires, and for biogenic emissions that are not the result of human activities. The EPA's air quality modeling relies on this comprehensive set of emission inventories because emissions from multiple source categories are needed to model ambient air quality and to facilitate comparison of model outputs with ambient measurements.
To prepare the emission inventories for air quality modeling, the EPA processed the emission inventories using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) Modeling System version 3.6.5 to produce the gridded, hourly, speciated, model-ready emissions for input to the CAMx air quality model. Additional information on the development of the emission inventories and on data sets used during the emissions modeling process are provided in the TSD “Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform,” hereafter known as the “Emissions Modeling TSD.” This TSD is available in the docket for this proposed rule and at
The EPA published
The EPA developed emission data representing the year 2011 to support air quality modeling of a base year from which future air quality could be forecasted. The EPA used the 2011 National Emission Inventory (NEI) version 2 (2011NEIv2), released in March 2015, as the primary basis for the U.S. inventories supporting the 2011 air quality modeling. Documentation on the 2011NEIv2 is available in the 2011 National Emissions Inventory, version 2 TSD available in the docket for this proposed rule and at
Annual NO
The EPA projected future 2017 baseline EGU emissions using version 5.14 of the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) (
The IPM version 5.14 base case accounts for comments received as a result of the NODAs released in 2013 and 2014 (including control configuration) as well as updated environmental regulations. This projected base case accounts for the effects of the finalized MATS
After the receptor and contribution analyses for this proposal were underway, the EPA released an updated IPM base case, version 5.15, and the final Clean Power Plan (CPP).
In projecting future 2017 baseline EGU emissions, the EPA adjusted the 2018 IPM version 5.14 base case results to account for three categories of differences between 2017 and 2018. The categories are: (1) Adjusting NO
The 2011 non-EGU point sources in the 2011 base case inventory match those in the 2011NEIv2. Details on the development of the 2011 emission inventories can be found in the 2011NEIv2 TSD. Prior to air quality modeling, the emission inventories must be processed into a format that is appropriate for the air quality model to use. Details on the processing of the emissions for 2011 and on the development of the 2017 non-EGU emission inventories are available in the Emissions Modeling TSD. Projection factors and percent reductions in this proposal reflect comments received as a result of the NODAs in 2013 and 2014, along with emission reductions due to national and local rules, control programs, plant closures, consent decrees and settlements. Reductions from several Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standards are included. Projection approaches for corn ethanol and biodiesel plants, refineries and upstream impacts represent requirements pursuant to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).
For aircraft emissions at airports, the EPA developed projection factors based on activity growth projected by the Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) system, published in March 2013.
Point source and nonpoint oil and gas emissions are projected to 2018 using regional projection factors by product type using Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014 projections to year 2017. NO
The EPA developed the onroad mobile source emissions for states other than California using the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2014. We computed the emissions within SMOKE by multiplying emission factors developed using MOVES with the appropriate activity data. We also used MOVES emission factors to estimate emissions from refueling. The 2011 onroad mobile source emissions used in the inventory for this rule are similar but not identical to the 2011NEIv2 emissions due to a more detailed treatment of E-85 emissions in the 2011 emission modeling platform used for this rule. Additional information on the approach for generating the onroad mobile source emissions is available in the Emissions Modeling TSD. Onroad mobile source emissions for California are consistent with the emissions submitted by the state as reflected in the 2011NEIv2.
In the future-year modeling for mobile sources, we included all national measures known at the time of modeling. The future scenarios for mobile sources reflect projected changes to fuel usage and onroad mobile control programs finalized as of the date of the model run. Finalized rules that are incorporated into the mobile source emissions include: Tier 3 Standards (March 2014), the Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (March 2013), Heavy (and Medium)-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (August 2011), the Renewable Fuel Standard (February 2010), the Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (April 2010), the Corporate-Average Fuel Economy standards for 2008-2011 (April 2010), the 2007 Onroad Heavy-Duty Rule (February 2009), and the Final Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (February 2007). Impacts of rules that were in effect in 2011 are reflected in the 2011 base year emissions at a level that corresponds to the extent to which each rule had penetrated into the fleet and fuel supply by the year 2011. Local control programs such as the California LEV III program are included in the onroad mobile source emissions. Activity data for onroad mobile sources was projected using AEO 2014. Because EPA changed the model year from 2018 to 2017 between its pre-proposal modeling and the modeling conducted for this proposal (see footnote 64), and due to the substantial amount of lead time required to generate emission factors with MOVES, the EPA was unable to directly generate emission factors for 2017 prior to the modeling used to support this proposed rule. Therefore, for this proposal, future year onroad mobile source emissions were computed for 2018 and adjusted to 2017 levels using adjustment factors derived from national MOVES runs for 2017 and 2018. Emission factors will be generated directly for 2017 prior to air quality modeling for the final rule.
The commercial marine category 3 vessel (“C3 marine”) emissions in the 2011 base case emission inventory for this proposed rule are consistent with those in the 2011NEIv2. These emissions reflect reductions associated with the Emissions Control Area proposal to the International Maritime Organization control strategy (EPA-420-F-10-041, August 2010); reductions of NO
To develop the nonroad mobile source emission inventories other than C3 marine for the modeling platform, the EPA used monthly, county, and process level emissions output from the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) (see
The EPA also used NMIM to project nonroad mobile emissions for future years. Development of the future year nonroad emissions require a substantial amount of lead time and the emissions were prepared for the year 2018 before the model year was changed to 2017 when the attainment date was revised in the 2008 Ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule. To develop a 2017 nonroad emissions inventory for this proposal that accounted for the difference between 2017 and 2018 emissions levels, we calculated the nonroad emissions for 2018, and then adjusted those emissions to 2017 levels using national adjustment factors derived from national NMIM runs for 2017 and 2018. Emissions specific to 2017 will be developed for the modeling that will support the final rule. The nonroad mobile emission control programs include reductions to locomotives, diesel engines and marine engines, along with standards for fuel sulfur content and evaporative emissions. A comprehensive list of control programs included for mobile sources is available in the Emissions Modeling TSD.
The emissions for stationary nonpoint sources in our 2011 base case emission inventory are largely consistent with those in the 2011NEIv2. For more information on the nonpoint sources in the 2011 base case inventory, see the Emissions Modeling TSD and the 2011NEIv2 TSD.
Where states provided EPA with information about projected control measures or changes in nonpoint source emissions, the EPA incorporated those inputs in its projections. We included adjustments for state fuel sulfur content rules for fuel oil in the Northeast. Projected emissions for portable fuel containers reflect the impact of projection factors required by the final Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT2) rule and the EISA, including updates to cellulosic ethanol plants, ethanol transport working losses, and ethanol distribution vapor losses.
The EPA developed regional projection factors for nonpoint oil and gas sources by product type based on Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2014 projections to year 2018. We reflected criteria air pollutant (CAP) co-benefit reductions resulting from the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) and NSPS rules and Oil and Gas NSPS VOC controls for select source categories. Additional details on the projections are available in the Emissions Modeling TSD.
In this section, we describe the air quality modeling performed to identify locations where we expect there to be nonattainment or maintenance problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2017 analytic future year chosen for this proposal. We then describe how we factored current monitored data into the identification of sites as having either nonattainment or maintenance concerns for the purposes of this rulemaking. These sites are used as the “receptors” for quantifying the contributions of emissions in upwind states to nonattainment and maintenance concerns in downwind locations.
In this proposed rule, the EPA is relying on CSAPR's approach to identify separate nonattainment and maintenance receptors in order to give independent effect to both the “contribute significantly to nonattainment” and the “interfere with maintenance” prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the D.C. Circuit's direction in
In CSAPR, the EPA identified nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites that are projected to have average design values that exceed the NAAQS. The EPA separately identified maintenance receptors as those receptors that would have difficulty maintaining the relevant NAAQS in a scenario that takes into account historical variability in air quality at that receptor. The CSAPR approach for identifying nonattainment and maintenance receptors relied only upon air quality model projections of measured design values. In CSAPR, if the average design value in the analysis year was projected to exceed the NAAQS, then the monitoring site is identified as a nonattainment receptor without consideration of whether the monitoring site is currently measuring “clean data” (
As the EPA is not replacing an existing transport program in this rulemaking proposal, we are proposing to consider current monitored data as part of the process for identifying projected nonattainment receptors for this rulemaking. Accordingly, in this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to return to our prior practice of comparing our modeled nonattainment projections to current monitored air quality. For the purposes of this rulemaking, the EPA proposes to identify as nonattainment receptors those monitors that both currently measure nonattainment and that the EPA projects will be in nonattainment in 2017.
As noted above, in CSAPR the EPA identified maintenance receptors as those receptors that would have difficulty maintaining the relevant NAAQS in a scenario that takes into account historical variability in air quality at that receptor. The variability in air quality was determined by evaluating the “maximum” future design value at each receptor based on a projection of the maximum measured design value over the relevant period.
The EPA interprets the projected maximum future design value to be a potential future air quality outcome consistent with the meteorology that yielded maximum measured concentrations in the ambient data set analyzed for that receptor. The EPA also recognizes that previously experienced meteorological conditions (
Consistent with the CSAPR methodology, monitoring sites with a projected maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, but with a projected average design value that is below the NAAQS, are identified as maintenance-only receptors. In addition, those sites that are currently measuring clean data, but are projected to be nonattainment based on the average design value and that, by definition, are projected to have a maximum design value above the standard are also identified as maintenance-only receptors. We are not proposing that monitored data have any effect on the EPA's determination of maintenance receptors using the CSAPR method since even those receptor sites that are not currently monitoring violations are still subject to conditions that may allow violations to reoccur and therefore have future maintenance concerns.
The following is a brief summary of the procedures for projecting future-year 8-hour ozone average and maximum design values to 2017. Consistent with the EPA's modeling guidance we use the air quality modeling results in a “relative” sense to project future concentrations. That is, the ratios of future year model predictions to base year model predictions are used to adjust ambient ozone design values
The approach for projecting future ozone design values involved the projection of an average of up to 3 design value periods, which include the years 2009-2013 (design values for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013). The 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013 design values are accessible at
Projected design values that are greater than or equal to 76 ppb are considered to be violating the NAAQS in 2017. For those sites that are projected to be violating the NAAQS based on the average design values in 2017, we examined measured design values for the period 2012-2014, which is the most recent available measured design values at the time of this proposal. As noted above, we are proposing to identify nonattainment receptors in this rulemaking as those sites that are violating the NAAQS based on current measured air quality and also have projected average design values of 76 ppb or greater. Maintenance-only receptors therefore include both (1) those sites with projected average design values above the NAAQS that are currently measuring clean data and (2) those sites with projected average design values below the level of the NAAQS, but with projected maximum design values of 76 ppb or greater. In addition to the maintenance-only receptors, the 2017 ozone nonattainment receptors are also maintenance receptors because the maximum design values for each of these sites is always greater than or equal to the average design value. The monitoring sites that we project to be nonattainment and maintenance receptors for the ozone NAAQS in the 2017 baseline are used for assessing the contribution of emissions in upwind states to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of ozone NAAQS as part of this proposal.
Table V.C-1 contains the 2009-2013 base period average and maximum 8-hour ozone design values, the 2017 baseline average and maximum design values, and the 2012-2014 design values for the 8 sites in the eastern U.S. projected to be 2017 nonattainment receptors. Table V.C-2 contains this same information for the 6 maintenance-only sites in the eastern U.S. that are projected nonattainment but currently measuring clean data. Table V.C-3 contains this same information for the 23 maintenance-only sites in the eastern U.S. that are projected to have average design values below the NAAQS, but maximum design values above the NAAQS. The design values for all monitoring sites in the U.S. are provided in docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0006. Additional details on the approach for projecting average and maximum design values are provided in the modeling guidance, Model Attainment Test Software
This section documents the procedures the EPA used to quantify the impact of emissions from specific upwind states on 2017 8-hour design values for identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. The EPA used CAMx photochemical source apportionment modeling to quantify the impact of emissions in specific upwind states on downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors for 8-hour ozone. CAMx employs enhanced source apportionment techniques that track the formation and transport of ozone from specific emissions sources and calculates the contribution of sources and precursors to ozone for individual receptor locations. The strength of the photochemical model source apportionment technique is that all modeled ozone at a given receptor location in the modeling domain is tracked back to specific sources of emissions and boundary conditions to fully characterize culpable sources.
The EPA performed nationwide, state-level ozone source apportionment modeling using the CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis (OSAT/APCA) technique
• States—anthropogenic NO
• Biogenics—biogenic NO
• Boundary Concentrations—concentrations transported into the modeling domain;
• Tribes—the emissions from those tribal lands for which we have point source inventory data in the 2011 NEI (we did not model the contributions from individual tribes);
• Canada and Mexico—anthropogenic emissions from sources in the portions of Canada and Mexico included in the modeling domain (we did not model the contributions from Canada and Mexico separately);
• Fires—combined emissions from wild and prescribed fires domain-wide (
• Offshore—combined emissions from offshore marine vessels and offshore drilling platforms.
The contribution modeling provided contributions to ozone from anthropogenic NO
The CAMx OSAT/APCA model run was performed for the period May 1 through September 30 using the projected 2017 baseline emissions and 2011 meteorology for this time period. The hourly contributions
The average contribution metric is intended to provide a reasonable representation of the contribution from individual states to the projected 2017 design value, based on modeled transport patterns and other meteorological conditions generally associated with modeled high ozone concentrations at the receptor. An average contribution metric constructed in this manner is beneficial since the magnitude of the contributions is directly related to the magnitude of the design value at each site.
The largest contribution from each state in the East to 8-hour ozone nonattainment receptors in downwind states is provided in Table V.D-1. The largest contribution from each state in the East to 8-hour ozone maintenance-only receptors in downwind states is also provided in Table V.D-1.
The EPA then evaluated the magnitude of the contributions from each upwind state to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. In this proposal, the EPA uses an air quality screening threshold to identify upwind states that contribute to downwind ozone concentrations in amounts sufficient to “link” them to these to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors.
As discussed above in section III, the EPA is proposing to establish the air quality screening threshold calculated as one percent of the NAAQS. Specifically for this rule, we propose calculating an 8-hour ozone value for this air quality threshold of 0.75 ppb as the quantification of one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
States in the East
States in the East whose contributions are below the threshold are not included in the proposed rule and are considered to make insignificant contributions to projected downwind air quality problems. However, for eastern states for which the EPA is not proposing FIPs in this action, the EPA notes that updates to the modeling for the final rule could change the analysis as to which states have contributions that meet or exceed the screening threshold. In the event that air quality modeling conducted for the final rule demonstrates that states that contribute amounts below the threshold in the proposal are projected to contribute amounts greater than or equal to the threshold in the final rule modeling, the EPA instead proposes to finalize revised budgets (presented with this rulemaking for comment) for whichever of those states may be identified as linked to such air quality problems. The EPA has calculated emissions budgets for all eastern states that we are proposing to apply to those states if, and only if, the final rule air quality modeling identifies a linkage as just described. These budgets are available in the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis TSD.
Based on the maximum downwind contributions in Table V.D-1, the following states contribute at or above the 0.75 ppb threshold to downwind nonattainment receptors: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Based on the maximum downwind contributions in TableV.D-1, the following states contribute at or above the 0.75 ppb threshold to downwind maintenance-only receptors: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The linkages between each upwind state and downwind nonattainment receptors and maintenance-only receptors in the eastern U.S. are provided in TableV.D-2 and Table V.D-3, respectively.
As discussed previously, after the receptor and contribution analyses for this proposal were underway, the EPA released an updated IPM base case, version 5.15, and the final CPP. In order to reflect all on-the-books policies as well as the most current power sector modeling data, the EPA performed an assessment to reflect inclusion of IPM 5.15 with the CPP in an “adjusted” base case for this proposal. All references below to the “adjusted base case” refer to the 2017 air quality modeling base case which has been adjusted to account for the revised IPM 5.15 with CPP emissions. This assessment method relied on the EPA's air quality modeling contribution data as well as projected ozone concentrations from an illustrative EGU NO
This assessment shows that two receptors—Hamilton County Ohio (390610006) and Richmond County New York (360850067)—that were projected to have average design values exceeding the NAAQS in the modeled 2017 baseline, are expected to have average design values below the NAAQS with the adjusted base case. However, these receptors are still expected to have maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS with the adjusted base case. Because both of these receptors are also considered maintenance receptors for the purposes of this proposal, their status as identified air quality concerns and the status of states linked to these receptors is unchanged by the adjusted base case.
This assessment also shows that four receptors—Allegheny County Pennsylvania (420031005), Collin County Texas (480850005), Wayne County Michigan (261630019), and Middlesex County New Jersey (340230011)—that were projected to have maximum design values exceeding the NAAQS in the modeled base case, are expected to have maximum design values below the NAAQS with the adjusted base case. With the adjusted base case, these sites would not be considered nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the purposes of this proposal. However, because no state is linked solely to any one of these sites, changing the status of these receptors does not impact the scope of states linked to downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors for this proposal.
In addition to evaluating the status of downwind receptors identified for this proposal, the EPA evaluated whether the adjusted base case would reduce ozone contributions from upwind states to the extent that a previously linked state would have a maximum contribution less than the 1% threshold. This assessment shows that in the adjusted base case, all states are expected to remain linked (
The analyses that EPA uses in section VI to quantify EGU NO
The EPA seeks comment on its assessment of the impacts of relying on the adjusted base case for these purposes, and on EPA's intention to rely on full air quality and IPM modeling of the adjusted base case to identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors and to inform the analysis of interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
This section describes the EPA's proposed quantification of near-term EGU NO
As described in section V, the EPA separately identified nonattainment receptors and maintenance receptors. The EPA proposes to apply a single approach for quantifying an upwind state's ozone transport obligation to both nonattainment and maintenance receptors. It is reasonable to apply the same approach to quantify upwind-state reduction requirements with respect to both nonattainment and maintenance because the structure of the problems is the same—emissions from sources in upwind states contributing to downwind ozone concentrations that put the downwind receptor at risk of nonattainment with respect to the EPA's clean air standards. Moreover, as all nonattainment receptors are also maintenance receptors because the maximum design value will always be equal to or exceed the average design value, it is reasonable to control all sites consistent with the level of control necessary to reduce maintenance concerns.
As described in section III of this preamble, due to the impending July 2018 moderate area attainment date, the EPA is proposing, as a first step, to
The EPA's assessment of upwind state obligations in this proposal reflects application of a multi-factor test that considers cost, available emission reductions, and air quality. This is the same multi-factor test used in the original CSAPR. This multi-factor test considers increasing levels of uniform control stringency, where each level is represented by cost, to determine the appropriate magnitude of pollution reduction that would reduce the impacts of interstate transport on downwind states and to apportion that reduction responsibility among collectively-contributing upwind states. This approach to quantifying upwind state emission reduction obligations was reviewed by the Supreme Court in
There are three steps in developing and applying the multi-factor test to quantify upwind state emission reductions as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS: (1) Identify NO
This proposal evaluates a range of uniform EGU NO
In this proposal, the EPA evaluated the emission reduction potential in each upwind state at each uniform NO
The following sub-sections describe the EPA's assessment of EGU and non-EGU point source NO
In developing this proposed rule, the EPA considered all widely used EGU NO
For the reasons explained below, the EPA determined that the power sector could implement all of these NO
Fully operating existing SCR and SNCRs can significantly reduce EGU NO
For existing SCRs and SNCRs that are operating to some extent, but not at their full pollution control capability, the EPA's analysis determined that $500 per ton represents the costs reflective of fully operating these systems. Because the SCR or SNCR is already installed and is at least to some extent operating, the EPA assumes that additional reagent (
Permalink URL
The operational difference between not fully operating and fully operating existing SCRs and SNCRs is increasing reagent (
For existing SCRs and SNCRs that have been idled for years, unit operators may need to restart payment of some fixed and variable costs associated with that control. Fixed and variable costs include labor, maintenance and repair, reagent, parasitic load, and ammonia or urea. As further detailed in the EGU NO
Based on this assessment, the EPA proposes that turning on and fully operating idled SCRs is widely available at a uniform cost of $1,300 per ton of NO
The EPA performed a similar assessment for fully operating existing idled SNCR systems, finding that the majority of the total fixed and variable operating cost for SNCR is related to the cost of the reagent used (
The EPA also evaluated the feasibility of turning on idled SCR and SNCR for the 2017 ozone season. Based on past practice and the possible effort to restart the controls (
State-of-the-art combustion controls such as low-NO
The cost of state-of-the-art combustion controls per ton of NO
As described in CSAPR the EPA has observed that upgrade, replacement, or installation of combustion controls has been demonstrated to be achievable within the timeframe provided for by this rulemaking and its compliance dates.
For more details on this assessment, refer to the EGU NO
Shifting generation to lower NO
Since CSAPR was promulgated, electricity generation has trended toward lower NO
Shifting generation to lower NO
In this analysis, the EPA assumed shifting generation to units with lower NO
The EPA is not proposing to address non-EGU emission reductions in its efforts to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS at this time. Compared to EGUs, there are relatively more non-EGU point sources and these sources on average are smaller than EGUs. The implication of these fleet characteristics is that there are more individual sources to control and there are relatively fewer emission reductions available from each source. Given the proposed 2017 implementation timing for this rulemaking, we are uncertain that significant aggregate NO
The EPA has evaluated the potential for ozone season NO
Although EPA did not find non-EGU reductions feasible by 2017 in this proposal, it is taking comment on that assessment. Future EPA rulemakings or guidance could revisit the potential for reductions from non-EGU sources. Under such a scenario, EPA could use a similar approach of identifying appropriate cost thresholds for non-EGUs and EGUs alike, and then identify potential emission reductions and corresponding emission budgets. Under this scenario, an emission budget could be established for all covered sources (
As discussed above, the multi-factor test used here considers increasing levels of uniform control stringency, where each level is represented by cost, in combination with consideration of NO
The EPA began by determining the appropriate range of costs to evaluate. The lower end of the range is informed by a confluence of considerations. In CSAPR, $500 per ton was the EGU NO
The EPA then evaluated EGU NO
The EPA seeks comment on whether $500 per ton is an appropriate minimum and $10,000 per ton is an appropriate maximum uniform cost threshold to evaluate for the purpose of quantifying EGU NO
The EPA then determined appropriate EGU NO
The EPA
The EPA analyzed ozone season NO
The analysis applied these uniform EGU NO
Table VI.D—1 shows the 2017 baseline EGU emissions and ozone season NO
Next, the EPA performed a combined multi-factor assessment of costs (
For each nonattainment or maintenance receptor identified for this proposal, the EPA evaluated the air quality improvement at that receptor that is expected from progressively more stringent upwind EGU NO
This approach evaluates interstate ozone transport for each receptor independently. Also, by evaluating the downwind ozone impact of upwind
The EPA aggregates the relevant data (
This evaluation shows that meaningful EGU NO
Combining costs, EGU NO
As part of this analysis, the EPA evaluates potential over-control with respect to whether (1) the expected ozone improvements would be sufficient or greater than necessary to resolve the downwind ozone pollution problem (
In
Consistent with these instructions from the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit, the EPA evaluated whether reductions quantified under the evaluated cost thresholds can be anticipated to resolve any downwind nonattainment or maintenance problems (as defined in section V) and by how much.
The EPA's assessment shows that the uniform control stringency represented by $500 per ton would resolve the maintenance problem at two downwind maintenance receptors—Ocean County, New Jersey (maximum design value of 75.9 ppb) and Oldham County, Kentucky (maximum design value of 75.8 ppb). Because no state is linked solely to one of these maintenance receptors, resolving these downwind air quality impact does not fully address any individual upwind state's good neighbor obligation.
This assessment shows that the uniform control stringency represented by $1,300 per ton would resolve maintenance problems at three additional downwind maintenance receptors—Baltimore County, Maryland (maximum design value of 75.6 ppb), Hamilton County, Ohio (maximum design value of 75.1 ppb), and Gloucester County, New Jersey (maximum design value of 75.8 ppb). The EPA's assessment shows that this control level does resolve the only identified nonattainment or maintenance problem to which North Carolina is linked for this proposal—the Baltimore County, Maryland maintenance receptor. The EPA therefore proposes that this EGU control level would fully address North Carolina's good neighbor obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA seeks comment on this determination.
The EPA also proposes that, based on the information supporting this proposal, this level of EGU NO
For the remainder of the states for which the EPA is proposing FIPs in this action, none of these states are linked solely to one of these maintenance receptors with air quality resolved at the $1,300 per ton cost threshold. Therefore, resolving these downwind air quality impacts does not fully address any other individual upwind state's good neighbor obligation.
As noted above the EPA is proposing that the $1,300 per ton EGU control level would fully address North Carolina's good neighbor obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, based on the data supporting this proposal, North Carolina was excluded from assessment of air quality improvements at more stringent uniform EGU NO
The EPA's assessment shows that the uniform control stringency represented by $3,400 per ton would resolve the maintenance problem at two additional downwind maintenance receptors—Denton County, Texas (481211032) (maximum design value of 75.9 ppb) and Harris County, Texas (482011050) (maximum design value of 75.9 ppb). Because no state is linked solely to one of these maintenance receptors, resolving these downwind air quality impacts does not fully address any individual upwind state's good neighbor obligation.
The EPA provides this summary of the evaluation for the $500 per ton; $1,300 per ton; and $3,400 per ton uniform cost thresholds because, as described below, the EPA is proposing to use the $1,300 per ton level and is taking comment on using the $500 per ton level or $3,400 per ton level to quantify ozone season EGU NO
In
The EPA proposes to determine ozone season EGU NO
The EPA notes that the evaluation of cost, NO
The EPA also seeks comment on implementation of the resulting emissions budgets. The EPA proposes that if there are groups of states with ozone season NO
By way of example and as noted above, the EPA is also seeking comment on potentially basing ozone season NO
The EPA's selection of reductions for this proposed rule is specific to, and appropriate for, defining near-term achievable upwind obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in states where a FIP is necessary. We do not intend—nor do we believe we would be justified in doing so in any event—that the cost-level-based determinations in this proposed rule impose a constraint for selection of cost levels in addressing transported pollution with respect to future NAAQS and/or any revisions to these FIPs for any other future transport rules that the EPA may develop to address any potential remaining obligation as to the current NAAQS, for which different cost levels may be appropriate.
As described above, the EPA is proposing that the NO
The EPA requests comment on its proposal to quantify ozone season EGU NO
Note that our assessment of EGU NO
The EPA's EGU NO
The EPA also requests comment as to whether the EPA should treat Delaware and Wisconsin in the same manner with respect to their inclusion or exclusion from the ozone-season trading program with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For example, the EPA requests comment as to whether both Delaware and Wisconsin should be included in the ozone-season trading program with budgets on the reduction potential quantified from pollution control measures that are cost-effective at $1,300 per ton,. EPA also requests comment as to whether both states should instead be excluded from the ozone-season trading program.
The proposed emissions budgets reflect remaining EGU emissions after upwind states achieve the emission reduction obligations defined in section VI of this proposal.
In the original CSAPR proposal, the EPA set proposed emissions budgets by using an approach that considered monitored state-level heat input and modeled state-level emissions rates. However, for the CSAPR final rule, the EPA set budgets using only the modeling results from CSAPR's uniform cost assessment. For this rule, the EPA proposes to set emissions budgets by considering monitored heat input and modeled emissions rates, similar to the original CSAPR proposal. The EPA seeks comment on all aspects of quantifying state emissions budgets reflecting upwind obligations, including alternative metrics to heat input, such as generation.
The EPA proposes to quantify state emissions budgets using the minimum of calculated EGU emissions budgets using the state-level EGU NO
The proposed approach for translating this EGU NO
This proposed approach reflects the EGU NO
This section describes implementing and enforcing the budgets quantified in section VI. In the 4-step CSAPR methodology previously described, once emission reduction potential is quantified into emissions budgets, the remaining step is to identify an approach for ensuring that such reductions occur and are enforceable. As discussed previously, EPA is proposing implement the budgets to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS using the existing CSAPR trading program that allows limited interstate trading among states participating in the ozone-season trading program. The EPA proposes to revise the existing budgets, developed to address transport as to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, where necessary to reflect the additional reductions that the EPA identified as necessary to address transport as to the 2008 NAAQS. The EPA will implement the trading program in each affected state through the issuance of a FIP.
In electing to propose to implement these near-term EGU reductions for the 2008 ozone standard using the existing CSAPR trading infrastructure, the EPA considered the many significant advantages of continuing to use the existing CSAPR program, including the ease of transition to the new budgets, the economic and administrative efficiency of trading approaches, and the flexibility afforded to sources regarding compliance.
The EPA also considered views expressed by some stakeholders that a complementary short-term (
As explained in greater detail in section IV, under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), each state is required to submit a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each primary or secondary NAAQS. According to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the SIP for each state, regardless of a state's designation status for the relevant NAAQS, must prohibit sources or other types of emissions activity from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will “contribute significantly to nonattainment” of the standard in a downwind state or “interfere with maintenance” of the standard in a downwind state. Section IV also explains in detail that the EPA is obligated to promulgate FIPs when we find that a state fails to submit a complete SIP or the EPA disapproves a SIP submittal.
The EPA recognizes that several states included in this proposal have submitted transport SIPs to address the 2008 ozone standard that the EPA is reviewing, and it is possible that additional states may submit SIPs in the future. As explained in section IV above, the EPA may only finalize FIPs for states where FIP authority exists; that is, for states where either the EPA found that the state failed to submit a complete transport SIP or where the EPA has disapproved a transport SIP submittal for that state. The EPA intends to finalize these proposed FIPs together in a single action and, to the greatest extent possible, the EPA intends to take final action on SIP submittals currently before the agency prior to finalizing this proposal. In the event that a state plans to revise its SIP or submit a SIP prior to any final rule, contact your regional office to alert the EPA.
By this action, the EPA is proposing federal implementation plans with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS for each state potentially covered by this rule. Section VI above describes the EPA's approach to defining state-level EGU emissions budgets that represent the EGU emissions remaining after reducing that state's significant contribution to downwind nonattainment and/or interference with maintenance. The EPA is proposing to implement these EGU emissions budgets in the FIPs through the CSAPR EGU NO
When the EPA finalized CSAPR in 2011 under the good neighbor provision of the CAA to reduce emissions of SO
In this notice, the EPA proposes that the first control period for the requirements is the 2017 ozone season. A covered state would be required to demonstrate compliance with FIP requirements for each subsequent ozone season until it submits, and the EPA approves, a SIP or the EPA promulgates another federal rule replacing the FIP.
The EPA notes that the compliance flexibility provided by the CSAPR NO
In practice, the EGU emissions budgets that the EPA is proposing in this action are achievable for each of the 23 states through operating existing SCR and SNCR controls, installing or upgrading to state-of-the-art combustion controls, or shifting generation to low-NO
In this section of the preamble, the following topics are addressed: FIP requirements and key elements of the CSAPR trading programs; participation in the CSAPR NO
The original CSAPR establishes an NO
In this section, the EPA is proposing to use the existing NO
In this proposed rule, the EPA would maintain the applicability provisions in the final CSAPR rule for the NO
Under the general applicability provisions of the CSAPR final rule, a covered unit is any stationary fossil-fuel-fired boiler or combustion turbine serving at any time on or after January 1, 2005, a generator with nameplate capacity exceeding 25 MW producing electricity for sale, with the exception of certain cogeneration units and solid waste incineration units (see 76 FR 48273, August 8, 2011, for a discussion on applicability in the final CSAPR rule). The EPA is not proposing any changes to this provision.
This proposal includes revisions to 40 CFR 97.510 to reflect new budgets for states covered under this proposal as delineated in section VI above. This includes the NO
For states already covered by the original CSAPR ozone-season program, the EPA proposes to update CSAPR EGU NO
The EPA proposes to establish reduced or new ozone-season emissions budgets for the 23 eastern states affected by the transport rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA proposes to implement these emissions budgets by allocating allowances to sources in those states equal to the proposed budgets for compliance starting in 2017. The EPA will establish allowance allocations for the existing units in each state through this rulemaking. Portions of the state budgets will be set aside for new units, and the EPA will use the existing processes set forth in the CSAPR regulations to annually allocate allowances to the new units in each state from the new unit set-asides. For states that are currently in the CSAPR ozone-season program, but are not affected under this proposed transport rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (
Pursuant to the CSAPR trading program regulations, a covered source is required to hold sufficient allowances to cover the emissions from all covered units at the source during the control period for the NO
This section explains that the EPA proposes to allocate a state's budget to existing units and new units in that state by applying the same allocation approach as finalized in CSAPR, based on a unit's historical heat input and its maximum historical emissions (see 76 FR 48284, August 8, 2011). This section also describes allocation for Tribes, the new unit set-asides and Indian country new unit set-asides in each state, allocations to units that are not operating; and the recordation of allowance allocations in source compliance accounts.
The EPA proposes to implement each state's EGU NO
For the purpose of allocations, an “existing unit” in CSAPR is one that commenced commercial operation prior to January 1, 2010. For the 23 states included in this proposed rulemaking for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposes to identify an “existing unit”
The EPA proposes to follow the original CSAPR methodology for distributing, or allocating, emission allowances to existing units based on the unit's share of the state's heat input, limited by the unit's maximum historical emissions. This approach uses the highest three of the last five years to establish the heat input baseline for each unit, and constrains the unit-level allocations so as not to exceed the maximum historical baseline emissions during 2007-2014. As discussed in the original CSAPR final rule (
For states that have EPA-approved abbreviated SIP revisions adopting a different allocation methodology for sources located within the state for CSAPR for the 2017 ozone season and beyond, those provisions would address the allocation of revised NO
Further, where the state regulation approved as a full or abbreviated SIP revision does not contain an allocation methodology but the materials submitted by the state to support EPA's approval of that regulation as a SIP revision contain the state's allocation method, described in an unambiguous manner, the EPA seeks comment on using that state-approved methodology to determine the allocations of allowances to sources in the state under the FIPs established in this proposed rule. These possible approaches could prevent a state from needing to submit another SIP revision to implement the same allocation provisions under this proposed rule that the state has already implemented under CSAPR before adoption of this proposed rule.
For all other states, the EPA proposes to use the allocation method previously finalized in the final CSAPR rulemaking as discussed in this section. These provisions would not prevent any state (one with an EPA-approved SIP revision or without) from submitting an alternative allocation methodology under this proposed rule for later compliance years. EPA requests comment on this modified allocation approach for states with EPA-approved SIP revisions under the current rule.
For the purpose of allocations, CSAPR identifies a “new unit” as one that commenced commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010, and provides a methodology for allocating emission allowances to new units from new unit set-asides in each state and to new units that locate in Indian country. See 76 FR 48290-48294 (Aug. 8, 2011), for more information. The FIPs that EPA is proposing will incorporate a trading program in which EPA is proposing to define a covered unit as a “new unit” if it commences commercial operation on or after January 1, 2015; if it becomes covered by meeting applicability criteria subsequent to January 1, 2015; if it relocates into a different state covered by this FIP; or if it was an “existing” covered unit that stopped operating for 2 consecutive years but resumes commercial operation at some point thereafter. To the extent that states seek approval of SIPs with different allocation provisions than EPA, these SIPs may seek to define new units differently.
The EPA further proposes that its trading program will make allocations to each state for new units (the new unit set-aside) equal to a basic minimum 2 percent of the total state budget, plus the projected amount of emissions from planned units in that state (for instance, if planned units in state A are projected to emit 3 percent of the state's NO
The EPA notes that applying the CSAPR approach using the data for this proposal results in a new-unit set-aside for New Jersey that is greater than 50% of the total proposed EGU NO
Tribes are not required to submit tribal implementation plans. However, as explained in the EPA's regulations outlining Tribal Clean Air Act authority, the EPA is authorized to promulgate FIPs for Indian country as necessary or appropriate to protect air quality if a tribe does not submit and get EPA approval of a tribal implementation plan.
Under the current rule, allowances to possible future new units locating in Indian country are allocated by the EPA from an Indian country new unit set-aside established for each state with Indian country. (See 40 CFR 97.511(b)(2) and 97.512(b).) Because states generally have no SIP authority in reservation areas of Indian country and other areas of Indian country over which a tribe or EPA has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, the EPA continues to allocate such allowances to sources locating in such areas of Indian country within a state even if the state submits a SIP to replace the FIP. (40 CFR 52.38(b)(5)(v) and (vi) and 52.38(b)(6).) The EPA reserves 0.1 percent of the total state budget for new units in Indian country within that state (5 percent of the basic 2 percent new unit set-aside prior to any increase in a state's new unit set-aside amount for planned units). Unallocated allowances from a state's Indian country new unit set-aside are returned to the state's new unit set-aside and allocated according to the methodology described above. The EPA requests comment on following the CSAPR approach for new unit allocations in such areas of Indian country under the transport rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA proposes to continue to apply for purposes of this proposed rule the existing CSAPR provision under which a covered unit that does not operate for a period of two consecutive years will receive allowance allocations for a total of up to five years of non-operation. 40 CFR 97.511(a)(2). Starting in the fifth year after the first year of non-operation, allowances allocated to such units will instead be allocated to the new unit set-aside for the state in which the non-operating unit is located. This approach allows the new unit set-asides to grow over time. The EPA requests comment on retaining this timeline for allowance allocation for non-operating units or changing the allowance allocation for non-operating units to, for instance, two years or three years, in which case allowances would revert to the new unit set-aside in the second or third year after the first of two consecutive years of non-operation of a unit.
In the original CSAPR, the EPA developed assurance provisions, including variability limits and assurance levels (with associated compliance penalties), to assure that each state will meet its pollution control obligations and to accommodate inherent year-to-year variability in state-level EGU operations.
The original CSAPR budgets, and the updated CSAPR emissions budgets proposed in this notice, reflect EGU operations in an “average year.” However, year-to-year variability in EGU operations occurs due to the interconnected nature of the power sector and from changing weather patterns, demand growth, or disruptions in electricity supply from other units or from the transmission grid. Recognizing this, the FIP includes variability limits, which define the amount by which state emissions may exceed the level of the budgets in a given year to account for this variability in EGU operations. A
To establish the variability limits in the original CSAPR, the EPA analyzed historical state-level heat input variability as a proxy for emissions variability, assuming constant emission rates. (See 76 FR 48265, August 8, 2011.) The variability limits for ozone-season NO
The assurance provisions include penalties that are triggered when the state emissions as a whole exceed its assurance level. The original CSAPR provided that a state that exceeds its assurance level in a given year is assessed a total of 3-to-1 allowance surrender on the excess tons. Each excess ton above the assurance level must be met with one allowance for normal compliance plus two additional allowances to satisfy the penalty. The penalty is designed to deter state-level emissions from exceeding assurance levels. This was referred to in the original CSAPR as air quality-assured trading that accounts for variability in the electricity sector but also ensures that the necessary emission reductions occur within each covered state. If a state does not exceed its assurance level, no penalties are incurred by any source. Establishing assurance levels with compliance penalties therefore responds to the court's holding in
To assess the penalty under the assurance provisions, the EPA evaluates whether any state's total EGU emissions in a control period exceeded the state's assurance level, and if so, the EPA then determines which owners and operators of units in the state will be subject to an allowance surrender requirement based on each source's emissions as compared to its unit-level assurance level. Since a single designated representative (DR) often represents multiple sources, the EPA evaluates which groups of units at the common DR level had emissions exceeding the respective common DR's share of the state assurance level, regardless of whether the individual source had enough allowances to cover its emissions during the control period. This provision is triggered only if two criteria are met: (1) The group of sources and units with a common DR are located in a state where the total state EGU emissions for a control period exceed the state assurance level; and (2) that group with the common DR had emissions exceeding the respective DR's share of the state assurance level.
For more information on the CSAPR assurance provisions see 76 FR 48294 (August 8, 2011).
Consistent with the original CSAPR approach, EPA proposes that in this updated rulemaking, EGUs would be
A primary focus of this section is the extent to which allowances created to address interstate transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, reflecting emissions budgets at $500 per ton, are fungible with allowances created under this proposal to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, reflecting emissions budgets at $1,300 per ton. The EPA proposes that these implementation tools are not presumptively equivalent, given that they were developed to address ozone transport under different NAAQS and using different cost thresholds. However, as further discussed below, the EPA is proposing approaches under which allowances allocated under budgets established to address the 1997 NAAQS could be used for compliance for addressing interstate transport for the 2008 NAAQS, subject to specific limitations. The EPA is also taking comment on several other approaches for addressing the transition from a program in which all budgets were established based on an integrated analysis using a single control cost threshold to address the 1997 NAAQS to a program with a mix of budgets established in independent analyses using different control cost thresholds, in some cases to address the 1997 NAAQS and in other cases to address the 2008 NAAQS.
Since CSAPR was promulgated in 2011, the U.S. electric sector has undergone considerable transformation primarily due to economic and market forces precipitated by the natural gas boom. For example, Henry Hub natural gas prices reached below $2.00 per million BTU in 2012 and were in the $2.00-$3.00 range for most of 2012. These prices are below the level initially anticipated when establishing the phase 1 and 2 budgets, and have made the operation of lower emitting units more competitive, putting more downward pressure on emissions. There has also been turnover in the power generation fleet as newer, lower emitting sources replace older, higher emitting sources, putting further downward pressure on emissions. Approximately 28.5 GW of coal units retired from the fleet between 2012 and June of 2015. In addition, demand growth has slowed; a majority of U.S. states have implemented renewable portfolio standards and other energy efficiency programs; and high-efficiency building designs, residential energy conservation, roof-top solar, and other forms of distributed generation have grown. In combination, these factors have significantly reduced EGU NO
As a result of protracted litigation, CSAPR implementation was delayed by three years, from 2012 to 2015. Due to this delay, combined with the market forces and changes that took place during that timeframe, expectations are that total banked allowances for the CSAPR ozone-season trading program could be in excess of 210,000 tons by the start of the 2017 ozone-season compliance period, which is more than twice the emission reduction potential estimated at the $1,300 per ton control level described in section VI above. This number was estimated by comparing recent measured emission levels to the original CSAPR NO
The use of allowance banks generally provide a glide path for sources required to meet more stringent emission limits in later years and accommodate year-to-year variability in operation. However, allowing unrestricted use of the large number of banked allowances for compliance with this proposed rule could result in regional 2017 ozone season NO
As described in CSAPR, the flexibility provided by the assurance provisions is not designed to be used repeatedly, year after year. Rather, the use of banked allowances is intended to be limited by binding emissions budgets such that drawing down the bank in one year is only possible because of actions taken to build up the bank in a previous year. Moreover, a relatively large allowance bank that enables emissions budgets to be exceeded year after year may encourage sources to postpone emission reductions that would be more timely in the 2017 timeframe in order to align reductions with the downwind area attainment dates for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA is proposing and taking comment on a range of options for how to treat the use of banked 2015 and 2016 CSAPR NO
The EPA is proposing that allowances issued for compliance in 2015 and 2016 under CSAPR may be used for compliance under the updated CSAPR from 2017 forward in order to smooth implementation in the first few years under the new budgets. However, the EPA is proposing to impose certain limits on the use of these banked allowances starting in 2017. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that sources in the 23 states with new or updated budgets in this proposal may use all of their banked allowances, but at a tonnage authorization level significantly lower than one ton per allowance. This would be realized through a surrender ratio greater than one pre-2017 allowances (vintage 2015 or 2016) to cover one ton of NO
Finally, EPA believes a surrender ratio is appropriate as it reflects the fact that tighter budgets will put upward pressure on allowance value in the future. Therefore, fewer allowances will be needed to reach the same value of a current allowance holding, making a surrender ratio a natural complement to carrying over the value of the banked allowances in a program where more stringent emission budgets are replacing less stringent emission budgets.
EPA is proposing a surrender ratio greater than one-for-one, such as two-for-one or four-for-one. For analytic purposes in this rulemaking, it reflects the four-for-one surrender ratio to illustrate one potential surrender ratio. However, in the final rule, EPA would update this assumption to reflect the surrender ratio finalized.
This ratio of four or two banked allowances to one ton of emissions is derived from the ratio of the anticipated allowance bank in 2017 (approximately 210,000 allowances) to the ozone season variability limit (
The EPA believes that a surrender ratio approach provides a means for the existing CSAPR EGU NO
The EPA is also soliciting comment on another approach that we believe could achieve these same goals (
The EPA seeks comment on what percentage (below 100 percent) of allowances to issue, and over what number of years, under this alternative approach. As a specific example, the EPA seeks comment on implementing this approach in a manner such that the EPA would issue allowances to sources within each of the 23 states with updated budgets under this proposal at a level of 85 percent of the proposed emissions budgets for the first three years that the new budgets are effective. Using the proposed EGU NO
The EPA also seeks comment on what other percentages of the budget and time-frames could be appropriately used to implement this alternative approach. As in the specific example above, the EPA would seek a combination of time and recordation percentage such that the ultimate influence of the anticipated allowance bank is limited to approximately the regional variability limit (
Under either approach, the EPA would conduct unit-level allowance allocations in the same manner as described above, such that each unit's share of its state's total allowances issued is determined by that allocation approach whether the EPA issues allowances in the full amount of the state budget with a surrender ratio for banked allowances or in a lesser amount to address the potential effect of the allowance bank (as entertained in this alternative on which we are inviting comment). In other words, the effect of this alternative approach would be to reduce unit-level allowance allocations in those years in a proportional manner (
Additionally, the EPA is soliciting comment on less and more restrictive approaches to address use of the CSAPR EGU NO
Consistent with the original CSAPR, EGUs covered by the seasonal NO
The EPA is considering how to transition allowance trading between the group of states that are in the CSAPR NO
The EPA believes that, where appropriate and feasible, continuity of programs is important, particularly for market-based and other power sector regulations, as this sector makes long-term investment and operational decisions. However, CSAPR allowances issued under budgets established to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS using a $500 per ton cost threshold in one state may not be appropriately valued to reduce interstate ozone transport in another state for the 2008 NAAQS under this proposal where budgets are being established using a $1,300 per ton cost threshold. In the original CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA discussed the concern that allowing unrestricted trading between groups of states whose budgets were established using different cost thresholds would impact whether the necessary emission reductions would be achieved within each state.
However, because of the relatively small size of the group of states with budgets set using the $500 per ton cost threshold, the EPA is not proposing to prohibit altogether trading between the two groups in this instance. The EPA does not expect that a single state (
The EPA is also seeking comment on allowing trading without distinction between the particular NAAQS (1997 ozone NAAQS or 2008 ozone NAAQS) for which an upwind state has obligations to reduce transported pollution, and subject only to the constraints of the CSAPR assurance provisions with no additional restrictions. The EPA is soliciting comment on whether and how the assurance provision penalty might be increased in conjunction with this approach.
Alternatively, the EPA is seeking comment on separating compliance between groups of upwind states under each NAAQS, whereby the use of NO
As discussed in Section VI of this proposal, the EPA notes that the evaluation of EGU NO
The EPA is also seeking comment on allowing trading without distinction between the particular cost thresholds for which an upwind state has obligations to reduce transported pollution, and subject only to the constraints of the CSAPR assurance provisions with no additional restrictions. The EPA is also soliciting comment on whether and how the assurance provision penalty might be
Alternatively, the EPA is seeking comment on separating compliance between groups of upwind states under each cost threshold, whereby the use of NO
As discussed in sections a. and b. above, the EPA proposes that in this updated rulemaking, EGUs would be able to trade NO
As discussed in sections II.A., III.B., and IV.A., the proposed rule would require NO
In section VI above, the EPA explains that this is an adequate and reasonable time for sources to plan for compliance and operate necessary controls.
For states for which EPA has already established a FIP requiring their units to participate in the CSAPR NO
Monitoring and reporting in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 75 are required for all units subject to the CSAPR NO
Under part 75, a unit has several options for monitoring and reporting, namely the use of a CEMS; an excepted monitoring methodology based in part on fuel flow metering for certain gas- or oil-fired peaking units; low-mass emissions monitoring for certain non-coal-fired, low emitting units; or an alternative monitoring system approved by the Administrator through a petition process. In addition, sources can submit petitions to the Administrator for alternatives to specific CSAPR and part 75 monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Each CEMS must undergo rigorous initial certification testing and periodic quality assurance testing thereafter, including the use of relative accuracy test audits (RATAs) and 24-hour calibrations. In addition, when a monitoring system is not operating properly, standard substitute data procedures are applied and result in a conservative estimate of emissions for the period involved.
Further, part 75 requires electronic submission of a quarterly emissions report to the Administrator, and in a format prescribed by the Administrator. The report would contain all of the data required concerning ozone season NO
Units currently subject to CSAPR NO
The EPA proposes to update the deadlines by which EPA would record allowances for the CSAPR NO
The EPA is also proposing to extend the existing deadlines for recording CSAPR NO
As noted earlier in this section VIII, states may replace the FIP with a SIP at any time if approved by the EPA. “Abbreviated” and “full” SIP options continue to be available. An “abbreviated SIP” allows a state to submit a SIP that would modify allocation provisions in the NO
As under CSAPR, the EPA proposes to allow a state to submit a SIP revision establishing allowance allocations for existing units for the second year of the new requirements, 2018, to replace the FIP-based allocations. The process would be the same as under the current rule with deadlines shifted roughly 2 years—
For the 2019 control period and later, EPA proposes that the SIP submittal deadline be delayed one year, until December 1, 2017, from the current deadline. The deadline to then submit state allocations for 2019 and 2020 would be June 1, 2018 and the deadline to record those allocations would be July 1, 2018. Under the proposed new deadlines, a state could submit a SIP revision for 2021 and beyond control periods by December 1, 2018, with state allocations due June 1, 2019, and allocation recordation by July 1, 2019. For 2019 control period and later, SIPs can be full or abbreviated SIPs. An allocation methodology approved in an abbreviated SIP submitted for 2017 under the existing CSAPR regulations could also apply under the proposed new rule in 2017 and 2018. See section III of this preamble and 76 FR 48208 at 48326-48332 (August 8, 2011) for additional discussion on full and abbreviated SIP options and 40 CFR 52.38(b).
For a transport SIP revision that does not use the CSAPR NO
For further information on replacing a FIP with a SIP, see the discussion in the final CSAPR rulemaking (76 FR 48326, August 8, 2011). The EPA requests comment on what types of additional information and guidance would be helpful and stands ready to assist states in SIP development.
The EPA believes that there could be circumstances where a state that is not obligated to reduce NO
Further, the EPA seeks comment on the conditions that should apply to any such approval in order to ensure that the state's participation is consistent with the trading program's ability to achieve the program's objectives with respect to interstate transport of ozone pollution. The EPA believes that the primary conditions for consideration in this circumstance would be the level of the state emissions budget and what, if any, limitations would be placed on the use of allowances issued to the sources in that state by sources in other states.
The EPA specifically seeks comment on whether a presumption of approvability of such a SIP revision should arise, without limitations on the use of corresponding allowances for compliance by sources within that state or in other states, if the state would adopt as part of the SIP revision a NO
EPA also specifically seeks comment on whether a presumption of approvability of such a SIP revision should arise, with limitations on the use of allowances issued to the state's sources analogous to the limitations proposed for allowances issued to Georgia's units in this proposed rule, if the state would adopt as part of the SIP revision a NO
The EPA also specifically seeks comment on whether, in the case of a state previously subject to the CSAPR NO
Finally, the EPA also seeks comment on whether a state whose allowances would otherwise be subject to limitations on use analogous to the limitations proposed for allowances issued to Georgia's units in this proposed rule could avoid those limitations by adopting in a SIP revision a more stringent budget reflecting emission levels at higher dollar per ton emission reduction costs comparable to the dollar per ton emission reduction costs used to establish the budgets for other states in this proposed rule.
This proposed rule, like CSAPR, does not establish any permitting requirements independent of those under title V of the CAA and the regulations implementing title V, 40 CFR parts 70 and 71.
The EPA anticipates that, given the nature of the units subject to this transport rule and given that many of the units covered here are already subject to CSAPR, most of the sources at which the units are located are already subject to title V permitting requirements. For sources subject to title V, the interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that would be applicable to them under the final FIPs will be “applicable requirements” under title V and therefore will need to be addressed in the title V permits. For example, requirements concerning designated representatives, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping, the requirement to hold allowances covering emissions, the assurance provisions, and liability will be “applicable requirements” to be addressed in the permits.
Title V of the CAA establishes the basic requirements for state title V permitting programs, including, among other things, provisions governing permit applications, permit content, and permit revisions that address applicable requirements under final FIPs in a manner that provides the flexibility necessary to implement market-based programs such as the trading programs established by CSAPR and updated by this proposed ozone interstate transport rule. 42 U.S.C. 7661a(b).
In CSAPR, EPA established standard requirements governing how sources covered by the rule would comply with title V and its regulations.
Similarly, the EPA is also proposing to maintain that sources in the CSAPR NO
Under CSAPR, in order to employ a monitoring or reporting approach different from the prior-approved approaches discussed above, unit owners and operators must submit monitoring system certification applications to the EPA establishing the monitoring and reporting approach actually to be used by the unit, or, if the owners and operators choose to employ an alternative monitoring system, to submit petitions for that alternative to the EPA. These applications and petitions are subject to EPA review and approval to ensure consistency in monitoring and reporting among all trading program participants. The EPA's responses to any petitions for alternative monitoring systems or for alternatives to specific monitoring or reporting requirements are posted on the EPA's Web site.
Consistent with the EPA's approach under CSAPR, the applicable requirements resulting from this proposed FIP would be incorporated into covered sources' existing title V permits either pursuant to the provisions for reopening for cause (40 CFR 70.7(f) and 40 CFR 71.7(f)) or the standard permit renewal provisions (40
As in CSAPR, the approach to title V permitting under the proposed FIPs imposes no independent permitting requirements and should reduce the burden on sources already required to be permitted under title V and on permitting authorities.
Nothing in this proposal affects any CSAPR NO
The EPA acknowledges that, in addition to the ozone budgets discussed above, the D.C. Circuit has remanded for reconsideration the CSAPR SO
This proposed rule if adopted would not affect any Acid Rain Program requirements. Any Title IV sources that are subject to provisions of this proposed rule would still need to continue to comply with all Acid Rain provisions. Acid Rain Program SO
States affected by both the NO
The NO
In CSAPR, however, the EPA allowed states to expand applicability of the trading program to EGUs smaller than 25 MW but did not allow the expansion of applicability to include large non-EGU sources. The reason for excluding large non-EGU sources was largely that emissions from these sources were generally much lower than the budget amount and there was concern that surplus allowances created as a result of an overestimation of baseline emissions and subsequent shutdowns (since 1999 when the NO
Since then, states have had to find appropriate ways to continue to show compliance with the NO
Therefore, the EPA is taking comment on whether to allow any NO
The NO
On December 9, 2013, the EPA received a CAA section 176A petition from the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The petition was amended on December 12, 2013 to add the state of Pennsylvania as a petitioning state. The petition requests that the EPA add 8 states and the remainder of the Commonwealth of Virginia to the current Ozone Transport Region that was established under CAA section 184.
In this proposal, the EPA has not conducted any technical analysis to determine whether compliance with the proposed rule would satisfy other requirements for EGUs in any attainment or nonattainment areas (
On August 3, 2015, President Obama and EPA announced the Clean Power Plan—a historic and important action on emissions that contribute to climate change. The CPP reduces carbon pollution from the power sector. With strong but achievable standards for power plants, and customized goals for states to cut the carbon pollution (CO
The Clean Air Act—under section 111(d)—creates a partnership between EPA, states, tribes and U.S. territories—with EPA setting a goal and states and tribes choosing how they will meet it. The CPP follows that approach. The CPP establishes interim and final CO
Because the final deadline for states to submit complete plans under the CPP is September 2018 and because mandatory CPP reductions do not begin until the interim period (
However the EPA notes that actions taken to reduce CO
The EPA believes that timing flexibility provided in the CPP offers significant benefits that allow states to develop plans that will help achieve a number of goals, including, but not limited to: Reducing cost, addressing reliability concerns, addressing concerns about stranded assets, and facilitating the integration of meeting the emission guidelines and compliance by affected EGUs with other air quality and pollution control obligations on the part of both states and affected EGUs.
The EPA is also cognizant of the potential influence of addressing interstate ozone transport on the CPP. As states and utilities undertake the near- and longer-term planning that will be needed for the CPP, they will have the opportunity to consider how compliance with this proposed rule can anticipate, or be consistent with, expected compliance strategies for the CPP. While some EGU NO
With respect to concerns about potentially stranded investments
On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the ground-level ozone NAAQS to 70 ppb, based on extensive scientific evidence about ozone's effects on public health and welfare. This proposed rule to update CSAPR to address interstate emissions transport
The EPA is mindful of the need to address ozone transport for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The statutory deadline for the EPA to finalize area designations is October 1, 2017. Further, good neighbor SIPs from states are due on October 1, 2018. The steps taken under this proposal to reduce interstate ozone transport, when finalized, will help states attain and maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Moreover, to facilitate the implementation of the CAA good neighbor provision the EPA intends to provide information regarding steps 1 and 2 of the CSAPR framework in the fall of 2016. In particular, the EPA expects to conduct modeling necessary to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors and identify the upwind states that contribute significantly to these receptors.
The EPA evaluated the costs, benefits, and impacts of compliance with the proposed EGU NO
The EPA notes that its analysis of the regulatory control scenarios (
Table VIII.1 provides the projected 2017 EGU emissions reductions for the evaluated regulatory control scenarios.
The EPA estimates the costs associated with compliance with the illustrative proposed regulatory control alternative to be approximately $93 million annually. These costs represent the private compliance cost of reducing NO
In this analysis, the EPA monetized the estimated benefits associated with reducing population exposure to ozone and PM
The EPA combined this information to perform a benefit-cost analysis for this proposal (shown in table VIII.6 and for the more and less stringent alternatives—shown in the RIA in the docket for this proposed rule).
There are additional important benefits that the EPA could not monetize. Due to current data and modeling limitations, our estimates of the co-benefits from reducing CO
For this proposed rule, the EPA analyzed the costs to the electric power sector using IPM. The IPM is a dynamic linear programming model that can be used to examine the economic impacts of air pollution control policies for SO
The EPA provides a qualitative assessment of economic impacts associated with electricity price changes to consumers that may result from this proposed rule. This assessment can be found in the RIA for this proposed rule.
Executive Order 13563 directs federal agencies to consider the effect of regulations on job creation and employment. According to the Executive Order, “our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science” (Executive Order 13563, 2011). Although standard benefit-cost analyses have not typically included a separate analysis of regulation-induced employment impacts, employment impacts are of particular concern and questions may arise about their existence and magnitude.
States have the responsibility and flexibility to implement policies and practices as part of developing SIPs for compliance with the emissions budgets found in this proposed rule. Given the wide range of approaches that may be used and industries that could be affected, quantifying the associated employment impacts is difficult.
This section describes proposed amendments to the regulatory text in the CFR for the CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR NO
The proposed regulatory text amendments related to the CSAPR FIPs and the CSAPR NO
Proposed changes to § 52.38(b)(3) through (5) would update states' options to submit SIP revisions which, upon approval by the EPA, would modify certain CSAPR trading program provisions as applied to those states or replace the states' FIPs with SIPs—options that correspond closely to states' SIP revision options under CSAPR as initially promulgated. Proposed changes in § 97.521 (allowance recordation) delay the deadlines for recording CSAPR NO
The proposed limitations on the use of emission allowances issued for a compliance period before 2017 or from the state NO
In addition to the proposed CFR changes described above, this proposal also includes other minor amendments throughout the sections of parts 52, 78, and 97 implementing CSAPR, including sections implementing CSAPR's other three emissions trading programs. The most common category of these minor changes consists of proposed corrections to cross-references. Some cross-references would change as a result of this proposal and corrections of those cross-references are therefore related to the changes described above, while other cross-references as originally published indicated incorrect locations because of typographical errors or indicated correct locations but did not use the correct CFR format. In virtually all cases, the intended correct cross-reference can be determined from context, but the corrections clarify the regulations.
Besides the proposed corrections to cross-references, most of the remaining proposed corrections address other typographical errors. However, a small number of the proposed CFR changes correct errors that are not cross-references or obviously typographical errors. While the EPA views all of these proposed corrections as noncontroversial, a few merit a short explanation.
First, the phrase “with regard to the State” or “the State and” would be added in a number of locations in §§ 52.38 and 52.39 where it was inadvertently omitted. The added phrase clarifies that when the EPA approves a state's SIP revision as modifying or replacing provisions in a CSAPR trading program, the modification or replacement is effective only with regard to that particular state. Correcting the omissions of these phrases would make the language concerning SIP revisions consistent for all the types of SIP revisions under all the CSAPR trading programs.
Second, the phrase “in part” would be removed from the existing FIP language in various sections of part 52 for certain states with Indian country to clarify that in order to replace a CSAPR FIP affecting the sources in these states, a SIP revision must fully, not “in part,” correct the SIP deficiency identified by the EPA as the basis for the FIP. The intended purpose of the words “in part”—specifically, to indicate that approval of a state's SIP revision would not relieve any sources in Indian country within the borders of the state from obligations under the FIP—is already served by other language in those FIPs. The proposed corrections would make the language in these CSAPR FIPs consistent with the FIP language for the remaining CSAPR FIPs that address states with Indian country. Analogous proposed changes to the general CSAPR FIP language in §§ 52.38(a)(5) and (6) and (b)(5) and (6) and 52.39(f), (i), and (j) would remove the phrase “in whole or in part” (referencing states without Indian country and states with Indian country, respectively) while adding language distinguishing the effect that the EPA's approval of a SIP revision would have on sources in the state from the lack of effect on any sources in Indian country within the borders of the state.
Third, language would be added to § 78.1 clarifying that determinations by the EPA Administrator under the CSAPR trading programs that are subject to the part 78 administrative appeal procedures are subject to those procedures whether the source in question participates in a CSAPR trading program under a FIP or under an approved SIP revision. This approach is consistent with the approach taken under CAIR FIPs and SIPs and with the EPA's intent in CSAPR, as evidenced by the lack of any proposal or discussion in the CSAPR rulemaking regarding deviation from the historical approach. This approach is also consistent with provisions in §§ 52.38 and 52.39 prohibiting approvable SIP revisions from altering certain provisions of the CSAPR trading programs, including the provisions specifying that administrative appeal procedures for determinations of the EPA Administrator under the trading programs are set forth in part 78.
Fourth, the phrase “steam turbine generator” would be changed to “generator” in the list of required equipment in the definition of a “cogeneration system” in §§ 97.402, 97.502, 97.602, and 97.702. Absent this correction, a combustion turbine in a facility that uses the combustion turbine in combination with an electricity generator and heat recovery steam generator, but no steam turbine, to produce electricity and useful thermal energy would not meet the definition of a “cogeneration unit.” The proposed correction would clarify that a combustion turbine in such a facility should be able to qualify as a “cogeneration unit” (assuming it meets other relevant criteria) under the CSAPR trading programs, as it could under the CAIR trading programs. The consistency of this approach with the EPA's intent in the CSAPR rulemaking is evidenced by the lack of any proposal or discussion in that rulemaking regarding the concept of narrowing the set of
Fifth, the deadline for recording certain allowance allocations under §§ 97.421(j), 97.521(j), 97.621(j), and 97.721(j) would be changed from the “date on which” the EPA receives the necessary allocation information to the date “15 days after the date on which” the EPA receives the information. The EPA's lack of intention in the CSAPR rulemaking to establish the deadline as defined prior to the correction is evidenced by the impracticability of complying with such a deadline.
Sixth, a proposed change to a description of a required notice under the assurance provisions in §§ 97.425(b)(2)(iii)(B), 97.525(b)(2)(iii)(B), 97.625(b)(2)(iii)(B), and 97.725(b)(2)(iii)(B) would modify the phrase “any adjustments” to the phrase “calculations incorporating any adjustments” in order to clarify that the required notice will identify not only any adjustments made to previously noticed calculations, but also the complete calculations with (or without) such adjustments. The intended meaning is clear from the subsequent provisions that use this notice as the point of reference for the complete calculations used in the succeeding administrative procedures.
Finally, the EPA notes that the proposed amendments include updating the nomenclature in the CFR from its name as initially proposed—“Transport Rule” or “TR”—to its name as finalized—“Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” or “CSAPR.” This update is intended to reduce confusion and simplify communications regarding the regulations by allowing a single name to be used in all contexts.
The EPA invites comment on the proposed regulatory text amendments described above and shown at the end of this notice.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is an economically significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, which is contained in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS” [EPA-452/R-15-009], is available in the docket and is briefly summarized in section VIII of this preamble.
Consistent with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the EPA estimated the costs and benefits for three regulatory control alternatives: The proposed EGU NO
The RIA for this proposal analyzed illustrative compliance approaches for implementing the proposed FIPs. This proposal would establish EGU NO
The EPA evaluated the costs, benefits, and impacts of implementing the proposed EGU NO
The EPA notes that its analysis of the regulatory control scenarios (
The EPA estimates the costs associated with compliance with the illustrative proposed regulatory control alternative to be approximately $93 million (2011$) annually. These costs represent the private compliance cost of reducing NO
In this analysis, the EPA monetized the estimated benefits associated with the reduced exposure to ozone and PM
The EPA combined this information to perform a benefit-cost analysis for this proposal (shown in table VIII.6 and for the more and less stringent alternatives—shown in the RIA in the docket for this proposed rule).
There are additional important benefits that the EPA could not monetize. Due to current data and modeling limitations, our estimates of the co-benefits from reducing CO
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
The information generated by information collection activities under CSAPR is used by the EPA to ensure that affected facilities comply with the emission limits and other requirements. Records and reports are necessary to enable EPA or states to identify affected facilities that may not be in compliance
All of the EGUs that would be subject to changed information collection requirements under this proposed rule are already subject to information collection requirements under CSAPR. Most of these EGUs also are already subject to information collection requirements under the Acid Rain Program (ARP) established under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Both CSAPR and the ARP have existing approved ICRs: EPA ICR Number 2391.03/OMB Control Number 2060-0667 (CSAPR) and EPA ICR Number 1633.16/OMB Control Number 2060-0258 (ARP). The burden and costs of the information collection requirements covered under the CSAPR ICR are estimated as incremental to the information collection requirements covered under the ARP ICR. Most of the information used to estimate burden and costs in this ICR was developed for the existing CSAPR and ARP ICRs.
This proposed rule would change the universe of sources subject to certain information collection requirements under CSAPR but would not change the substance of any CSAPR information collection requirements. The burden and costs associated with the proposed changes in the reporting universe are estimated as reductions from the burden and costs under the existing CSAPR ICR. (This proposed rule would not change any source's information collection requirements with respect to the ARP.) The EPA intends to incorporate the burden and costs associated with the proposed changes in the reporting universe under this rulemaking into the next renewal of the CSAPR ICR.
The burden and cost estimates above reflect the reduction in burden and cost for Florida sources with EGUs that would no longer be required to report NO
The EPA estimates that the proposed rule would cause no change in information collection burden or cost for EGUs in Kansas that would be required to report NO
More information on the ICR analysis is included in the docket for this rule.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this proposed rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
The EPA has lessened the impacts for small entities by excluding all units smaller than 25 MWe. This exclusion, in addition to the exemptions for cogeneration units and solid waste incineration units, eliminates the burden of higher costs for a substantial number of small entities located in the 23 states for which the EPA is proposing FIPs.
Within these states, the EPA identified a total of 318 potentially affected EGUs (
EPA has concluded that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (No SISNOSE) for this rule. Details of this analysis are presented in the RIA, which is in the public docket.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. However, the EPA analyzed the economic impacts of the proposal on government entities. According to EPA's analysis, the total net economic impact on government owned entities (state- and municipality-owned utilities and subdivisions) is expected to be negative (
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
This action proposes to implement EGU NO
In developing CSAPR, which was promulgated on July 6, 2011 to address interstate transport of ozone pollution under the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
EPA received comments from several tribal commenters regarding the availability of CSAPR allowance allocations to new units in Indian country. EPA responded to these comments by instituting Indian country new unit set-asides in the final CSAPR. In order to protect tribal sovereignty, these set-asides are managed and distributed by the federal government regardless of whether CSAPR in the adjoining or surrounding state is implemented through a FIP or SIP. While there are no existing affected EGUs in Indian country covered by this proposal, the Indian country set-asides will ensure that any future new units built in Indian country will be able to obtain the necessary allowances. This proposal maintains the Indian country new unit set-aside and adjusts the amounts of allowances in each set-aside according to the same methodology of the original CSAPR rule.
The EPA has informed tribes of our development of this proposal through a National Tribal Air Association—EPA air policy conference call (January 29, 2015). The EPA plans to further consult with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA will facilitate this consultation before finalizing this proposed rule.
As required by section 7(a), the EPA's Tribal Consultation Official has certified that the requirements of the executive order have been met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of the certification is included in the docket for this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. The EPA believes that the ozone-related benefits, PM
This action, which is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, is likely to have a significant effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The EPA notes that one aspect of this proposal that may affect energy supply, disposition or use is the EPA's proposing and taking comment on a range of options with respect to use of 2015 vintage and 2016 vintage CSAPR NO
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects
The EPA notes that this action proposes to update CSAPR to reduce interstate ozone transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This proposed rule uses EPA's authority in CAA section 110(a)(2)(d) to reduce (nitrogen oxides) NO
EPA recognizes that many environmental justice communities have voiced concerns in the past about emission trading and the potential for any emission increases in any location. The EPA believes that CSAPR mitigated these concerns and that this proposal, which applies the CSAPR framework to reduce interstate ozone pollution and implement these reductions, will also minimize community concerns. The EPA seeks comment from communities on this proposal.
Ozone pollution from power plants have both local and regional components: Part of the pollution in a given location—even in locations near emission sources—is due to emissions from nearby sources and part is due to emissions that travel hundreds of miles and mix with emissions from other sources.
It is important to note that the section of the Clean Air Act providing authority for this proposed rule, section 110(a)(2)(D), unlike some other provisions, does not dictate levels of control for particular facilities. CSAPR allows sources to trade allowances with other sources in the same or different states while firmly constraining any emissions shifting that may occur by requiring a strict emission ceiling in each state (the assurance level). In addition, assurance provisions in the existing CSAPR regulations that will remain in place under this proposal outline the allowance surrender penalties for failing to meet the assurance level; there are additional allowance penalties as well as financial penalties for failing to hold an adequate number of allowances to cover emissions.
This approach reduces EGU emissions in each state that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment or maintenance areas, while allowing power companies to adjust generation as needed and ensure that the country's electricity needs will continue to be met. EPA maintains that the existence of these assurance provisions, including the penalties imposed when triggered, will ensure that state emissions will stay below the level of the budget plus variability limit.
In addition, all sources must hold enough allowances to cover their emissions. Therefore, if a source emits more than its allocation in a given year, either another source must have used less than its allocation and be willing to sell some of its excess allowances, or the source itself had emitted less than its allocation in one or more previous years (
In summary, the CSAPR minimizes community concerns about localized hot spots and reduces ambient concentrations of pollution where they are most needed by sensitive and vulnerable populations by: Considering the science of ozone transport to set strict state emissions budgets to reduce significant contributions to ozone nonattainment and maintenance (
In addition, it is important to note that CAA section 110(a)(2)(d), which addresses transport of criteria pollutants between states, is only one of many provisions of the CAA that provide EPA, states, and local governments with authorities to reduce exposure to ozone in communities. These legal authorities work together to reduce exposure to these pollutants in communities, including for minority, low-income, and tribal populations, and provide substantial health benefits to both the general public and sensitive sub-populations.
The EPA has informed communities of our development of this proposal through an Environmental Justice community call (January 28, 2015) and a National Tribal Air Association—EPA air policy conference call (January 29, 2015). The EPA plans to further consult with communities early in the process of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA will facilitate this engagement before finalizing this proposed rule.
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the agency action consists of “nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,” or (ii) such action is locally or regionally applicable, if “such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.”
The EPA proposes to find that any final action related to this rulemaking is “nationally applicable” or of “nationwide scope and effect” within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). Through this rulemaking action, the EPA interprets section 110 of the CAA, a provision which has nationwide applicability. In addition, the proposed rule would apply to 23 States. The proposed rule is also based on a common core of factual findings and analyses concerning the transport of pollutants between the different states subject to it. For these reasons, the Administrator proposes to determine that any final action related to the proposed rule is of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1). Thus, pursuant to section 307(b) any petitions for review of any final actions regarding the rulemaking would be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date any final action is published in the
In addition, pursuant to sections 307(d)(1)(C) and 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA, the Administrator proposes to determine that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). CAA section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that section 307(d) applies to, among other things, to “the promulgation or revision of an implementation plan by the Administrator under CAA section 110(c).” 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B). Under section 307(d)(1)(V), the provisions of section 307(d) also apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Electric power plants, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52, 78, and 97 of chapter I of title 40 of the
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) The provisions of subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions in the following years:
(i) With regard to emissions in 2015 and 2016 only, Florida and South Carolina;
(ii) With regard to emissions in 2015 and each subsequent year, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; and
(iii) With regard to emissions in 2017 and each subsequent year, Kansas.
(3) * * *
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a State other than Georgia listed in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or (iii) of this section may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator will approve, as CSAPR NO
(A) All of the units on the list must be units that are in the State and commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2015;
(B) The total amount of CSAPR NO
(C) The list must be submitted electronically in a format specified by the Administrator; and
(D) The SIP revision must not provide for any change in the units and allocations on the list after approval of the SIP revision by the Administrator and must not provide for any change in any allocation determined and recorded by the Administrator under subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter;
(E) Provided that:
(
(
(4) * * *
(ii) The State may adopt, as CSAPR NO
(B) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) May adopt, as CSAPR NO
(B) * * *
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, no source or unit located in the State of Florida or Indian country within the borders of the State shall be required under paragraph (a) of this section to comply with the requirements set forth under the CSAPR NO
(b)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in the State of Kansas and Indian country within the borders of the State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR NO
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if, at the time of the approval of Kansas' SIP revision described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Administrator has already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NO
(b) * * *
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, no source or unit located in the State of South Carolina or Indian country within the borders of the State shall be required under paragraph (b)(1) of this section to comply with the requirements set forth under the CSAPR NO
42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7411, 7426, 7601, and 7651,
The additions read as follows:
(a)(1) * * * All references in paragraph (b) of this section and in § 78.3 to subpart AAAAA of part 97 of this chapter, subpart BBBBB of part 97 of this chapter, subpart CCCCC of part 97 of this chapter, and subpart DDDDD of part 97 of this chapter shall be read to include the comparable provisions in State regulations approved under § 52.38(a)(4) or (5) of this chapter, § 52.38(b)(4) or (5) of this chapter, § 52.39(e) or (f) of this chapter, and § 52.39(h) or (i) of this chapter, respectively.
(b) * * *
(14) * * *
(viii) The determination of the tonnage equivalent of a CSAPR NO
42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and 7651,
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(1) One ton of NO
(2) As determined under § 97.524(f), up to one ton of NO
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) As of the allowance transfer deadline for a control period in a given year, the owners and operators of each CSAPR NO
(2) * * *
(i) If total NO
(v) * * *
(B) Each ton of the tonnage equivalent of CSAPR NO
(3) * * *
(i)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of this section, a CSAPR NO
(B) A CSAPR NO
(6)
(a) The State NO
(1)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 635 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 205 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(2)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 756 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 141 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(3)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 544 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 29 tons.
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) [Reserved]
(vi) [Reserved]
(4)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 559 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 481 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(5)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,697 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 591 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(6)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,406 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 565 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(7)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 314 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 17 tons.
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 411 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 8 tons.
(8)
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 272 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 9 tons.
(9)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,447 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 647 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(10)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 344 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 18 tons.
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 612 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 16 tons.
(11)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 144 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 485 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(12)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 533 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 28 tons.
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 363 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 19 tons.
(13)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 237 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 12 tons.
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 584 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 6 tons.
(14)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 is 684 tons and for 2016 is 1,367 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 314 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(15)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 83 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 1,151 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(16)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 197 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 10 tons.
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 89 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 4 tons.
(17)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,308 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 22 tons.
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 236 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 12 tons.
(18)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 826 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 337 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(19)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 is 731 tons and for 2016 is 454 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 309 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 16 tons.
(20)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,044 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 1,017 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(21)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 264 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 14 tons.
(iv) [Reserved]
(v) [Reserved]
(vi) [Reserved]
(22)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 298 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 109 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(23)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 2,556 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 66 tons.
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 2,852 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 58 tons.
(24)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 723 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 1,844 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(25)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 1,264 tons.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 268 tons.
(vi) [Reserved]
(26)
(ii) The new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 872 tons.
(iii) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2015 and 2016 is 15 tons.
(iv) The NO
(v) The new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 115 tons.
(vi) The Indian country new unit set-aside for 2017 and thereafter is 6 tons.
(b) The States' variability limits for the State NO
(1) The variability limit for Alabama is 2,096 tons.
(2) The variability limit for Arkansas is 1,459 tons.
(3) [Reserved]
(4) The variability limit for Georgia is 5,049 tons.
(5) The variability limit for Illinois is 2,536 tons.
(6) The variability limit for Indiana is 5,940 tons.
(7) The variability limit for Iowa is 1,754 tons.
(8) The variability limit for Kansas is 1,947 tons.
(9) The variability limit for Kentucky is 4,519 tons.
(10) The variability limit for Louisiana is 3,319 tons.
(11) The variability limit for Maryland is 845 tons.
(12) The variability limit for Michigan is 4,014 tons.
(13) The variability limit for Mississippi is 1,241 tons.
(14) The variability limit for Missouri is 3,218 tons.
(15) The variability limit for New Jersey is 423 tons.
(16) The variability limit for New York is 935 tons.
(17) The variability limit for North Carolina is 2,578 tons.
(18) The variability limit for Ohio is 3,499 tons.
(19) The variability limit for Oklahoma is 3,405 tons.
(20) The variability limit for Pennsylvania is 3,021 tons.
(21) [Reserved]
(22) The variability limit for Tennessee is 1,151 tons.
(23) The variability limit for Texas is 12,180 tons.
(24) The variability limit for Virginia is 1,432 tons.
(25) The variability limit for West Virginia is 2,812 tons.
(26) The variability limit for Wisconsin is 1,168 tons.
(c) Each State NO
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(3) If the Administrator already recorded such CSAPR NO
The revisions read as follows:
(a) For each control period in 2015 and thereafter and for the CSAPR NO
(b) For each control period in 2015 and thereafter and for the CSAPR NO
The revisions read as follows:
(c)(1) By December 1, 2016, the Administrator will record in each CSAPR NO
(2) For the CSAPR NO
(A) If the State does not submit to the Administrator by April 1, 2017 such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by April 15, 2017 in each CSAPR NO
(B) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2017 and the Administrator approves by October 1, 2017 such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2017 in each CSAPR NO
(C) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2017 and the Administrator does not approve by October 1, 2017 such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2017 in each CSAPR NO
(d) By July 1, 2018, the Administrator will record in each CSAPR NO
(e) By July 1, 2019, the Administrator will record in each CSAPR NO
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b)
(1) Until the tonnage equivalent of the CSAPR NO
(c) * * *
(2)
(i) Any CSAPR NO
(ii) Any CSAPR NO
(iii) Any CSAPR NO
(iv) Any CSAPR NO
(v) Any CSAPR NO
(d)
(f)
(1) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this section, the tonnage equivalent of each CSAPR NO
(2) Where a CSAPR NO
(3) Where a CSAPR NO
(4) The Administrator will determine the year of the compliance period for which a CSAPR NO
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(2) * * *
(ii) By August 1 immediately after the promulgation of such notice, the Administrator will calculate, for each such State (and Indian country within the borders of such State) and such control period and each common designated representative for such control period for a group of one or more CSAPR NO
(4) * * *
(i) As of midnight of November 1 immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section, the owners and operators described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section shall hold in the assurance account established for them and for the appropriate CSAPR NO
(5) After November 1 (or the date described in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section) immediately after the promulgation of each notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section and after the recordation, in accordance with § 97.523, of CSAPR NO
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart and any revision, made by or submitted to the Administrator after the promulgation of the notice of data availability required in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section for a control period in a given year, of any data used in making the calculations referenced in such notice, the tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NO
(i) If any such data are revised by the Administrator as a result of a decision in or settlement of litigation concerning such data on appeal under part 78 of this chapter of such notice, or on appeal under section 307 of the Clean Air Act of a decision rendered under part 78 of this chapter on appeal of such notice, then the Administrator will use the data as so revised to recalculate the tonnage equivalents of CSAPR NO
(ii) If any such data are revised by the owners and operators of a CSAPR NO
(iii) If the revised data are used to recalculate, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section, the tonnage equivalent of CSAPR NO
(A) Where the tonnage equivalent of CSAPR NO
(B) For the owners and operators for which the tonnage equivalent of CSAPR NO
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(1)(i) For a unit other than a unit described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, May 1, 2015; or
(ii) For a unit in the State of Kansas (or Indian country within the borders of the State) that is not a CSAPR NO
(2) 180 calendar days after the date on which the unit commences commercial operation; or
(3) Where data for the unit is reported on a control period basis under § 97.534(d)(2)(ii)(B), and where the compliance date under paragraph (b)(2) of this section is not in a month from May through September, May 1 immediately after the compliance date under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
The revisions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(1) The designated representative shall report the NO
(i)(A) For a unit other than a unit described in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section, the calendar quarter covering May 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015; or
(B) For a unit in the State of Kansas (or Indian country within the borders of the State) that is not a CSAPR NO
(ii) The calendar quarter corresponding to the earlier of the date of provisional certification or the applicable deadline for initial certification under § 97.530(b); or
(iii) For a unit that reports on a control period basis under paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, if the calendar quarter under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section does not include a month from May through September, the calendar quarter covering May 1 through June 30 immediately after the calendar quarter under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section.
(2)(i) If a CSAPR NO
(ii) If a CSAPR NO
(A) Meet the requirements of subpart H of part 75 of this chapter for such unit for the entire year and report the NO
(B) Meet the requirements of subpart H of part 75 of this chapter (including the requirements in § 75.74(c) of this chapter) for such unit for the control period and report the NO
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 |